# How is austerity doing in Europe



## Rshermr (Mar 1, 2013)

So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.  
I have been waiting to determine what the outcome is likely to be.  My want is that it would be most likely that Austerity would be a disaster.  But I felt I owed it a look before mouthing off about the absurdity of the whole thing.  And in my opinion, my opinion is of little value until there is some proof of the likely outcome.  So, I kept watching, and after a year or two, I think the verdict is close to in.  Increasingly. impartial sources close to the subject have become more and more and more pessimistic.  And we are close to a time when it will be the decesion of most, by a wide margin, that austerity has failed, or is failing, in pretty much every country where it has been instituted.  
Here is an article out of the UK that is very representative of what is being said:


> Democracy in Europe has not been suspended, and the collision course is more apparent than ever. "Stop the world, we want to get off!" was The Wall Street Journal's verdict on the mounting European anti-austerity backlash. The truth is that the real world has paid the high priests of austerity an unwelcome visit. Their policies have sucked growth out of the economy, failed to tackle debt, dramatically increased unemployment, and devastated living standards. It would be utterly baffling if people did not fight back.
> 
> No wonder Greece is at the forefront of the backlash. A modern European society is being dismembered by austerity. The economy has shrunk by nearly a fifth, and the country's debt continues to mount. Over half of young people are without work; the minimum wage has been slashed to desperately low levels; and wages have fallen by a third since 2009. Then there's the ultimate indicator of despair: the number of people taking their own lives. Greece had one of the lowest suicide rates in the world, but experts suggest it may have doubled since the crisis began. Austerity is literally killing people.
> Owen Jones: This austerity backlash across Europe could transform Britain - Commentators - Voices - The Independent


We should be interested.  Austerity has some major similarities to our own fiscal cliff issues.  We should be interested.  European austerity is the model for neo conservative policies.  Looking at how things are going, from a realistic point of view, should be useful.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Mar 1, 2013)

I take some issue with the idea of European austerity being an example for what could happen here.  Greece, for example, is being dictated to by other countries.  The U.S. would never stand for that.

Austerity may work in Europe.  Because so many sovereign nations agreed to a relationship that takes away their sovereignty, and because of that relationship it is harder for each country to clean out its closet.  Austerity may correct that.

America will be fine.  There is no way to legitimately compare us to the mess that's going on in Europe.


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 1, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> I take some issue with the idea of European austerity being an example for what could happen here.  Greece, for example, is being dictated to by other countries.  The U.S. would never stand for that.
> 
> Austerity may work in Europe.  Because so many sovereign nations agreed to a relationship that takes away their sovereignty, and because of that relationship it is harder for each country to clean out its closet.  Austerity may correct that.
> 
> America will be fine.  There is no way to legitimately compare us to the mess that's going on in Europe.



Greece is being asked to follow guidelines set by the EU. If Greece does not want to be part of the EU, they can resign and go their own way, but as long as they want to be part of the EU, they have to follow the guidelines.  As well, the EU  has financially bailed Greece out of a major disaster, and part of the agreement between Greece and the EU to get that money was that they follow the guidelines set by the EU. Essentially, if they want to give the money back and resign from the EU, they are free to do so.


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 1, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
> I have been waiting to determine what the outcome is likely to be.  My want is that it would be most likely that Austerity would be a disaster.  But I felt I owed it a look before mouthing off about the absurdity of the whole thing.  And in my opinion, my opinion is of little value until there is some proof of the likely outcome.  So, I kept watching, and after a year or two, I think the verdict is close to in.  Increasingly. impartial sources close to the subject have become more and more and more pessimistic.  And we are close to a time when it will be the decesion of most, by a wide margin, that austerity has failed, or is failing, in pretty much every country where it has been instituted.
> Here is an article out of the UK that is very representative of what is being said:
> 
> ...



I traveled around Europe quite a bit before the EU even existed. Greece was one of the poorest and most poorly managed countries. Whatever they are facing now, it is not any worse than what it was like before the EU. The EU brought them a great deal of prosperity, which they squandered.  The EU is not the culprit here.


----------



## Norman (Mar 1, 2013)

There is no austerity in europe. Each year the public debt is higher than last year, nominally and relative to GDP.

However, everything seems like austerity if you compare to USA.


----------



## editec (Mar 1, 2013)

Austerity isn't measured by the public debt.

Austerity is measured by the quality of lives of the people.


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 1, 2013)

editec said:


> Austerity isn't measured by the public debt.
> 
> Austerity is measured by the quality of lives of the people.



Well, up until 1.5 years ago, I was living in Europe for 4 years, and my quality of life was very nice. As well, I was working, and the people I worked with were not complaining about the quality of their lives either.  I paid a 40% tax but still took home a decent salary and lived a nice lifestyle.


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 1, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
> I have been waiting to determine what the outcome is likely to be.  My want is that it would be most likely that Austerity would be a disaster.  But I felt I owed it a look before mouthing off about the absurdity of the whole thing.  And in my opinion, my opinion is of little value until there is some proof of the likely outcome.  So, I kept watching, and after a year or two, I think the verdict is close to in.  Increasingly. impartial sources close to the subject have become more and more and more pessimistic.  And we are close to a time when it will be the decesion of most, by a wide margin, that austerity has failed, or is failing, in pretty much every country where it has been instituted.
> Here is an article out of the UK that is very representative of what is being said:
> 
> ...




Do you know what got them into their Economic Crisis in the first place?

It certainly was not austerity!
Greece News - Breaking World Greece News - The New York Times

French president François Hollande has bowed to massive pressure for business tax cuts to pull Frances economy out of slump and stave off industrial decline, ditching a core element of his socialist platform.

Francois-Hollande-lurches-Right-in-historic-U-Turn-to-save-French-economy.html
*Critics call it the most humiliating U-turn in French politics since François Mitterrand abandoned his disastrous experiment of "Socialism in one country" under a D-Mark currency peg in 1983.*

All of Europe made three big mistakes causing their Economic Crisis.

Our President is taking us forward to an even greater Economic Crisis.

The Democrats have no idea that the President continues to pursue an economic policy that has never worked. Europe is a perfect example of how this Economic Theory fails.

Do you even know what the name of this failed Economic Theory is?

You are living proof of just how bad our Public Education System has become.


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 1, 2013)

usmcstinger said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
> ...



The main reason for economic problems in Europe is the world wide recession, not EU economic policies.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 1, 2013)

editec said:


> Austerity isn't measured by the public debt.
> 
> Austerity is measured by the quality of lives of the people.



Wow...now THAT is some serious fertilizer grade bullshit you're shoveling there, Ed!  "Austerity is measured by the quality of lives of the people."  It sounds so "correct" that it must be right...right?  Only austerity, as it is being called, is nothing more than living within one's means instead of spending money one doesn't have.  Does having to live within your means lower the quality of people's lives?  I suppose if you don't get to retire at 50 with full benefits and take two months off every year for paid vacation that your "life" might not be as wonderful as it was before.  Telling your kid that they can't have that candy bar they just picked up at the checkout counter probably lowers the "quality of life" for the poor little tyke but that doesn't mean saying NO every once in a while isn't the right thing to do.

The Left is so busy trying to make the point that "austerity" isn't fun that they fail to stop and realize that it isn't SUPPOSED to be fun.  You're tightening your belt and going without things that you had before.  That's never a pleasant experience.  Getting free stuff is always cool but that old adage about there being no such thing as a "free lunch" applies to the whole austerity discussion.  Living on a budget isn't as enjoyable as running up huge debts on your credit card.  But sensible people know they can't do the latter.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 1, 2013)

And I love the fact that the board's resident Tommy Flanagan is back trying to post intelligently about economics!  You gotta admire the little guy's chutzpa.  It takes nerve to pretend to be an authority on a subject you know nothing about.

He took a little leave of absence after declaring that he was an executive at BP while folks were discussing energy policy.  I think even Rshermr knew he was a little "over the top" on that lie.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 1, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> The main reason for economic problems in Europe is the world wide recession, not EU economic policies.



The world wide recession is caused by world wide liberal economic policies of which Europe is among the foremost exemplars. Did you think the Girl Scouts caused the recession?


----------



## ekrem (Mar 1, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Greece is being asked to follow guidelines set by the EU. If Greece does not want to be part of the EU, they can resign and go their own way, but as long as they want to be part of the EU, they have to follow the guidelines.  As well, the EU  has financially bailed Greece out of a major disaster, and part of the agreement between Greece and the EU to get that money was that they follow the guidelines set by the EU. Essentially, if they want to give the money back and resign from the EU, they are free to do so.



Greece has secured 320 billion $ (240 billion ) of bail-out money from what is called the TROIKA. Its total public debt together with the bail-out is around 450 billion $. Much of the bail-out money is used to service existing debt.

If the Greeks think they've the option to disagree with the TROIKA then Greece will collapse and there will be anarchy.
There's not much hope for Greece's future, at least it still can be a peaceful future if the current and future Greek governments play by the rule of the TROIKA.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 1, 2013)

ekrem said:


> If the Greeks think they've the option to disagree with the TROIKA then Greece will collapse and there will be anarchy.


maybe not anarchy just a return to the printing press and maybe an opportunity to renounce much of the debt and start over.




ekrem said:


> There's not much hope for Greece's future,



not so fast, maybe they will learn a big lesson and learn to live within there means.


----------



## ekrem (Mar 1, 2013)

Greece falsified their national accounts (reporting to Eurostat) before they entered the -zone so that it appears they meet the requirements for the adoption of the .
After the adoption of the  the Greeks placed bonds (and other forms of state financing) on the open-market more comparable to Germany's interest-rates.
This is criminal energy. Pity for the Greek situation is therefor limited.
If the TROIKA wouldn't have "saved" Greece a lot of institutions and people around the globe would have lost money.
With the bail-out deals Greece public debt is now mostly owned by States or multi-national institutions.

Blue line shows Greece's interest-rates for 10-year bonds before and after adoption of .


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 1, 2013)

So, usmcstinger says:


> Our President is taking us forward to an even greater Economic Crisis.
> 
> The Democrats have no idea that the President continues to pursue an economic policy that has never worked. Europe is a perfect example of how this Economic Theory fails.
> 
> ...



That would be your opinion.  And I have no reason to be interested in your opinion.
So, you are saying that you are a true believer in tax cuts and spending cuts to get us out of our problems.  Which, most believe, is primarily an unemployment problem.  Do you have an example of when, with the economy in a state of high unemployment, the US has ever been helped by tax and spending cuts?  
Recently, we saw the unemployment and revenue problems of this country HELPED by increased taxes that funded stimulus spending during the clinton  admin.  And Reagan used increased spending and massive borrowing to fund stimulative spending after the UE rate hit 10.8% in 1982.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 1, 2013)

> So, oldstyle is at it again.  He says:
> And I love the fact that the board's resident Tommy Flanagan is back trying to post intelligently about economics! You gotta admire the little guy's chutzpa. It takes nerve to pretend to be an authority on a subject you know nothing about.


that would be your opinion.  I have a reasonably good understanding of economics, based on an econ degree and a whole lot of study.  But, it is amusing to hear a dish washer telling me I do not understand the subject.  

Then, Oldstyle said:


> He took a little leave of absence after declaring that he was an executive at BP while folks were discussing energy policy. I think even Rshermr knew he was a little "over the top" on that lie.



And that would be a bald faced lie.  Which is nothing new for oldstyle.  I never in my life said I was an executive at BP.  I never worked for them.  I did work with execs at BP, in a position with a vendor selling to them.  But I never in my life worked for them.  Now, maybe if you disagree, you would like to provide some proof.  But of course, you can not, because you are lying.  Again.  As you are wont to do.  
Relative to a leave of absence, that would be none of your business.  I am retired, and often get away from posting here.  Sorry you have a problem with that.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 1, 2013)

ekrem said:


> Greece falsified their national accounts (reporting to Eurostat) before they entered the -zone so that it appears they meet the requirements for the adoption of the .
> After the adoption of the  the Greeks placed bonds (and other forms of state financing) on the open-market more comparable to Germany's interest-rates.
> This is criminal energy. Pity for the Greek situation is therefor limited.
> If the TROIKA wouldn't have "saved" Greece a lot of institutions and people around the globe would have lost money.
> ...


Any proof of what you are saying.  As in a link?


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 1, 2013)

So, we can all agree that Greece brought on much of it's own problems.  Though the recession in greece was a world wide problem.  But, Greece is a special case.  But I did not ever suggest the problems in Greece, or anywhere else were CAUSED by Austerity.  I simply suggested that Austerity, by the words of most impartial sources is not working to CORRECT the problem.  

Take a look at a more important country, relative to the health of Europe.  



> Forget, for a moment, the Greek tragedy. The tale of social woe set to play out in Spain this year is both bigger and more important to the world. For the drama of rescuing the euro, or letting it sink, will be played out on Spanish soil.
> 
> That is not to say Spaniards will have it worse than Greeks, though Eurostat figures show only Bulgaria and Romania now have a higher percentage of people deemed at risk of poverty. Spain's economy will shrink, once more, by 1.5% &#8211; a dramatic enough figure, though one most Greeks would happily settle for. But Spain represents a quantitative leap in Europe's ongoing tale of misery. Its economy is five times bigger than Greece's &#8211; accounting for 12% of the eurozone. And there are almost twice as many Spaniards as there are people in bailed-out Portugal, Ireland and Greece together.
> 
> ...



So, does it look like Austerity is working there??


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 1, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > The main reason for economic problems in Europe is the world wide recession, not EU economic policies.
> ...



LOL No it wasn't. It was caused by loose and lawless activities by the banking industry and stock markets.  The world wide recession has nothing to do with social welfare policies in various countries.  If any one country is responsible for the  worldwide recession, it is America.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 1, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> > So, oldstyle is at it again.  He says:
> > And I love the fact that the board's resident Tommy Flanagan is back trying to post intelligently about economics! You gotta admire the little guy's chutzpa. It takes nerve to pretend to be an authority on a subject you know nothing about.
> 
> 
> ...



You're the biggest bullshit artist on this board, dude!  When the discussion was about economics you claimed to have taught economics in college as an undergrad!  Then when the discussion was about energy you claimed to have been an executive with BP.

Gee, if the subject becomes Nukes will you next claim to have been working side by side with Fermi and Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project?  Or if it's space exploration will you claim to have been an astronaut for NASA?


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 1, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > > So, oldstyle is at it again.  He says:
> ...


So, Oldstyle says:


> You're the biggest bullshit artist on this board, dude!


  I never, ever have lied in any post that I have ever made.  Which is why you can never catch me in a lie, as hard as you try.  I have, as you know, caught you in many.  



> When the discussion was about economics you claimed to have taught economics in college as an undergrad!


Yes, I did.  And yes I did.  In assistance to an econ proff who did not like teaching economics for non econ majors.  As you know.  


> Then when the discussion was about energy you claimed to have been an executive with BP.


Again, I have caught you lying.  Which is no surprise, as it is common with you  If you were not lying, you would be posting my statement all over this board.  I never worked for BP at any level, much less as an executive there.  



> Gee, if the subject becomes Nukes will you next claim to have been working side by side with Fermi and Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project? Or if it's space exploration will you claim to have been an astronaut for NASA?



Look, you tiny minded dishwasher.  If you have some proof, bring it on.  But of course you do not.  Because you are lying again.  And wasting everyone's time with your childish vendetta against me, which I fully understand was because I have proven you to have lied so many times.  You can not show that I lied, because I did not.  Simple as that.  I gave you the opportunity to prove yourself before, and you ran.  Because, me boy, you know damn well I am not lying.  The really funny thing is that you think that saying I helped teach an econ class over 45 years ago was something that anyone would lie about.  Jesus, you are trivial.  One more post, one more lie.  I think I will start keeping a copy of your lies, so I can keep track.  But then, I will not.  Because you are truly irelivent.  I do not like dealing with people that have no integrity.  Which includes liars like you.
Try to stick to the subject of the thread, and show others some level of respect for their time.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 2, 2013)

Why would I show "respect" to someone who repeatedly lies here?

You claim to be college educated and I point out that you have the grammar and spelling skills of a slow sixth grader.  Your reply?  That your "private secretary" has always "proofed" your correspondence.  LOL  You're so full of shit it's laughable.

You claim to have taught economics at the college level but don't understand the basics of the subject.  You're like George Costanza trying to pass himself off an architect.  Do you really think anyone buys this act of yours?  You're an internet "poser".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 2, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Why would I show "respect" to someone who repeatedly lies here?
> 
> You claim to be college educated and I point out that you have the grammar and spelling skills of a slow sixth grader.  Your reply?  That your "private secretary" has always "proofed" your correspondence.  LOL  You're so full of shit it's laughable.
> 
> You claim to have taught economics at the college level but don't understand the basics of the subject.  You're like George Costanza trying to pass himself off an architect.  Do you really think anyone buys this act of yours?  You're an internet "poser".



you must be talking about Reshemer, the genius liberal who insists the NY Times is not biased, taxing an economy will help it grow, a higher minimum wage will increase employment, and the Reagan era economy was not affected when the Fed raised interest rates to 20% to cause the greatest recession since the Depression?  

Liberalism is based on pure ignorance. What other explanation is possible??


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 2, 2013)

And you must be ed.  Lying about everything you said I have said.  You are not worth commenting on, but I do not like being lied about.  Shows very low integrity.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 2, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> And you must be ed.  Lying about everything you said I have said.  You are not worth commenting on, but I do not like being lied about.  Shows very low integrity.




You must be talking about Reshemer, the genius liberal who insists the NY Times is not biased, taxing an economy will help it grow, a higher minimum wage will increase employment, the Reagan era economy was not affected when the Fed raised interest rates to 20% to cause the greatest recession since the Depression, and that the CBO says the stimulus worked? 

Liberalism is based on pure ignorance. What other explanation is possible??


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 2, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > And you must be ed.  Lying about everything you said I have said.  You are not worth commenting on, but I do not like being lied about.  Shows very low integrity.
> ...


Ah, very tricky, ed.  You just copied and pasted your last post, which I responded to.  You then added a final statement to your post, relative to me saying that the CBO said the stimulus worked.  Which I actually did say.  And proved to you at the time.
You lack any semblance of integrity, ed.  Normal people do not lie on an open board.  But it seems not to bother you when you lie.  
What was it, ed, two days ago that you took a quote of mine, modified it to suite your desire, and reposted it saying that your modified version of my post was what I had posted.  And I copied my original post and proved that you had done so.  What a waste of space you are.  I am watching to see if you try it again.  But then, even you may be smart enough to know you will be exposed again should you care to try it.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 2, 2013)

So Oldstyle says:
Why would I show "respect" to someone who repeatedly lies here?



> You claim to be college educated and I point out that you have the grammar and spelling skills of a slow sixth grader.



Right.  That would be your opinion.  And you know how much I have learned to value your opinion.  And then again, I do take more care with my replies to those who do not lie continually.  Like this lie from you, Oldstyle.

Look, I know you are burned by the number of times that I have proven that  you lied.  And you have questioned my college education several times before.  And I made you, on more than one occasion, the offer to come on out, and you can come with me to the document verification service of your choice.  And if either of the two diplomas that I possess can not be verified, you get $10K.  If not, I get your $10K  And, I will even pay your airfare.  Hell, $10K is good money for 2 or 3 days, in my book, for someone who says he is so sure I am lying.  I never lie, as you know, so I am certain that you will not take the bet.  But, the money needs to be in trust.  Because I want insurance that you pay against your bet  I do not see you as trustworthy. 



> Your reply? That your "private secretary" has always "proofed" your correspondence. LOL You're so full of shit it's laughable.



So, now you are questioning that I had a secretary that worked for me?  That is a new one.  Never thought that was a big issue, even for you.  Look, I got my degrees over 45 years ago.  And during those years, I was not washing dishes.  Now, if you would like to prove me wrong, the $10K bet goes for this new accusation of yours.  No problem at all.  Amazing that you are so impressed with such a minor thing as that.  What a small minded clown you are.  

But here is what will happen, Oldstyle.  You will just go on making accusations that you can not back up.  Personal attacks because you are incapable of discussing a subject.



> You claim to have taught economics at the college level but don't understand the basics of the subject. You're like George Costanza trying to pass himself off an architect. Do you really think anyone buys this act of yours? You're an internet "poser".


That would be your opinion.  Though not really. Actually, you know it is the truth.  But to date, I have not lost an economic argument with you.  You simply revert to personal attacks when you are proven wrong.  Or proven to be a liar.  Which has happened over and over.  And here you are again, doing as I suggested after your last personal attack, yesterday.  Wasting everyone's time trying to settle a score with me instead of discussing the subject of the thread.  You lack any semblance of integrity, Oldstyle.  You really do.  Try to have enough integrity to stay on a subject, and have some respect for others who come to a thread thinking that those that post there will actually do so.  And stop wasting others time.  You have tried these personal attacks at least 30 times by now.  Get a grip.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 2, 2013)

I "know" that it is true that you taught college level economics as an undergrad?  Sorry, Tommy but I don't "know" that.  Quite frankly it's such an unlikely story that I'd be skeptical of it even if I hadn't had conversations with you that convinced me that your knowledge of economics was so minimal that it's unlikely you even TOOK the subject in college...let alone taught it!  Undergrads don't teach college courses.  I'm sorry but they don't.  The fact that you think they DO leads me to believe that you don't have much in the way of experience with college and your grammar and spelling mistakes only serve to strengthen that belief.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 3, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> I "know" that it is true that you taught college level economics as an undergrad?  Sorry, Tommy but I don't "know" that.  Quite frankly it's such an unlikely story that I'd be skeptical of it even if I hadn't had conversations with you that convinced me that your knowledge of economics was so minimal that it's unlikely you even TOOK the subject in college...let alone taught it!  Undergrads don't teach college courses.  I'm sorry but they don't.  The fact that you think they DO leads me to believe that you don't have much in the way of experience with college and your grammar and spelling mistakes only serve to strengthen that belief.



Again, that would be your opinion.  Or at least your statement.  But you are, if not lying, stretching things way beyond what I said.  What I said, Oldstyle, as you well know, is that I worked with an economics PHD who did not like teaching a very large introduction to econ class, for non econ majors.  It had frequently well over 100 students. He divided up the class 4 days per week.  And taught the class himself in total one day.  So, he offered 4 students the chance to teach the divided class 4 days each week.  Each class about 1/4 of the full class.  Now, if that means in your mind that I said I taught an economics class, then good for you.  None of us looked at it that way.  Lillard, the econ PHD provided the teaching outline.   We taught what he told us to teach, in terms of subject matter.  But then, you know that, Oldstyle.  Because I have told you that, at your insistence several times.  
Then, of course, you said you would get off the subject if I would give you a full rundown.  I got so tired of your insistent prattle that I agreed.  Though I said at the time that I believed you would go on with your juvenile pattern of personal attacks over your "belief" that I did not in fact do as I said in my response to your request.  Obviously, believing anything that you say is a stupid endeavor.  Never wrestle with a pig, me boy.  You both get muddy, and the pig likes it.  And the pig is you.

Relative to your questioning of my econ knowledge, why don't you start your own thread, and we will see how you do should I disagree with your statements.  I see you often laying out conservative arguments to those who post here and who have little econ background, and lying to them like a rug.  If you want to try that with me, be my guest.  It's your funeral.  (Sorry about sounding so confident, but you have not proven to present anything close to a high bar.)  There is your chance to prove your point.  But then you will not, Oldstyle.  Because you simply post con dogma.  From con sites.  Which are not known for their honesty.  And are therefor easy enough to disprove.  
But, as I said in my last post, #28 of this thread, the offer is always there.  If you really believe what you are saying about my econ background (or lack thereof), take the bet.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 3, 2013)

What, you're back to your $10,000 dollar bet again?  LOL  You internet posers are as predictable as sunrise and sunset.  Gee, Tommy...don't you think for a big BP exec like yourself ten grand is kind of small potatoes?  Why don't you make it a hundred thousand?  Heck, make it a million!  You're good for it...  (eye-roll)  Fly me out there on the corporate jet while you're at it.  Your wife (Morgan Fairchild) can be my stewardess!!!


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 3, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> What, you're back to your $10,000 dollar bet again?  LOL  You internet posers are as predictable as sunrise and sunset.  Gee, Tommy...don't you think for a big BP exec like yourself ten grand is kind of small potatoes?  Why don't you make it a hundred thousand?  Heck, make it a million!  You're good for it...  (eye-roll)  Fly me out there on the corporate jet while you're at it.  Your wife (Morgan Fairchild) can be my stewardess!!!


You are pathetic.  Making more unsupportable attacks and telling lies.  Perhaps since you say that I said I was a bp exec, you can copy and post that link.  But we know why, don't we.  Because you are lying again, as usual.
$10K seemed reasonable to me.  If you would rather, name a different amount.  But what you are really saying, me boy, is that you were making accusations that are wrong.  And you will be proven wrong.  And you will loose your little bet.  Cmon, man.  You made the accusations.  If you are correct, you make the bucks.  Stop running from it.  And sorry, I have no access to nor have I ever said I did have access to a corporate jet.  You are flying coach, should you actually show the courage to take the bet.  

Nice to see that you simply want to waste everyone's time.  You are a simple little con tool who can not back up his accusations.  But simply want to waste other members time with your tiny little accusations.    Funny thing is, you know you are lying and caught at it.  If not, you would be scheduling time to pick up $10K.  I sure as hell would.  And relative to the amount, you have been out of college, you say, for a lot of years.  You still can not come up with $10K?  Jesus, me boy, you should be making around 10 times that amount yearly, or more, by now.  What, washing dishes does not pay well???
Want to try some econ arguments?  Have you not set up a thread to discuss an economic issue you have interest in?  Can you not comment on the subject of this thread.  Look, I do not make accusations that I can not support.  And I fully admit my dishwasher digs are just that.  Digs.  After all, you say you are a food services pro working in a restaurant.  So, great.  But you do make personal attacks all the time.  And you lie.  In this post, again you said that I claimed to be a bp executive.  Which is a lie.  If it were not, you would be showing me the post.  Which again, proves you have no integrity.  Sad.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 3, 2013)

You want me to start another post so you can prove your economic "chops"?  Why would I bother, Tommy?  You've demonstrated over and over that you know little to nothing about the subject.  Or have you forgotten your gaffe when I questioned you about what economic school of thought you were basing your contentions on?  You thought I was was talking about an actual college, you're so clueless about economics.  I had to TELL you that I was referring to schools of thought...not an actual place.  

You "say" that you graduated with a degree in economics but you somehow didn't realize that someone referring to the "Chicago School" was referring to a school of economic thought rather than a college in Chicago that teaches economics?  It's huge gaffes like THAT, Rshermr that tell me that you're a total bullshit artist.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 3, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> You want me to start another post so you can prove your economic "chops"?  Why would I bother, Tommy?  You've demonstrated over and over that you know little to nothing about the subject.  Or have you forgotten your gaffe when I questioned you about what economic school of thought you were basing your contentions on?  You thought I was was talking about an actual college, you're so clueless about economics.  I had to TELL you that I was referring to schools of thought...not an actual place.
> 
> You "say" that you graduated with a degree in economics but you somehow didn't realize that someone referring to the "Chicago School" was referring to a school of economic thought rather than a college in Chicago that teaches economics?  It's huge gaffes like THAT, Rshermr that tell me that you're a total bullshit artist.


Right.  You never heard of the U of Chicago.  Where the cons live.  dipshit.  And, as I recall, you said economic schools that teach.  to which I commented that economic schools of thought, or economic theories, do not teach.  Colleges, on the other hand, do.  
At any rate, that has to do with an economic term that you think is a big deal.  Not economic policies.  Since you believe that you have more economic understanding than I do, why not prove it?  Why, of course, because you know you can not.
So, I was just wondering, me boy.  How much of everyone's time do you intend to waste with your accusations and lies.  Want to comment on the subject of this post, or are you simply incapable.
Ah, what the hell.  Maybe I will put in a few typo's so you can show your proficiency at finding them.  That would be impressive, eh.  And you could make a few more posts about that.  
Did you ever think that you are making yourself look like an insignificant tool with your continued personal attacks based on either no proof, and that you can not prove?  Just wondering.  Ever think that you are proving your incapability to discuss actual economic topics?  If you want to prove that I tried to build myself up by saying that I was a bp exec, which you can not since it was never posted, then lets see the post.  Because you are lying again.  If a person with integrity found a lie, and called it out, he would prove that that lie was posted.  But you can not.  Because you are making it up.  As in lying.  And liars tend to continue to lie.  So, why would anyone believe you.
So, the one of the times you lied, over and over again, about the same thing, I collected your lies.  I could easily enough paste them onto a single post for all to see.  But I choose not to waste peoples time.  Unlike you, I do not choose to waste others time.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 3, 2013)

Liars get tripped up when they pretend to know about things they know little about.  It's the old adage...give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves.  That's you in a nutshell, Tommy.  You wanted to impress everyone with your "expertise" with economics so you claimed to have taught economics at the college level.  But you don't seem to know very much about the subject which inevitably leads to questions about what college it was you were a professor at...which is a problem because colleges have lists of faculty and you're obviously not going to be on any of those lists.  So what do you do?  You come up with the story that you taught economics as an undergrad to help out the real professor...which is about as implausible an explanation as I've ever heard.

It's the same thing with your claim to *be* a college graduate.  I point out that for someone who supposedly graduated with college degree...your grammar and spelling are atrocious.  What's your answer for that?  That you're a business executive and your private secretary normally proofs all of your correspondence.  Amazing how having a secretary can turn a college educated person into a functional illiterate!  But that's your story and as we all KNOW...*you never lie*.  Which we know is the truth because *you* tell us it's true.  LOL


----------



## PredFan (Mar 3, 2013)

Only in the deranged liberal mind....

Excessive uncontrolled spending and entitlements create massive debt, drag the economy down and practically bankrupt a country, they use austerity measures to try to get things under control and it's the austerity measures that are the problem.

Liberalism is a grave mental disorder.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 3, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Only in the deranged liberal mind....
> 
> Excessive uncontrolled spending and entitlements create massive debt, drag the economy down and practically bankrupt a country, they use austerity measures to try to get things under control and it's the austerity measures that are the problem.
> 
> Liberalism is a grave mental disorder.



not its not, when you are drunk you're supposed to drink more and when you're bankrupt you're supposed to spend more!! It makes perfect sense, .... if you're a liberal. Oh, and then when you get like Greece you begin to cut back and borrow money from those who have it because they practiced austerity.!!


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 3, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Only in the deranged liberal mind....
> 
> Excessive uncontrolled spending and entitlements create massive debt, drag the economy down and practically bankrupt a country, they use austerity measures to try to get things under control and it's the austerity measures that are the problem.
> 
> Liberalism is a grave mental disorder.


So, you believe austerity is working??  Any proof??  Links??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 4, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Only in the deranged liberal mind....
> ...



4) Europe is trying to steal money from Germany that Germany  has thanks to austerity!! 

Working?? too stupid by 1000% !!! austerity in Europe is working wonderfully!! Their numbers are getting better while ours are getting worse!!!The idea that tax and spend idiotic liberalism will get us to a smaller debt  is identical to saying more drugs will cure the junkie. How stupid can a liberal be??? 

Only a blind stupid monkey liberal would say more drugs  would work. Why be so afraid to explain how on earth that is possible???? What does your inability tell us say about the IQ and character of liberals???????


Wolfgang Schauble:

"According to the latest estimates, the Euro zone's budget shortfall should be 3.2% of GDP this year, half the level of 2009 and well below the deficits of the USA and Japan. In the last 3 years the structural deficit- the fiscal shortfall adjusted for the change in the business cycle- has shrunk to 
2.1% from 4.6%.

After years of steady rises in Spain Portugal and Greece and other places the current account deficits have fallen rapidly driven not just by retreating consumption and imports but also, crucially, by rising exports.

Unit labor costs in Ireland and Greece have dropped 12% since 2009 and by 6% and 5% in Spain and Portugal respectively. As the OECD acknowledged in its recent "Going for Growth"
the crisis has served as a catalyst for structural reform in those countries that most needed it, particularly in the labor market.

As these trend show Europe's crises management has proved itself."


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 5, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



The real reason is European Socialism continued to tax, spend and borrow ( Keynesian Economics )  which served to make the recession worse by increasing their National Debts.
 Nanny states appear to be good until they run out of money.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 5, 2013)

usmcstinger said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...



Greece certainly didn't try austerity. Their liberals spent and spent but somehow it never produced prosperity or got their economy going.

So maybe they should have tried austerity?? and maybe a drunk should drink less??


----------



## Norman (Mar 6, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Only in the deranged liberal mind....
> ...



As I pointed out before, there is no austerity in Europe. Although some countries are austere. To be honest, I don't know how austere countries are doing to the countries that spend till drop currently. The EU economies are vastly different anyway and it's impossible to know if it's because of austereity or some other things with that particular country that something is going bonkers. For example, Estonia is doing great, but so are some not so austere countries.

And yes, the austerity does work. In countries that are austere the debt does go down. I believe you are mistaken in believing this leads to any parties. It's not supposed to. It's supposed to reduce the debt. And it's doing that.


However, I wish many of these countries would be more austere in the good times. Perhaps then you could actually have some room for the debt during the bad times, without bankrupting the whole nation and continent. I mean I don't think even you believe the policies of greece were good.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 6, 2013)

Austerity is the term given to the circumstance where the country runs out of money, can't borrow any more and is forced to live within its means.


----------



## Dorkazoid_Jones (Mar 6, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
> I have been waiting to determine what the outcome is likely to be.  My want is that it would be most likely that Austerity would be a disaster.  But I felt I owed it a look before mouthing off about the absurdity of the whole thing.  And in my opinion, my opinion is of little value until there is some proof of the likely outcome.  So, I kept watching, and after a year or two, I think the verdict is close to in.  Increasingly. impartial sources close to the subject have become more and more and more pessimistic.  And we are close to a time when it will be the decesion of most, by a wide margin, that austerity has failed, or is failing, in pretty much every country where it has been instituted.
> Here is an article out of the UK that is very representative of what is being said:
> 
> ...



Austerity is really a misnomer for what's going on in most of Europe.  They apparently are only reducing spending a small amount AND raising taxes significantly.  What would happen if they reduced spending significantly and left taxes alone with a promise to lower taxes in the future??  

It's all to predictable that the NY Times and other left leaning sources are trying to focus on the failure of cutting back all over the world, when right here at home, the opposite approach, a stimilus, is a failure. In fact, Keynesian economics which advocates increased govt spending to stimulate the economy, has a lousy track record.  It didn't really work during the great depression, it hasn't worked in Japan, and isn't working now. If a stimulus is so good, then why don't we raise the tax rate for everyone to 90%??? Clearly that would destroy the economy. So why would any increase in govt spending and it's subsequent tax increases lead to anything positive???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 6, 2013)

Dorkazoid_Jones said:


> So why would any increase in govt spending and it's subsequent tax increases lead to anything positive???



well, when liberal government bureaucrats take your money and spend it, that money somehow becomes magical and stimulative, but when you spend your own hard earned money it doesn't.

Here's a partial list of where Obama's soviet magical money went: 

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel&#8217;s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen&#8217;s Crop Service and Olsen&#8217;s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem&#8217;s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy=


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 7, 2013)

usmcstinger said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...



You would like to believe this, but it isn't true.  Have you lived and worked in Europe?  I have, and what you say simply is not true: it's what you want to believe.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 7, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



So what is true, Esmerelda?  Are the "Pigs" not in dire fiscal straits because their promised entitlements can't be supported by their economies?  Explain why that "isn't" the case because it certainly appears that it is.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 7, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



oh its true!! France has the per capita income of Arkansas, about our poorest state, thanks to so much liberal intervention in the economy!!.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 8, 2013)

usmcstinger said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...



First of all, a sovereign country, which issues its own currency, cannot go bankrupt. It's operationally impossible. Taxing, borrowing and spending has nothing to Keynes or the General theory. As a matter of fact, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, taxes don't fund expenditures, they simply regulate aggregate demand.

However, EU countries no longer issue their own currencies, since they had to cede sovereignty to the ECB. Unlike the US, Australia, the UK, Canada or Japan, for example, EU countries have to operate under fixed budget constraints similar to a pseudo-gold standard. This obsession with debt is illogical, since deficits create net financial assets for the private sector. People, especially pundits in the media, like to compare the finances of sovereign nations to that of households which is simply ridiculous.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 8, 2013)

Kimura said:


> First of all, a sovereign country, which issues its own currency, cannot go bankrupt. It's operationally impossible.



Nice to have another liberal illiterate in the conversation. Of course a country can go bankrupt. When Ron Paul asked Bernanke why we don't switch to a gold standard Bernanke said, we operate the Fed as if it were on a gold standard. So, if the Fed mandate were to say it can't create inflation then it couldn't  prevent bankruptcy by printing liberal easy money.   





Kimura said:


> Taxing, borrowing and spending has nothing to Keynes or the General theory.



a liberal illiterate's gibberish


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 8, 2013)

Kimura said:


> As a matter of fact, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, taxes don't fund expenditures, they simply regulate aggregate demand.



too stupid and liberal!! Of course you fund a bridge or road or welfare expenditure with taxes. A child would know this. Taxes have little to do with aggregate demand since aggregate demand  stays about the same whether taxpayers spend their money or the government taxes it and then spends it. Again, a child should know this.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 8, 2013)

Kimura said:


> to compare the finances of sovereign nations to that of households which is simply ridiculous.



actually its 100% logical. When a household cant pay its bills its in big trouble because men guns  show up to take the house or car or something else.

When a government cant pay its bills it faces the same exact problem. The printing money free lunch liberal option (illegal under a gold standard Fed)  only covers up the problem letting it grow worse rather than correcting it. Now the liberal knows his ABC's


----------



## Kimura (Mar 8, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > to compare the finances of sovereign nations to that of households which is simply ridiculous.
> ...



Ed how many times do we have to go over this: a sovereign government, which issues its own currency, cannot go bankrupt. For the 189,765,234th time, all government spending is 'printing money' under a fiat system, _since there is an increase in reserve balances, regardless of tax receipts or bonds sales_. The US Government can&#8217;t involuntarily run out of dollars because it has the constitutional authority to create dollars without any limit. Congress is the only entity that can regulate this ability.

Lastly, for 230,567,113th time, the federal government doesn't operate like a household. Households can&#8217;t issue their own currency and require that people use said money to pay taxes. A household has a limited supply of dollars; the government's supply of dollars boils down to policy decisions.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 8, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > As a matter of fact, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, taxes don't fund expenditures, they simply regulate aggregate demand.
> ...



I was referring to federal taxes, not state or sales taxes.  The federal government taxes to regulate aggregate demand which is another way of saying spending power. In other words, if the economy is overheating, then raising taxes will help cool it down. Conversely, if the economy is cooling down, then cutting taxes will heat it up. Taxes aren't about obtaining money for expenditures, they're about regulating spending power (aggregate demand) so we don't cause inflation with too much spending power or not enough spending power which results in unemployment and recessions.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 8, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, a sovereign country, which issues its own currency, cannot go bankrupt. It's operationally impossible.
> ...



Ron Paul's understanding of macroeconomics and monetary theory is almost laughable. If I thought he was trolling us, he would be hilarious, but he's serious, which means he's off his rocker. He thinks money is a commodity, as opposed to a social unit of account and means of exchange.

Also, the gold standard was a disaster for various reasons. I could start a thread on it.





Kimura said:


> Taxing, borrowing and spending has nothing to Keynes or the General theory.
> 
> a liberal illiterate's gibberish



Perhaps you could enlighten us.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 8, 2013)

Kimura said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



While it may be technically true that a sovereign government cannot go bankrupt because they can keep printing money to pay their debts...it is simply a matter of time, if you keep printing huge sums of paper money, before the value of that money becomes so worthless it's not longer a viable commodity.  As cases in point, take the Weimar Republic of Germany...or Hungary...or dozens of other countries.  The truth of the matter is that if a government prints more and more money to pay it's debts at some point that money will not be taken as payment.  Once you've reached that point goods have value and money has little to none.  What the Fed is doing now with nonstop "quantitative easing" will at some point lead to a US dollar that is worth less and less with a corresponding spike in the cost of goods.  I think we're starting to see that now.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 9, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> While it may be technically true that a sovereign government cannot go bankrupt because they can keep printing money to pay their debts...it is simply a matter of time, if you keep printing huge sums of paper money, before the value of that money becomes so worthless it's not longer a viable commodity.  As cases in point, take the Weimar Republic of Germany...or Hungary...or dozens of other countries.  The truth of the matter is that if a government prints more and more money to pay it's debts at some point that money will not be taken as payment.  Once you've reached that point goods have value and money has little to none.



Weimar, Zimababe or Hungary are not good examples when making comparisons to the United States or any modern, insutrialized country. An analysis of modern economic examples of hyperinflation display striking similarities. Historically, these countries have been involves in war, suffered from massive corruption, had foreign denominated debt, went through violent regime change, etc. This was the case with Weimar, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Russia, China, Greece, Argentina and Zimbabwe during the 20th century.

For example, the Weimar Republic had most of its debts denominated in Sterling, and its industrial capacity was rendered useless since other nations controlled its output. The money they printed wasn't being off-put by a supply of real goods and services which is what caused hyperinflation. The US doesn't have any of these problems. 

These hyperinflations weren't solely monetary events. It wasn't a result of inflation or excessive spending, but rather full blown rejection of the currency due to exogenous events. This is a completely different animal than inflation, which is completely normal in a healthy economy. 




> What the Fed is doing now with nonstop "quantitative easing" will at some point lead to a US dollar that is worth less and less with a corresponding spike in the cost of goods.  I think we're starting to see that now.



Quantitative Easing isn't 'printing money', it's nothing more than a glorified asset swap which changes the composition of balance sheets.

Inflation only becomes an issue when there is an increase in the supply of money without a tandem increase in real goods and services. I don't see inflation on the horizon with all the high unemployment and excess capacity out there. If we were at full employment and the economy was at full capacity, then I'd worry about inflation.


----------



## Norman (Mar 9, 2013)

Kimura's view seems to be that if you spend the money, goods will come. I am completely opposed to this view and as I said before I view inflation/money printing as a tax.

Basically his logic goes like this: If economy is not at full employment inflation can not exist. Since inflating the money supply will create demand which in turn will create goods. Correct? 

However, I disagree with that (although not entirely). I think that inflation is just taxing and spending and will just redirect resources to less than ideal places. There is nothing stopping the government from spending the printed money to dole out unemployment benefits, which will just increase the inneffecency of an economy (IE you actually get LESS productivity because of the inflation). Further inflation is likely occur even if productivity gains are made by inflating. Since the productivity gains are nowhere near as high, most likely.

I also disagree with the view that economy can overheat or any of these keynesian "CORRECT by god" constants. Cultures change etc. 


However, one thing where I don't just disagree with Kimura, I think he is flat out wrong on this. He claims that QE isn't money printing but an asset swap. I think QE is, yes an asset swap, but what does FED fund those assets with? MONEY PRINTING. This can be verified. If it increases the money supply, it's money printing. Pretty simple. Guess what? All money printing is basically an asset swap! Whether it be government bonds or mortgages. Not so cool things would happen if FED tried to reverse those asset swaps.

Also, I think the assesment that debt problem can't exist because... money printer, is ridiculous. The debt problem is not that the debt can not be nullified, you can always default etc! The problem is that pretty many people will be pissed when you do so!


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 9, 2013)

What caused hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic was the printing of huge amounts of paper marks in order to buy other foreign currencies to pay their Treaty of Versailles debts because their creditors were no longer willing to take paper marks.  In effect *they * caused their own paper currency to be worth less and less which is what the Fed is doing every time that it prints more paper dollars to buy more US government debt.

What I find amusing is that a quick look at the long list of countries that have been beset by hyperinflation would make it seem rather obvious that sovereign nations really AREN'T that different than households when it comes to their finances.  The fiddler at some point has to be paid.  Having the ability to print your own currency may very well put off that date...but at some point that bill is going to come due.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Taxes aren't about obtaining money for expenditures, they're about regulating spending power (aggregate demand) so we don't cause inflation.



of course this is too stupid!! Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by taxes. This is Econ 101. Welcome to your first lesson.


----------



## Dante (Mar 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> European austerity is the model for neo conservative policies.



Why is something always a model to follow? Reminds me of the health insurance debate. Mention you want change and it becomes a battle over using an European model. 

What ever happened to the good old fashioned American ingenuity of borrowing and stealing and reworking to fit American society?

and the USA economy is in no condition exactly similar to the shit that hit in Europe or in Europe as a whole. 

We are not Europe and it is conservatives who want America to be more like Europe. Saying the USA is becoming like Europe and we need an European fix. Bullshit!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Ed how many times do we have to go over this: a sovereign government, which issues its own currency, cannot go bankrupt.



Wrong wrong wrong!! Too perfectly stupid and liberal as usual!!! You are like a tiny child. Yes, in theory our government could spend $100 trillion tomorrow, print the currency  to pay for it and in one sense not be bankrupt at all because it had printed every dollar of the $100 trillion and paid its bills.....,but, it would cause a huge bubble, huge inflation, and a huge depression.

Therefore, it is better to consider the government, in effect,  bankrupt whenever its debt is a significant percent of GDP. This is the way we protect ourselves from liberal bubbles, liberals inflations, and liberal depressions.

Was that simple enough for you??


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
> I have been waiting to determine what the outcome is likely to be.  My want is that it would be most likely that Austerity would be a disaster.  But I felt I owed it a look before mouthing off about the absurdity of the whole thing.  And in my opinion, my opinion is of little value until there is some proof of the likely outcome.  So, I kept watching, and after a year or two, I think the verdict is close to in.  Increasingly. impartial sources close to the subject have become more and more and more pessimistic.  And we are close to a time when it will be the decesion of most, by a wide margin, that austerity has failed, or is failing, in pretty much every country where it has been instituted.
> Here is an article out of the UK that is very representative of what is being said:
> 
> ...



Tax hikes are bad for the economy, who'd a thunk it?


----------



## boedicca (Mar 9, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Ed how many times do we have to go over this: a sovereign government, which issues its own currency, cannot go bankrupt.
> ...




Zimbabwe may not be technically bankrupt, but if we follow their example, we'll all be paying for our bread with $1,000,000 bills.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 9, 2013)

Dante said:


> We are not Europe and it is conservatives who want America to be more like Europe. Saying the USA is becoming like Europe and we need an European fix. Bullshit!



Europe is obviously being smarter than we are in the sense that they seem to be under more pressure to learn to live within their means and therefore to avoid bankruptcy.

We are smarter in the sense that we have enjoyed a much higher standard of living thanks to more freedom from a cripppling nanny liberal state.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 9, 2013)

boedicca said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



and paying for our restaurant meals before we eat them to make sure we have enough to pay for them after their cost has inflated while we eat them. True story!! But to a brain dead liberal this is not bankruptcy!!


----------



## Kimura (Mar 9, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Taxes aren't about obtaining money for expenditures, they're about regulating spending power (aggregate demand) so we don't cause inflation.
> ...



Ed, stop being a twat, you've clearly never even taken anything resembling an economics course in your life. You repeat idiotic talk radio sound bytes like a moron. All you do is continually insult people while barely being able to string together coherent sentences. I've actually worked in finance, been published, presented at conferences,  and done research at the undergraduate and graduate level. I'm not saying I'm anything special, but at least I have a general understanding about macroeconomics, labor theory, microeconomics and monetary theory. 

For the tenth time, an increase in the money supply doesn't directly cause inflation. Even Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, stated this very fact, even though I demonstrated the flaws inherent in the Quantity Theory of Money, which Friedman even acknowledged later in his life.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 9, 2013)

boedicca said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Zimbabwe had eighty percent of its industrial capacity wiped out from civil war, and it had its debts denominated in US dollars, which is what caused the hyperinflation. As they printed money, it wasn't being off-out by an increase in real goods and services, which is what caused hyperinflation. All US debts are denominated in US dollars, so the US will always be able to pay its debts.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 9, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Ed how many times do we have to go over this: a sovereign government, which issues its own currency, cannot go bankrupt.
> ...



Ed, I'm done repeating myself. I can only explain it in so many ways what causes inflation and how we define inflation in economics and finance. You have no clue what you're talking about, I just can't repeat myself twenty times in a thread.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 9, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> What caused hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic was the printing of huge amounts of paper marks in order to buy other foreign currencies to pay their Treaty of Versailles debts because their creditors were no longer willing to take paper marks.  In effect *they * caused their own paper currency to be worth less and less which is what the Fed is doing every time that it prints more paper dollars to buy more US government debt.
> 
> What I find amusing is that a quick look at the long list of countries that have been beset by hyperinflation would make it seem rather obvious that sovereign nations really AREN'T that different than households when it comes to their finances.  The fiddler at some point has to be paid.  Having the ability to print your own currency may very well put off that date...but at some point that bill is going to come due.



Weimar had it debts denominated in Sterling and had its industrial capacity destroyed by war. Its industrial capacity was worthless since other countries effectively controlled its output. The more Weimar printed money, it wasn't being off-put by a supply of real goods and services, thus causing hyperinflation.  This cannot happen in the United States, since we don't have our debts denominated in a foreign currency, nor has our industrial capacity been obliterated by civil war or war. We also have a stable political system at the end of the day. The US will ALWAYS be able to pay its debts without a problem whatsoever.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 9, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



The European Socialist welfare state is just as much responsible for their mess as the world wide recession.  If nations like Greece hadn't been indebting themselves in order to prop up a decadent welfare state they couldn't afford they would have been able to weather the storm better like Canada and Germany have, for instance.  They have been far more responsible in paying for their entitlements and the world wide recession has had little impact on the Canadians.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> The US will ALWAYS be able to pay its debts without a problem whatsoever.



The patently, unequivocally FALSE.  It will catch up to us.  It's just a matter of when, not if.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...




How'd that work out for Weimar Germany?


----------



## Kimura (Mar 9, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > The US will ALWAYS be able to pay its debts without a problem whatsoever.
> ...



Are you saying the US is somehow running out of dollars? The US government is only inflation constrained, not revenue constrained.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 9, 2013)

boedicca said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Not well, but comparing Weimar to the US isn't a valid comparison, since Weimar had it debts denominated in Sterling and had its industrial capacity destroyed by war. This rendered it industrial capacity useless because other nations controlled its output. The more Weimar printed money, it wasn't being off-put by a supply of real goods and services, which resulted in hyperinflation among other things.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 10, 2013)

Dante said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > European austerity is the model for neo conservative policies.
> ...



Yeah...that's what us conservatives are always saying...America needs to be more like Europe!!!  (eye-roll)  

Did you take a stupid pill today, Dante because THAT statement is about as stupid as they come!


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You're sort of right, Kimura...but if you really think about it...you're completely wrong.  Yes, the US can always pay it's debts by printing more dollars.  But the people who loan us the money to keep our ship of state afloat aren't stupid...if the value of a dollar decreases then the cost of the loan will be adjusted to reflect that.  Our creditors are not going to loan us billions in currency that's worth something only to have us turn around and pay them back in currency that isn't.  So yes...we will be able to "pay" our debts but nobody will will oan us money if we don't repay them with something that's worth their investment.  This concept that we can keep on doing what we're doing now and somehow wave a "magic economic wand" in the air and have it all work out is amusing.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 10, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



The US government doesn't have to borrow that which it creates as the sovereign issuer of the currency. We really aren't 'loaned' money. The federal government spends/creates money by writing Treasury checks or by crediting private, commercial bank accounts. For example, when the Chinese purchase US Treasuries, it uses dollars that come from government spending itself. Those dollars had to come from somewhere. Treasuries are basically glorified savings accounts at the end of the day. In point of fact, all bond sales do is drain excess reserves in the banking system, that's about it.


----------



## Norman (Mar 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



So basically you are saying US can wave the magic wand and print  that 1 trillion of money a year instead of going into debt. And there is not going to be a slightest difference. Not even an opportunity cost of not being able to print more money.

So basically, Fed is magic.

In fact let's get rid of all taxes and just print the money to opereate the government. And print some more to make the entitlement bomb vanish. What, there are poor and sick people? PRINT!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 10, 2013)

Norman said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



yep, he's a 100% ignorant liberal looking for the free lunch that doesn't exist.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Please, when the Chinese purchase US Treasury notes they are loaning us money!  Trying to say that they aren't is just absurd.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 10, 2013)

Norman said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Exactly!  Let's use a little common sense!!!  Just because a government has a printing press in the basement doesn't mean that they then have unlimited amounts of money to spend.  It scares me to death that Kimura actually seems to believe what he's saying.  Is that what's being taught in economics classes these days?  No wonder the college kids are voting for Barry!


----------



## Kimura (Mar 10, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No, they're not. The US government issues the currency. Where do you think the dollars used by the Chinese to purchase securities comes from? It comes from government spending itself. The government first has to add funds to the economy through deficit spending which simply means it's spending more than its taking away from us in taxes. All that 16 trillion in debt represents is the US economy's total holdings of _savings accounts _(US Treasuries) at the FED. You have to think in terms of an accounting identity.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 10, 2013)

Norman said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yes, under a fiat system, sovereign governments issue currency out of thin air, which boils down to keystroke entries on a computer. There isn't an entitlement bomb, that's another myth. The US is only inflation constrained, it cannot be revenue constrained under a fiat system as the monopoly issuer of the currency. In other words, federal spending is virtually costless for the government.  As I tried to explain to ED, taxes simply regulate aggregate demand (spending power), they don't fund expenditures.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 10, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I'm ignorant, lol. My three year old is more intelligent than you.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



You must exist in a parallel universe where debt isn't really debt at all but is actually "holdings".  I don't care what "identity" you give that 16 trillion dollars...it's still money that we owe...which means it's still DEBT!


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I've got investments with Wells Fargo and Edward Jones...please tell me that you don't work for either.  The thought of my hard earned money being "managed" by someone who believes the nonsense that you do would keep me up nights.

Seriously...do you really believe the stuff you're spouting here?


----------



## Kimura (Mar 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



First of all, for every liability, there must be a corresponding asset.

It should be abundantly clear that a Treasury security is nothing more than a glorfied savings account. If I purchase a Treasury security today, I'm sending my dollars to the FED and at some point in the future, they'll send those dollars back to me, with some interest. This is the reality with any savings account at a retail bank. I deposit dollars, they send me back the dollars with some interest. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that my bank decides to purchase $500,000 dollars worth of US Treasury securities. In order to pay for those securities, the FED decreases the total amount of dollars my bank has at its reserve account over at the FED by $500,000 dollars, then they'll add $500,000 dollars to my bank's savings account (Treasury securities) at the FED.

Therefore, when the US government 'borrows money', all it's actually doing is shifting funds from reserve accounts (checking accounts) at the FED to savings accounts (US Treasury securities). _This is why the 16 trillion in 'US debt' is nothing more than the US economy's total holdings, in terms of savings accounts, at the FED.
_

I hope this clears up any misconceptions about the operational realities of our monetary system. This is common knowledge among 99% of people working in the bond markets.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Norman said:
> ...



I wouldn't investment any money with those geniuses, but that's your problem. 

Seriously, you'd be better off with a Roth or traditional IRA in a bond fund which yields 4%-5% per year if you're a conservative investor. It also depends if you have a 401k at your place of employment. I'm a little more aggressive, so I have my Roth in a REIT, with some aggressive growth mutual funds here and there.

_*Disclaimer* - This is not investment advice_


----------



## Kimura (Mar 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



For the umpteenth time, all government spending is 'printing money'. This is how a fiat monetary system operates, we're no longer on a gold standard, but people seem to be under the mistaken impression we are for some reason. I'm simply trying clear up the misconceptions, falsehoods and out right lies being told to the general public by various talk radio and media douchebags.


----------



## Norman (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Yes, there is no entitlement bomb, because US can just print money to pay the retirees, without even an opportunity cost. Even if there is going to be a ratio of 3:1 retirees to working population(purely hypothetical) the retirees having no savings; The magical act of printing money will save the day because it will stimulate the remaining working people with monetary steroids, making them 1000% more productive even as they get to keep less and less of their incomes, having to pay for the retirees. 

Wait what?

Seriously, you need to think these in real terms a bit more. In your universe printing money can solve any problem, and nominally it may actually do just that. But not in real terms. People live in real world not in the nominal one. The retirees may get their money, but it won't be able to buy much as productivity won't keep up. 

Same can be said of the debt problem. The debt of USA's is very real, every month about 45 billion worth of products get net imported. And worst of all it's used to fund mostly consumer spending and service industries that can not help the debt down in the future. Inflating the goverment debt away is not as easy as it sounds either, the investors are not THAT stupid, even though the extremely overvalued dollar could tell otherwise. One day it might just prick like any bubble.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> we're no longer on a gold standard, but people seem to be under the mistaken impression we are for some reason. I'm simply trying clear up the misconceptions, .



OMG a free lunch fool liberal trying to clearup misconceptions??????

When Ron Paul asked Bernanke why we don't switch to a gold standard he said there was no need because the Fed operated as if it was on a gold standard.

The idea that we could drop gold, freely print money, and freely go into debt without hugely negative consequences is something so stupid that only a liberal could believe it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> For the umpteenth time, all government spending is 'printing money'.



of course thats stupid and liberal . If the governemnt taxes and spends it is not printing money. It may have printed the money originally but no new printing takes place at any point in the tax and spend process.

see why we are positive a liberal will be slow??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Therefore, when the US government 'borrows money', all it's actually doing is shifting funds from reserve accounts (checking accounts) at the FED to savings accounts (US Treasury securities). _This is why the 16 trillion in 'US debt' is nothing more than the US economy's total holdings, in terms of savings accounts, at the FED.
> _



this is true in an operational sense as you say but that has nothing to do with our subject. You are confused  because you lack the IQ to know what the subject is. The subject is whether the economy benefits through deficits debt and inflation.

It does not benefit. If soviet liberal bureaucrats in Washington knew where to spend and invest better than the private sector the more they spent no matter what the source of funds it would be a good thing. But since they don't know where to invest, being mere bureaucrats, they  waste the nations scarce resources and the economy declines.

Simple enough for even a liberal?


----------



## Kimura (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > For the umpteenth time, all government spending is 'printing money'.
> ...



You're beyond confused. We're no  longer on the Bretton Woods system - a fixed-exchange rate system that existed post-WWII until 1971 -  whereby the US government was revenue-constrained because the FED could only allow a certain amount of money in the economy related to its holdings of gold and the currency value. This meant if the government wanted to spend more money, it had to take money from someone else in the economy so that the money supply would be a constant so to speak. Under our old system, yes, the US government had to borrow or tax to spend. This no longer applies because we now use fiat as opposed to convertible currencies.

In modern day America, the currency obtains legitimacy through legislative fiat: the US government declares the currency's value and follows up with legislation. What gives it value is that all tax obligations must be paid with US dollars, there's no way around this fact, which creates demand for the currency, thus giving intrinsically worthless paper value. This means a national government, such as the United States, can never be in short supply of the currency or run out of money. It doesn't need you or I to lend it money in order to generate revenue, it can never run out of money. This is why a monopoly issuer of the currency, such as the US, Japan, Australia, the UK, or Canada, can never be revenue-constrained.

Government spending is the first act in a fiat system. It precedes taxing and 'borrowing'. The government is effectively taxing and borrowing back money it already spent. We cannot obtain dollars, nor can OPEC, the Chinese or the rest of the world, until the government spends them into existence.

I hope this clear up the your false premise which is akin to believing in a flat earth from an economic perspective.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore, when the US government 'borrows money', all it's actually doing is shifting funds from reserve accounts (checking accounts) at the FED to savings accounts (US Treasury securities). _This is why the 16 trillion in 'US debt' is nothing more than the US economy's total holdings, in terms of savings accounts, at the FED.
> ...



I've explained it ten different ways: deficits create net financial assets under a fiat system. Get over it. If you want the government sector to be in surplus, then the domestic private sector will have to run a deficit. There's no way around this.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 11, 2013)

Norman said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Norman said:
> ...



I don't understand where this 'printing money' meme comes from. All government spending is 'printing money' under a fiat system, regardless of tax revenue or bond sales. The government needs to spend money into existence through spending before we can obtain it.

As I tried to explain, the 'US debt' is nothing more than the US economy's total holdings, in terms of savings accounts, at the FED. We can look at it another way: the US deficit simply reflects the public's desire to save. Basically, if the the public wishes to save, then budget deficts _have _to occur as a basic accounting identity. The 'US debt' is the stock of its aggregate deficits which are equal, down to the last penny, to the stock of its net financial assets held by the domestic private sector.

You also seem inordinately preoccupied with the US trade deficit. The trade deficit is actually a positive and has enabled Americans to enjoy a tremendous standard of living, but that's another story.

There isn't an entitlement bomb. Congress can guarantee these programs into perpetuity through legislation, similar to Medicare Parts B and D. The only problem going forward, as you pointed out, is that of inflation. The US government can create any amount of dollars it so desires. The issue going forward is if that spending will result in a sufficient quantity of the real assets required for retirees. Real assets are food, shelter, medical care, etc. that are needed by to sustain them during retirement. As long as the US has real stuff, the paying for it part is easy, it's a matter of the government cutting checks. As long as the supply of real goods and services increases in tandem with the amount of checks being sent out, there is no inflationary risk whatsoever.

However, I will concede, if the US government does spend more than the amount of real goods and services being produced, then we'll have an inflation problem. This is the _only_ threat to entitlements in the future.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> This no longer applies because we now use fiat as opposed to convertible currencies.




As I said, when asked by Ron Paul, Bernanke said he operated the Fed as if it was on a gold standard!! A fiat system is not a libturd free lunch system. The liberal government can print and spend trillions and trillions and it won't help to invent one new product or improve our standard of living one tiny bit. Is that really over your head?? What it will do is create mal investment bubbles that will distort the economy and slow growth or cause recessions or depressions. Once again dear there is no free lunch!! Why  not write that 100 times
and see if it sinks in???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> deficits create net financial assets under a fiat system. :



and does this improve our standard of living??????????????????

Isn't thinking fun?? Are you going to try to change the subject again  or are you going to answer the question????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



dear, with the Fed balance sheet now well over 3 trillion it is a huge concern that many fear Bernanke cant resolve without a huge inflation!!


----------



## Norman (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> I don't understand where this 'printing money' meme comes from. All government spending is 'printing money' under a fiat system, regardless of tax revenue or bond sales. The government needs to spend money into existence through spending before we can obtain it.



Well this is certainly an interesting definition. But it's a pretty stupid one. To say government is printing money, it is meant that they are INCREASING the money supply. Tax and spend do not increase the money supply. While printing money does.

But it doesn't matter what definitions you use. What is important is important is that when referring to printing money I mean NET creation of money supply. Not simply government spending, which can be funded with taxing as well. (although I view inflation as a tax).



Kimura said:


> As I tried to explain, the 'US debt' is nothing more than the US economy's total holdings, in terms of savings accounts, at the FED. We can look at it another way: the US deficit simply reflects the public's desire to save. Basically, if the the public wishes to save, then budget deficts _have _to occur as a basic accounting identity. The 'US debt' is the stock of its aggregate deficits which are equal, down to the last penny, to the stock of its net financial assets held by the domestic private sector.



Not true. It takes two to tango. It takes two to create government debt. If government weren't issuing debt there would be no debt. Besides that, the deficit is largerly founded by other nations. In any case you can save without having a government deficit.

And FED printing bunch of money and buying up bonds has nothing to do with willingness of public to save either.

Again China and other nations own these treasuries too, US has a trade deficit in addition to federal deficit. BOTH are a problem. The debt is an asset yes, but like all assets it can be viped out if government simply decides to default (or inflate the currency).


You would have to be crazy to burrow USA at 2% when you can burrow someone like swizerland or australia for BETTER interest rate. Even though those countries are safer and their currencies most likely will raise against the US dollar. That about tells how much the central banks manipulate the US debt market and how overvalued the dollar is.




> You also seem inordinately preoccupied with the US trade deficit. The trade deficit is actually a positive and has enabled Americans to enjoy a tremendous standard of living, but that's another story.



True, but increased consumer spending in the prior years, means harder times ahead. You seem to think the future is all dandy, because of money printer can fix this shortfall! I think not. I especially oppose how the government has encuraged everyone to blow this money, by low interest rates and good old overspending.



> There isn't an entitlement bomb. Congress can guarantee these programs into perpetuity through legislation, similar to Medicare Parts B and D. The only problem going forward, as you pointed out, is that of inflation. The US government can create any amount of dollars it so desires. The issue going forward is if that spending will result in a sufficient quantity of the real assets required for retirees. Real assets are food, shelter, medical care, etc. that are needed by to sustain them during retirement. As long as the US has real stuff, the paying for it part is easy, it's a matter of the government cutting checks. As long as the supply of real goods and services increases in tandem with the amount of checks being sent out, there is no inflationary risk whatsoever.
> 
> However, I will concede, if the US government does spend more than the amount of real goods and services being produced, then we'll have an inflation problem. This is the _only_ threat to entitlements in the future.


[/QUOTE]

Yes, they can guarantee that every retiree gets the nominal value, but since the dollar has to be inflated to do this, in real terms they do not get anything. The real value is what matters to retirees. There is no way that production could ever increase as fast as the checks being sent out, not even according to the official predictions that have always been rosy and unable to predict recessions. Second problem is as you tax and inflate more, the opposite what you think happens, productivity goes down. More people join the unemployment bandwagon. Further more you are completely forgetting about opportunity costs! So even IF everything turns out all good (doubt it), it would have turned out much better without this turd.

Plus there is going to have to be a recession if the trade deficit is ever to be corrected. That is needed to allocate labor in USA more productively to create goods that can actually be sold overseas. The retirement bomb is very real, but how big of an explosion will it be? Dunno, but some people assets will get wiped for sure. Retirement WILL be cut most likely.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > This no longer applies because we now use fiat as opposed to convertible currencies.
> ...



Ron Paul doesn't understand the monetary system. The guy is so out to lunch, he even ignores some of the theories of von Mises he parrots as if some divine libertarian truth. Bernake was being grilled by Ron Paul, he explained why the FED was created, how LSAPs function, etc. He then obsesses over gold to which Bernanke tries to explain tail risk to him. It's like talking to the wall, the guy thinks gold is money as opposed to a precious metal.

Secondly, your comments make no sense. I never mentioned a free lunch, that absurd. You don't seem to understand what a social unit account or means of exchange entails. 
What does entrepreneurship have to do with monetary operations, Ed? We could go back to tally sticks and people would still conduct business transactions. 

Lastly, the Austrian Business Cycle is problematic at best. I see you parroting terms like 'malinvestment' and 'bubbles'. Similar to Ron Paul, you probably think a few axioms by a dead sociologist contain some universal metaphysical truths.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> This no longer applies because we now use fiat as opposed to convertible currencies.




As I said, when asked by Ron Paul, Bernanke said he operated the Fed as if it was on a gold standard!! A fiat system is not a libturd free lunch system. The liberal government can print and spend trillions and trillions and it won't help to invent one new product or improve our standard of living one tiny bit. Is that really over your head?? What it will do is create mal investment bubbles that will distort the economy and slow growth or cause recessions or depressions. Once again dear there is no free lunch!! Why  not write that 100 times
and see if it sinks in???



Kimura said:


> Ron Paul doesn't understand the monetary system.



too stupid!! you debate by changing the subject!! I didn't say Ron Paul understood the monetary system. I said Bernanke said he managed the Fed as if it was on a gold standard system!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Secondly, your comments make no sense. I never mentioned a free lunch, that absurd. You don't seem to understand what a social unit account or means of exchange entails.



too stupid!! You debate by changing the subject!!  You said debt and deficits were wonderful. I explained how they caused mal investment  distortion recessions and depressions. I then  asked you if debt and deficits improved our standard of living and you of course changed the subject!!! Once again dear, do deficits  and debt invent new products and improve our standard of living or do they do the opposite?? Try to follow along and not change subject!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Lastly, the Austrian Business Cycle is problematic at best. I see you parroting terms like 'malinvestment' and 'bubbles'. Similar to Ron Paul, you probably think a few axioms by a dead sociologist contain some universal metaphysical truths.



too stupid!! Let me simplify for you. If our soviet government took 70% of  GNP to spend in taxes or printed 70% of GNP in fiat money to spend would it improve our standard of living as opposed to taking only 10%.  

Try to answer the question rather than change the subject!! You need to face your ignorance. Sorry!!


----------



## Kimura (Mar 11, 2013)

Norman said:
			
		

> Well this is certainly an interesting definition. But it's a pretty stupid one. To say government is printing money, it is meant that they are INCREASING the money supply. Tax and spend do not increase the money supply. While printing money does.
> 
> But it doesn't matter what definitions you use. What is important is important is that when referring to printing money I mean NET creation of money supply. Not simply government spending, which can be funded with taxing as well. (although I view inflation as a tax).



Under a fiat system spending precedes taxation and borrowing. This is the operation reality of how it works. If the government sector constantly ran a balanced budget, whereby spending was equal to tax revenue, the domestic private sector would have net financial wealth of absolute zero. If the government runs constant budget surpluses (spending less than it total tax receipts), the domestic private sector&#8217;s net financial wealth would be negative. In other words, the domestic private sector would be in deficit and in debt to the public sector. We are no longer on a gold standard, you'relooking at this all wrong.

Are you familiar with the concept of high powered money or base money? 





> Not true. It takes two to tango. It takes two to create government debt. If government weren't issuing debt there would be no debt. Besides that, the deficit is largerly founded by other nations. In any case you can save without having a government deficit.



Well, I actually agree. We technically don't need Treasuries anymore under a fiat system, but the whole process has been hijacked by politicians. Yes, it takes two two tango: for every liability, there is a corresponding asset. Let's look at it a third way:_ those federal liabilities are assets to the public._ 



> And FED printing bunch of money and buying up bonds has nothing to do with willingness of public to save either.



Well...Treasury auctions are always oversubscribed, meaning there's more buyers than available paper. Countries like China are lining up to buy US paper even at historically low rates. Why?



> Again China and other nations own these treasuries too, US has a trade deficit in addition to federal deficit. BOTH are a problem. The debt is an asset yes, but like all assets it can be viped out if government simply decides to default (or inflate the currency).



Here's my post on trade deficits:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/272160-top-ten-trade-deficit-partners-3.html#post6925096




> You would have to be crazy to burrow USA at 2% when you can burrow someone like swizerland or australia for BETTER interest rate. Even though those countries are safer and their currencies most likely will raise against the US dollar. That about tells how much the central banks manipulate the US debt market and how overvalued the dollar is.



By the way, what country are you from? Just curious. I know you said you weren't from the US.





> Yes, they can guarantee that every retiree gets the nominal value, but since the dollar has to be inflated to do this, in real terms they do not get anything. The real value is what matters to retirees. There is no way that production could ever increase as fast as the checks being sent out, not even according to the official predictions that have always been rosy and unable to predict recessions. Second problem is as you tax and inflate more, the opposite what you think happens, productivity goes down. More people join the unemployment bandwagon. Further more you are completely forgetting about opportunity costs! So even IF everything turns out all good (doubt it), it would have turned out much better without this turd.
> 
> Plus there is going to have to be a recession if the trade deficit is ever to be corrected. That is needed to allocate labor in USA more productively to create goods that can actually be sold overseas. The retirement bomb is very real, but how big of an explosion will it be? Dunno, but some people assets will get wiped for sure. Retirement WILL be cut most likely.



Inflation doesn't have to occur so long as there is a increase in real goods and services with the money supply.  Currency isn't static, nor does it exist in a vacuum. Inflation is a normal part of a healthy economy. My concern is wages and unemployment. Wages have been stagnant in the US for a long time.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > This no longer applies because we now use fiat as opposed to convertible currencies.
> ...



Okie dokie. He may have said that, but the reality is quite different. When the financial crisis struck, the federal government created one trillion dollars in one day out of thin air. How would you do that on a gold standard? < ------- trick question or is it?

Also, the FED has engaged in large scale asset purchases since 2008. How would you do that on a gold standard? <-------trick question or is it?

The point is, the FED isn't managed like it's on a gold standard, nor can it be on the monetary side at this point, given the fact we're no longer on a convertible currency.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > deficits create net financial assets under a fiat system. :
> ...



I've only explained it ten times, Ed, including the Canada thread. Do you want me to explain it an eleventh time? I can only articulate a concept so many times before it becomes a waste of time.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Norman said:
> ...



Really? Why is that? I want you to articulate to me why the FED can't change the composition of its balance sheet without causing 'inflation'. I want _you_ to explain it in your own words, not some copy/paste job from the Wall Street Journal or wherever.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



dear, do you think inflation is a thing of the past or something? There are plenty of people around like Bernie Sanders and paul Krugman who are only concerned with the employment part of the mandate!!


No country has ever had a comparable increase in the size of its portfolio and unwound it in the precisely analogous way, Bernanke said in response to questions from members of the House Financial Services Committee. Japan was the only nation to use asset purchases, or quantitative easing, before the U.S. and is still in that situation, he said.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Norman said:
> ...



Just because we are no longer on the gold standard doesn't mean that we can simply print dollars to pay our bills with no consequences.  We are borrowing trillions of dollars that we then spend to run the bloated, mismanaged mess that is our Federal Government...and we are obligated to repay that money plus interest to the people who have loaned it to us.  The difference between a bank "savings account" and what we are doing is that a bank takes people's money at a low interest rate and turns around and puts that money on the street at a higher interest rate.  Government doesn't DO that!  They borrow money to spend it.  When they spend it...it's GONE!!!  This concept of yours that the money still exists...only in a different account is laughable.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 12, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Just because we are no longer on the gold standard doesn't mean that we can simply print dollars to pay our bills with no consequences.



Again, with this 'printing money' meme. We're under a fiat system, a non-convertible currency, which means taxes effectively drive money. Under our system, all government spending is inherently money printing.



> We are borrowing trillions of dollars that we then spend to run the bloated, mismanaged mess that is our Federal Government...and we are obligated to repay that money plus interest to the people who have loaned it to us.



The US government doesn't have to borrow that which it creates. This is another misconception. Government spending precedes taxation and borrowing, so the government simply taxes and borrows what it has already spent so to speak. I used the example about the Chinese or OPEC countries purchasing Treasuries. In order to purchase Treasuries, foreign countries or you or I have to use dollars, correct? _Well....where did those dollars come from? _ The government has to spend them into existence at some point which is where deficit spending comes into play. Deficit spending creates net financial assets.



> The difference between a bank "savings account" and what we are doing is that a bank takes people's money at a low interest rate and turns around and puts that money on the street at a higher interest rate.  Government doesn't DO that!  They borrow money to spend it.  When they spend it...it's GONE!!!  This concept of yours that the money still exists...only in a different account is laughable.



There fundamentally isn't a difference between a US Treasury and savings account. You deposit dollars, you are given back the principal plus accrued interest. Governments, such as the US, which is the monopoly issuer of the currency, doesn't have to borrow from anyone. From a monetary standpoint, this makes absolutely zero sense, given that we're off the gold standard. These are myths which are largely promulgated by right wing ideologues or grossly or willfully misinformed media pundits. You can print out my posts and bring them to the most hardcore, right wing economist on earth and they will grudgingly admit that I'm correct from the monetary side of things.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 12, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Well, that makes sense, since unemployment is far more serious than some inflation, which I went into like ten different times. And yes, I read the transcripts, but people fail to realize multiple factors, such as that these things can be unwound over a period of 3-12 years if need be. The FED simply created bank reserves to accomplish these LSAPs, so I don't see a problem going forward.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Just because we are no longer on the gold standard doesn't mean that we can simply print dollars to pay our bills with no consequences.
> ...



You just pointed out the difference!  A bank isn't spending money it doesn't have.  It's taking the money that is deposited into savings accounts and loaning that money out at a higher rate than what they are paying in interest.  The Federal Government on the other hand IS spending money it doesn't have.  They aren't investing that money by loaning it back out...they are spending it and it's gone...yet they still owe that money plus interest from the people that have bought Treasury notes.  If a bank attempted to do what the Federal Government does they would be out of business in short order and it's officers would be facing jail time.


----------



## Norman (Mar 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Under a fiat system spending precedes taxation and borrowing. This is the operation reality of how it works. If the government sector constantly ran a balanced budget, whereby spending was equal to tax revenue, the domestic private sector would have net financial wealth of absolute zero. If the government runs constant budget surpluses (spending less than it total tax receipts), the domestic private sector&#8217;s net financial wealth would be negative. In other words, the domestic private sector would be in deficit and in debt to the public sector. We are no longer on a gold standard, you'relooking at this all wrong.



Not true, central banks can buy any assets they want in a fiat standard. Central bank doesn't HAVE TO BUY public debt. I don't understand what you mean by domestic financial wealth, sounds completely irrelevant, again some completely different definition than what I am used to.


> Are you familiar with the concept of high powered money or base money?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



you don't but Bernanke does becuase the situation is 100% new. To say there is no problem is pure ignorance as if to say the problems of central banking are behind us. How stupid when we just had a near depression and total collapse 5 years ago!!


----------



## Kimura (Mar 12, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Our monetary system in the US is one in which the the FED issues most public sector supplied money in the form of FRNs and bank reserves. This is money originating outside of the domestic private sector, commonly referred to as HPM (High Powered Money) or Base Money. 

Secondly, there's no such thing as the government having to borrow or receive tax receipts to spend under our fiat system. Government spending/money creation is nothing more than a balance sheet operation whereby the government spends and lends by changing numbers in a bank account. 

Here's another critical concept to understand: the federal government doesn't have or not have dollars. Think about it as a football stadium. The Giants score a touchdown and conversion to throw seven points on the board. After the conversion, it's an additional one point on the scoreboard. Does anyone wonder where the stadium got that extra point? What about if they score a field goal? Do we scratch our heads and wonder where the stadium go those extra three points? Do you think stadiums should keep 'reserve points' or have a point lock box? Of course not, that's silly. The federal government is like the stadium, which doesn't have or not have points to give out. When it comes to the US Dollar, the federal government, working through the Treasury and FED, is the score keeper. They also get to make the rules. There's a huge difference between spending the currency you create and spending the currency someone else creates.

Lastly, contrary to what we learned in college, banks don't lend out or multiply their reserve balances, although they do lend out money for profit over the cost of reserves. Loans effectively create new deposits ex-nihilo. Also, since the majority of money in the US monetary system tends to be credit based,  the changing nature of this spread can have a tremendous impact on the supply and demand of credit and the economy as a whole.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 12, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



It looks like I'm not the only one familiar with Hyman Minsky:

*Bank leverage cycles*



> Galo Nuño, Carlos Thomas, 12 March 2013
> 
> Economists tend to agree that explosive deleveraging in the banking sector was a central element of the 2008 global financial crisis. This column argues that such deleveraging is far from unique. In fact, there is a &#8216;bank leverage cycle&#8217; in which bank leverage, assets and GDP ramp up and down together; and this is true across financial subsectors. Such procyclicality strengthens the case for macroprudential regulations.



Read the rest:
Bank Leverage Cycles | Vox


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



The US Government is a football stadium and gives out points?  Dude, that's one of the dumbest analogies I've ever heard.  I hope for your sake you smoked a fattie before coming up with that nonsense because if that's you operating normally then all I can say is that you have my sympathy.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 13, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yes, to point out that the federal government doesn't have or not have dollars. I'm also trying to help you understand monetary operations through some basic examples. You clearly have been spoon fed misinformation and outright lies about our monetary system. Who told you these things? I'm not being a douche, I'm genuinely curious as to who told you this. I expect this from our political class, such as the Pauls, Paul Ryan or even Obama, because they're ideologues and are have an agenda.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



You're trying to help me understand monetary operations by giving me one of the most non-sensical analogies I've ever heard?  What does a football stadium and points on a scoreboard have to do with how our Federal Government creates the money it uses to operate?  The person who is trying to feed me "misinformation" about our monetary system is *you*!  You're the one who seems to believe that the Federal Government has the ability to simply print whatever money it wants in order to pay it's debts.  I'm sorry but THAT is misinformation if not an outright lie.  How much money is created is the domain of the Federal Reserve Bank...not the Federal Government.  As to *who*  I learned about economics from?  One person was Thomas Sowell, whom I had as a professor at Amherst College.  Between you and me?  I'm quite certain that Doctor Sowell would get a laugh out of your football stadium and points analogy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



too stupid an dperfeclty liberal!!!
"The gold standard rule is also a contingent one: in the event of a well-understood emergency, such as a war, the authorities can temporarily suspend convertibility, issue fiat money to finance their expenditures, and sell debt. They understand that the debt will eventually be paid off in gold or in undepreciated paper. The public also understands that the suspension lasts only for the duration of the wartime emergency, plus some period of adjustment. Afterwards the government will adopt the deflationary policies necessary to resume convertibility at the original parity."

The gold standard contingent rule worked successfully for the core countries of the classical gold standard: the United Kingdom, France, and the United States. This was also true for the smaller countries of Western Europe and the British Dominions,


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



You argue by evading or changing the subject!!

and does this[debt] improve our standard of living??????

does more and more debt improve our standard of living more and more????

Yes or no??????????????????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> The FED simply created bank reserves to accomplish these LSAPs, so I don't see a problem going forward.




You don't but Bernanke and the world do. Who saw a problem going forward in 2006??? Is that little bit of pure ignorance ancient history. Now we are in a perfectly new spot but you're sure central banking is now a simple science that any child or Fed Chairman can manage. That's too stupid!! 

"No country has ever had a comparable increase in the size of its portfolio and unwound it in the precisely analogous way, Bernanke said in response to questions from members of the House Financial Services Committee. Japan was the only nation to use asset purchases, or quantitative easing, before the U.S. and is still in that situation, he said


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 13, 2013)

I saw the problem building in 2006 and spoke about it


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> You're the one who seems to believe that the Federal Government has the ability to simply print whatever money it wants in order to pay it's debts.  I'm sorry but THAT is misinformation if not an outright lie.



not only that but he also seems to think that debt is a good thing and the more of it we have the better our standard of lilving!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> I saw the problem building in 2006 and spoke about it


oh shut up, do you think its not perfectly obvious that you don't know word one about economics???


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 13, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> I saw the problem building in 2006 and spoke about it



Now THAT is amusing, TM!  At this point it's common knowledge that you know little to nothing about economics...which means the chances of your speaking out about any looming problems are slim and none with slim having just left town.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > I saw the problem building in 2006 and spoke about it
> ...




And if he had spoken out it would have been just a wild guess anyway!

It seems the liberal imagines he can just will education into existence.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 13, 2013)

go check the site I was on then.

justplainpolitics

Im evince over there.

Its all there


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 13, 2013)

BTW the austrian school is the short bus school of economics you silly gits


----------



## boedicca (Mar 13, 2013)

I love this thread.

Austerity in Europe means cutting the pensions of people who are already retired while increasing taxes on the underemployed.

What we are talking about in the U.S. is slowing down the rate of growth of government.

Even under the Ryan plan (about which the moonbats have the vapors), federal spending is planned to grow at 3.4% a year, with entitlements modified for those 55 and below.

These are hardly equivalent scenarios...and the sooner we enact the latter, we'll be able to avoid the former.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 13, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> go check the site I was on then.
> 
> justplainpolitics
> 
> ...



Jesus H. Christ...70,000 plus posts HERE and you post elsewhere as well!  Might be time to take off the progressive blinders and get a life...just saying...


----------



## Kimura (Mar 13, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Spending starts with Congressional Appropriations, sorry. If I'm the federal government, and I take in one trillion in taxes, for example, but I need four trillion, where do I get the additional three trillion? It's done through deficit spending. Government spending creates reserves balances, while taxes and bond destroy them. If we apply some accounting logic to the FED's balance sheet, we see that any changes to the Treasury's balance sheet effect the quantity of reserve balances in circulation. The very act of government spending creates reserve balances under out fiat system.

The US is obligated to pay all debts as they come due. Period. Nevertheless, the national debt cannot be a burden for the federal goverment or its citizens. The US has an unlimited credit card which enables it obtain new debt at interest rates  it sets. It can also create any amount of money it needs to pay off debt at whatever limit without increasing its debt, unless the government voluntarily does so by taxing more than it spends.

I'm not saying the federal government should always spend simply because it has the operational ability to do so, that would be insane. Basically, there's no such thing as the federal government not being able to afford to put some idle capacity to work. It's pretty obvious not all fiscal actions are equally efficient or the same.



> As to *who*  I learned about economics from?  One person was Thomas Sowell, whom I had as a professor at Amherst College.  Between you and me?  I'm quite certain that Doctor Sowell would get a laugh out of your football stadium and points analogy.



Actually, I've kept my posts quite elementary, without delving into too much technical detail. However, print out my posts and show them to any economist. They'll tell you my explanations are correct from the monetary and operational side. Guaranteed.

So you had Thomas Sowell for some classes? So what? I received my undergraduate degree in Economics from Bocconi Univeristy, which probably has one of the best econ departments on the Continent. I also received my MBA from the Stern School of Business. My econ professors in Italy read like a Who Who's list of economists. What the does that mean? Nothing. Does that make me special? Not in the least.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 13, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> BTW the austrian school is the short bus school of economics you silly gits



That's not entirely true. Carl Menger and his work on marginal utility was very important for the field of economics. But yeah, guys like Murray Rothbard were clueless. I don't even think the guy understood basic macroeconomics. The von Mises Institute has turned into a den of libertarian ideologues parroting praxeology as some universal truth that we all missed out on.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > BTW the austrian school is the short bus school of economics you silly gits
> ...



two silly fools calling names. Why not tell us the most substantial error they made or admit you lack the IQ to do so.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Stop it.

The gold standard was a disaster. The gold standard gave us the the Panic of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857, 1866, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1907, and the Great Depression. We're looking at a total of ten panics in the 19th century, of which five were followed by a deep recession and/or depression. Despite my issues with the FED, the US has done WAY better under a fiat system.

Also, the very nature of a gold standard requires a fixed quantity of money. In the case of France and the UK, the result was mercantilism because countries needed to obtain more sources of gold.


----------



## Norman (Mar 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Damn, You don't seriously believe this do you?

Sounds like economic school of "free stuff". 

It's pretty alarming that you have a PHD, and think debt can't be a burden cause you can just print money. As if that's no problem at all...


I can continue your line of thinking with government without a printing press. Instead of printing money they can just default, their debt account goes to zero, and people's govt debt assets account go to zero as well. NO PROBLEMO. It's this simple! WHAA! All we need to do is alter some accounts and that will cure cancer as well!

Thing is, the debt needs to be paid, and you need taxes to pay it. So people will have to pay more taxes either through inflation, or just normal taxes. No way around it. Even if you print the debt, then you can't print to spend then so you lose that, so you WILL have to pay for the debt. There is no free lunch I am afraid.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Italian economists?  Since Italy's economy has been in the shitter for so long Mr. Whipple should be running things, I'm not sure I'd be using THAT as a testimonial for your economic chops, Kimura!  If Italy has such great economists then why is the country perpetually facing bankruptcy?


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 14, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Funny.  Oldstyle, being a con tool, uses Sewell as his source over and over.  Sewell is a libertarian, closely related to a number of conservative nut case web sites, among others.  But mostly, Sewell is related to CATO, todays version of the John Birch Society.  And the primary "think tank" for the libertarian point of view.  Oddly enough, the source of payment to many willing to push their libertarian thinking.  If you want to make big bucks, coming out of college with a grad degree in, say, economics, like oh, say, Sewell, then all you have to do is push their agenda.  Which is, of course, the agenda of the Koch brothers, who FOUNDED and have RUN CATO.

So there you have it.  Oldstyle's source for economic thought.  An economist from the ragged edge of the far far far right wing.  Who is unable, of course, to provide a single successful example of the economic agenda which he pushes, as there are no successful libertarian economies.  Yet Oldstyle pushes this clown's economic theories.  Funny.  Sad, but funny.

But what is really sad is that Oldstyle has the complete ignorance needed to say that Italian economists must be stupid since the Italian economy, in his learned opinion, is not doing well.  Apparently, he thinks that economists, not politicians, make the decesions that determine the economic wellbeing of a nation.  

And, what is really, really funny is that Oldstyle, having had two whole classes in economics, can criticize the economic thoughts of anyone.  Oldstyle, who claims to have a history degree, but has spent his years in the "food services" business.  Never used his degree.  Total waste of time.  But has a job so important that he is allowed to post his conservative dogma all day on this board.  Anyone else out there that was allowed to post on a political or economic site all day while he is on the clock??


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 14, 2013)

boedicca said:


> I love this thread.
> 
> Austerity in Europe means cutting the pensions of people who are already retired while increasing taxes on the underemployed.
> 
> ...


So, I think that we can all agree that the Ryan plan is about lowering taxes and cutting gov spending.  Which has never, ever, in our history, worked when unemployment was high.  Unless, of course, you lower taxes on the poor or the middle class.  Which is not what the Ryan plan is about.  So, can you show a general income tax decrease during high unemployment that helped the economy???  Or, even more importantly, a case where decreasing gov spending during high unemployment helped??  Cause I can show where it did damage.  So, surely you must have an example where income tax decreases helped.  Or are you just pushing con dogma???


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 14, 2013)

Norman said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Your argument is spacious.  First, no one is suggesting that printing money is the singular answer.  In fact, it is the answer of last resort.  
Relative to taxes being the answer, you have that CORRECT.  But the whole answer seems to be beyond your thought process.  You may want to look at history.  Always, in every single case, when the UE rate is high, the deficit increases.  And for really, really obvious reasons.  It is because the unemployed do not pay taxes.  And they do get unemployment comp.  So, you see the deficit increase.  Go back to Reagan's term after his tax decrease, and you will see the UE rate raise constantly for over 19 months.  And the deficit increase.  Because, you see, tax revenues DECREASED.

And, in every case where the deficit has increased during these times of high unemployment, the deficit did not decrease until unemployment was back under control.  


So, the Ryan concept is backwards.  It is great for the rich because it decreases taxes.  But for the economy it would be a disaster.  You would see revenue decrease, the deficit increase, and unemployment increase.  Simple in theory, and in history.  You cut spending, then you cut jobs.  Which leads to more cuts in jobs as the unemployed reduce spending.  Which then increases the deficit.  And if you follow the Ryan logic, you would then decrease taxes and spending again.  And, you have the flush effect until someone gets a clue.  If you walk away from the political concept of decreasing taxes, which politicians push because the folks that fund them are wealthy and want tax decreases, and look at what has ever, ever worked when unemployment is high, then you will start trying to find a way to stimulate the economy through targeted government spending.  You will increase the deficit some, but as unemployment increases, those increases will become decreases.  As they always have.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

Kimura said:


> The gold standard gave us the Great Depression.



dear, according to Milton Friedman, not following the rules in place at the time for the gold standard caused the Depression! Do you disagree? Yes or No?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

Norman said:


> It's pretty alarming that you have a PHD, and think debt can't be a burden cause you can just print money. As if that's no problem at all...



yes he says $17 trillion is not a problem and neither would be $100 trillion. The more debt the stronger the economy is, in effect, his insane claim!! 


I


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



What is really, really funny is *you*, pretending that you taught economics at the college level while you were an undergrad, Tommy...when you were so ignorant about the subject you thought I was referring to an actual college campus when I mentioned different economic schools of thought.

I only mentioned Thomas Sowell because Kimura asked what my background in economics was.  He asked...I told.  You'll notice that I didn't try and embellish my background as you are so prone to doing "Professor Rshermr"!  You might learn from that...

As for how I *use* my college education?  My history degree comes in handy when I interact with others either in person or on a forum such as this.  You see, I don't have to have to blame the lack of a ficticious "private secretary" for my eighth grade level spelling and grammar.  I actually come across as someone who HAS a college degree...unlike yourself.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I think the word your looking for is "specious", Tommy...not "spacious".  Duh?  You make a box of rocks look intelligent.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 14, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Norman said:
> ...



Wow, Oldstyle.  I make a typo, and you correct it.  Must be nice to have nothing important to do in your tiny little life.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 14, 2013)

So, oldstyle, being a congenital idiot, says:


> What is really, really funny is you, pretending that you taught economics at the college level while you were an undergrad, Tommy...when you were so ignorant about the subject you thought I was referring to an actual college campus when I mentioned different economic schools of thought.



So you have said what, now, me boy, 30 or 40 times.  As you said you would not once I gave you the particulars.  But then, what the hell, me boy, you lie continually.  And have no integrity at all.



> I only mentioned Thomas Sowell because Kimura asked what my background in economics was. He asked...I told. You'll notice that I didn't try and embellish my background as you are so prone to doing "Professor Rshermr"! You might learn from that...



Perhaps you would like to show where I ever said I was a professor.  As you know, I did not.  Which makes you a liar.  Again.  But, Oldstyle, what I said is that you claim a bachelors degree in history, but you are in the food services business, with a job so insignificant that nobody cares if you are posting on this board.  I did not know that anyone could be that unimportant.  And relative to embellishing my background, I have never done so.  Which is why you keep making things up.  Poor little man.  



> As for how I use my college education? My history degree comes in handy when I interact with others either in person or on a forum such as this. You see, I don't have to have to blame the lack of a ficticious "private secretary" for my eighth grade level spelling and grammar. I actually come across as someone who HAS a college degree...unlike yourself.



So, relative to the fictitious secretary, me boy.  This shows how insignificant that you really are, doesn't it, Oldstyle.  After 20 or 30 years of working, out of college, I had a private secretary, which I mentioned as a simple matter of fact.  And you are so impressed with the concept that you call me a liar.  Sorry, me boy.  I do not lie.  Never have.  And, of course, I have offered to pay you if you want to come on out and prove it.  $10K if I can not prove what you say are lies.  But then, what the hell, Oldstyle, you just run your mouth with personal attacks because you can not prove anything, and you know I am not lying about anything.  
So, lets see if you lied lately.  How about a week or so in December, when you asked the same question over and over.  And I answered it over and over.  And you pretended that you did not ever get an answer.  Here you go, oldstyle.  Proof that you lie.  And, if you don't like that one, I can provide another example easily:  (your questions are in quotes, with my response after.  Simple copy and paste, me boy)

12-19-2012, 08:52 PM     Post 314   


> *Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy* to boost said economy and create jobs?


Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.

12-20-2012, 12:15 PM  Post 413


> Substance? Dude, *I asked you a simple question...to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in the midst of a slow economy* and you give me several paragraphs of nothing. Now you want to argue substance? OK...then tell me what school of economics the Obama Administration is basing this tax increase on?


I told you what they are doing, as nearly as I can tell, oldstyle. Obviously you can not or choose not to read. So, which one do you think. Obviously you are not going to believe anything I say, regardless of how obvious it is. so, do what cons do. Make something up and believe it. dipshit.

12-26-2012, 09:28 AM     Post 402

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle 

*So what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs, Rshermr?*
You and I have many, many posts back and forth. And I have told you this many, many times. I have also explained the following:
The basic belief by most economists is that tax decreases to the wealthy do no real good as far as stimulus is concerned. As reagan learned, across the board tax cuts are a really, really bad idea, because most of the tax reduction goes to the wealthiest taxpayers. 
So, you see, oldstyle, it is not that tax decreases can not be stimulative, it is that tax decreases to the wealthy are not. Because, as I have told you before, they do not spend the money. Now, tax idecreases to the middle class and lower are stimulative. Because they spend the money. 
Here is an article that explains this, again. I used this link before, and you seem to have ignored it.\\

DailyFinance - News and Advice for a Lifetime of Financial Decisions

So, again, oldstyle, try to understand this. The plan is stimulus. It is not tax increases. But, oldstyle, tax decreases to the middle class and below are stimulative. And the idea is NOT tax increases or decreases. It is STIMULUS.
I try and I try to educate you, oldstyle. But it just does not take. So, I am sure you will be back calling me a liar again. What is it, oldstyle, that you are compensating for? 

So, oldstye says:
Quote:
Desperate? LOL 





> *I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question *with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.


I pulled nothing from any site, oldstyle, except the link in the last post that backed what I said. dipshit. And I have answered your question, ad nausium. You seem unable to understand the kings English. I have said, over and over, multiple economic theories support what I am saying. It is called stimulus spending, oldstyle. You are fixated on the tax increases, because that is not what the theories are about. Tax increases, me boy, are one way to generate revenue needed for stimulus spending. If, on the very unlikely event, you have the money sitting around you do not need to increase taxes. Then, oldstyle, as I have also said multiple times, if you do not have the revenue available, and you do not wish to raise taxes, you COULD borrow. Up to you, oldstyle, either pay as you go with taxes, or borrow and directly increase the national debt. 

 12-26-2012, 01:23 PM      Post 404
Quote:


> It's a simple question, Rshermr. One that an economics major that "taught" the subject at the college level should be able to answer easily...yet you can't.


I can. And I have. Multiple times. Not my problem you can not understand. And that you want to keep asking the same stupid question time after time.

 12-26-2012, 01:23 PM     Post 405
Quote:


> Do you REALLY not understand that taxes don't create money...taxes simply take money away from the private sector and gives it to the public sector?


Again, showing desperation, oldstyle. Saying the same thing over and over. We have discussed this before. I provided links, you could not. Same old thing. 
So, oldstyle, once again, it is not about the taxes, it is about the stimulus spending tax increases allow. So, go complain to the Reagan admin. Tax increases worked for them. And for Roosevelt. And for Clinton. As you well know. 
Relative to that money going to the public sector, oldstyle, same thing. I have explained why reagan did those nasty tax increases. Because, by using that money to spend stimulatively, the money went right back to the private sector. To contractors, to private suppliers, to barbers, to retailers, and on and on. Is this just too complex for you to understand??? 

So, there you go, oldstyle.  And that was just a few of over 20 posts asking the same question, and pretending that I had not answered the question.  Funny.  I kept answering to see how many times you would play your little childish game, and how many times you would try the same lie.  Want more, Oldstyle.  Or more examples of you lying.  And, of course, you can not provide a single case in which I have lied.  Because I never do.  Because this post is not nearly important enough to loose integrity over, me boy.  Assuming that you had any, which you do not.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, I think that we can all agree that the Ryan plan is about lowering taxes and cutting gov spending.  Which has never, ever, in our history, worked when unemployment was high.



Econ 101 for you: actually its the only thing that can work since the government does not invent new products and so cant make the economy grow. In sum, the less money the government has the better, and the more the private sector has the better.

Don't ever forget your Econ 101. The economy grew from the stone age to here because the private sector invented new stuff, not because libturd soviet Solyndra bureaucrats  taxed money away from, say, venture capitalists so they could then fund fewer new ventures like Amazon Microsoft Google Apple.

Not so hard is it


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, I think that we can all agree that the Ryan plan is about lowering taxes and cutting gov spending.  Which has never, ever, in our history, worked when unemployment was high.
> ...


Yup.  It is simple.  Totally untrue.  But for you, simple is key.  

Lets see.  What did the gov. invent.  
1.  The internet.  
2.  Jet aircraft
3.  Computers
4.  Radar technology
5.  GPS Systems

We could go on for a couple of hours.  So, you are wrong again, as usual.
And, as usual, your response to my post had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.  

So, Ed, is ignorance bliss?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Lets see.  What did the gov. invent.
> 1.  The internet.



too stupid. If they have an idea for space travel or something and then hire private companies to make it possible you'd hardly say libturd bureaucrats invented space travel. Republican capitalist companies did!!

Lets take the internet:telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet." 
It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happensand about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way.

For many technologists, the idea of the Internet traces to Vannevar Bush, the presidential science adviser during World War II who oversaw the development of radar and the Manhattan Project. In a 1946 article in The Atlantic titled "As We May Think," Bush defined an ambitious peacetime goal for technologists: Build what he called a "memex" through which "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified."

That fired imaginations, and by the 1960s technologists were trying to connect separate physical communications networks into one global networka "world-wide web." The federal government was involved, modestly, via the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Its goal was not maintaining communications during a nuclear attack, and it didn't build the Internet. Robert Taylor, who ran the ARPA program in the 1960s, sent an email to fellow technologists in 2004 setting the record straight: "The creation of the Arpanet was not motivated by considerations of war. The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks."

If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 14, 2013)

Norman said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I never said I have a Phd in economics. I have a Bachelors in Economics and Finance from Bocconi and my MBA from Stern. 

You keep repeating these talking points, even though I've done my best to educate you on the operational realities of our monetary system. The thing is, 99% of people who work on the bond side of the business realize many of these things, minus Rick Santelli, who probably suffered brain damage as a small child.

Taxes function to regulate aggregate demand and drive money, there's only so many examples I can give you. I also tried to clear up the 'inflation' and 'money printing' memes to no avail. Whether you like it or not, under a fiat system, government spending precedes taxes and borrowing. Any taxes and borrowing are done with money that has already been spent. The government creates money ex-nihilo, we're no longer on a gold standard. This is why money creation is a balance sheet operation at the end of the day.

In terms of inflation, I also tried to give detailed historical examples, and attempted to explain the differences between demand-pull and cost-push inflation. If the economy was at full capacity and we were at full employment, I would also worry about inflation, but we're nowhere near that metric. We have all this excess capacity and high unemployment, yet people are babbling about inflation in a very incoherent and ignorant fashion. If you believe inflation is simply an increase in the supply of money, you we're paying attention in any of your economic classes, I'm sorry to say. 

I also tried to point out how every liability has a corresponding asset. This is basic double-entry bookkeeping, forget about economic concepts. The US debt, as a liability of the government, is an asset to the the public, which is why the US debt is nothing more than the total net holdings of the US economy, in the form of Treasuries (savings accounts), at the FED. Hence, why it reflects the private sector's desire to save. This is nothing more than real world accounting logic. What's so confusing about accounting identities?

Lastly, where did I ever mention a free lunch? Money is essentially a social unit of account, correct? The Dollar derives its value from a combination of seigniorage, production, taxes, regulations and legal tender laws. There's nothing mystical or esoteric about this.

A part of me wants to get into much more detail, but I feel like I'm spinning my wheels. Economics is a social science at best, people can debate and formulate macro concepts, micro concepts, labor concepts, and trade concepts indefinitely, but the operational nature of our monetary system is set in stone, because it's based on real world accounting logic and accounting identities.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

Kimura said:


> The thing is, 99% of people who work on the bond side of the business realize many of these things, minus Rick Santelli, who probably suffered brain damage as a small child.



Tell us genius is there an Econ 101 text that realizes it?? Do you still say the higher our debt above $17 trillion the higher our standard of living???

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow??


----------



## Kimura (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, 99% of people who work on the bond side of the business realize many of these things, minus Rick Santelli, who probably suffered brain damage as a small child.
> ...



Jesus H Christ.

What part of 'for every liability there must be a corresponding asset' don't you understand?  

Deficit spending, under our fiat system, _creates net financial assets_ for the 10,876th time. 

The public debt is basically private wealth and the interest payments should be viewed as private income. The 'US debt' is really just the accrued budget deficits from years past. The various budget deficits have added net financial assets to the private sector, which creates the demand for real goods and services that have enabled Americans to see continued income growth. This very income growth has enabled Americans to accrue financial assets at far quicker pace than we would have been possible without deficits. So yeah, a higher standard of living is the understatement of the year, Ed.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

Kimura said:


> So yeah, a higher standard of living is the understatement of the year, Ed.



so are you saying that the more deeply we go in debt above $17 trillion the higher our standard of living will be??? Yes or No. Would 100 trillion be optimum or still higher?


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Lets see.  What did the gov. invent.
> ...


Jesus, you are stupid.  The internet was based on Arpanet.  Plain and simple.  Funny, me boy, how you never provide links.  Could it be because you are posting dogma from a conservative source?  And, me boy, you just posted half truths.  No one ever said the gov launched the internet, you twit.  Nor did anyone say that there were not inventions necessary for development of the internet that may not have been gov financed.  Arpanet, me poor ignorant con, as even you should know, was never the internet.  It was, however, the infrastructure  that provided the majority of the initial work to produce and launch the internet.  Damn, you are a con tool with a total lack of any integrity.  Dipshit.
Here.  This is an actual link.  You know, a link, which you do not provide.  To an actual nonpartial source.  And this source provides actual true information about the development of the internet, and DARPA  and ARPANET.  Even you should be capable of followint the history.  Though I know you do not care.  You simply want to do what you are paid to do, which is post libertarian dogma.  God, you are dumb.

A Brief History of the Internet
A Brief History of the Internet


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.

99% of new products come from the private sector and yet liberals want to chock the private sector to expand the economy!!
Would you choke a man to help him breath, a liberal would!!


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


As I said, you are a dipshit.  TCP/IP is simply a protocal for packaging data.  It is not, you twit, the internet.
Go look up hyperlinks.  And come back and tell us what it has to do with the internet.  You are truly a congenital idiot.  I gave you a nice simple source to learn something.  Obviously you did not bother reading it.  But, nice job of showing that you are an idiot.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > So yeah, a higher standard of living is the understatement of the year, Ed.
> ...



It's like a religion with you.

Budget goals should never be a policy target. What the federal government should be focused on is real goals, which I would define as an increase in GDP anchored by full employment.

If we look at this from a macro angle, the spending and tax decisions of the federal government should be that spending in the economy is enough to produce a level of real output at which firms will employ the total available labor force. Any budget plans should work to serve this goal.

I'm not saying budget deficits don't matter, but the _only_ risk of budget deficits is inflation, not any insolvency or talk of such nonsense. The goal of government should be that spending is enough to employ all productive capacity at the end of the day.

Lastly, I would like to point out that inflation is a risk with any type of overspending, whether it be the federal government, export, investment, or even consumption. Any part of aggregate demand could tilt the economy to that precipice where we see inflation. Increased government spending is not always to the culprit.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Here are some sources that say that Austerity is NOT working.  And they say that Austerity is making things worse where it is being used.  These sources are all economists, and well respected in the field.  They are not politicians.  Here is a short list:
> 
> Mark Blyth is Professor of International Political Economy at Brown University.
> Austerity
> ...



Good links...

Austerity won't work in the the United States, because of surpluses, which are defined as tax revenues that exceed spending, actually destroy net financial assets in the domestic private sector. It will inevitably cause labor and capital to atrophy, sort of like what's happening in Europe.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 14, 2013)

Here are some sources that say that Austerity is NOT working. And they say that Austerity is making things worse where it is being used. These sources are all economists, and well respected in the field. They are not politicians. Here is a short list:

Mark Blyth is Professor of International Political Economy at Brown University.
Austerity
The History of a Dangerous Idea
Oxford University Press: Austerity: Mark Blyth

Paul Krugman: Austerity Is So Wrong!
Paul Krugman: Austerity Is So Wrong! - The Daily Beast

Europe Pushed to &#8216;Suicide&#8217; on Austerity, Stiglitz Says
Joseph Stiglitz, Europe Pushed to &#8216;Suicide&#8217; on Austerity, Stiglitz Says

Nobel Winner Stiglitz Warns Job-Killing Austerity Measures Hurt Economies
Nobel Winner Stiglitz Warns Job-Killing Austerity Measures Hurt Economies - Bloomberg

An amazing mea culpa from the IMF&#8217;s chief economist on austerity
An amazing mea culpa from the IMF?s chief economist on austerity

Austerity in theory and in practice
Fiscal policy: Austerity in theory and in practice | The Economist

Why Politicians Ignore Economists On Austerity
Why Politicians Ignore Economists On Austerity

European, US Austerity Drive is Suicidal: Nobel Economist Stiglitz
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/04/27-1

Voters, Economists Agree: Austerity Not The Answer
Voters, Economists Agree: Austerity Not The Answer : NPR

This list is simply a short list of economists, and took a few minutes to put together. I did not find an economist who believes that austerity is a successful strategy. So, can anyone post some economists who believe that Austerity is working, or that it will work???


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You just proved...once again...that for someone who SAYS he has a college education...you can't seem to post anything that could pass muster in a High School freshman English class.

I would never bust anyone's chops over the occaisional "typo" but your posts are so gaffe prone as to be laughable for someone who claims he's a college man.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 14, 2013)

"Perhaps you would like to show where I ever said I was a professor. As you know, I did not. Which makes you a liar. Again. But, Oldstyle, what I said is that you claim a bachelors degree in history, but you are in the food services business, with a job so insignificant that nobody cares if you are posting on this board. I did not know that anyone could be that unimportant. And relative to embellishing my background, I have never done so. Which is why you keep making things up. Poor little man."

I take you're talking about the following post?

I only mentioned Thomas Sowell because Kimura asked what my background in economics was. He asked...I told. You'll notice that I didn't try and embellish my background as you are so prone to doing "Professor Rshermr"! You might learn from that...

I know that you're as clueless about the English language as you are about economics and most OTHER subjects, Tommy...I'll give you the 411 on how this works.  When someone encloses a word or phrase in " " marks, they are giving you a hint that they are not using the word or phrase in a conventional manner.  Quite often, it's used to denote SARCASM, which was how it was used here.  When I put Professor Rshermr in " " marks I was poking fun at you...giving you that title in a SARCASTIC manner.

Once again...you've proven yourself to be one of the duller tools in the shed...


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 14, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Let me translate that for you:   I know so little, and have been again caught lying.  So, I will find a typo or misspelling.  
You are such a little person, oldstyle.  Anyone worrying about, and making a big deal about, a single character, has just proven exactly what he is:  A small minded clown without the intellectual capacity to make a rational argument.  You have the balls to call someone names, dipshit???  You are trully delusional.  Sorry, but dealing with you is a task.  I am used to working with people that have class.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> "Perhaps you would like to show where I ever said I was a professor. As you know, I did not. Which makes you a liar. Again. But, Oldstyle, what I said is that you claim a bachelors degree in history, but you are in the food services business, with a job so insignificant that nobody cares if you are posting on this board. I did not know that anyone could be that unimportant. And relative to embellishing my background, I have never done so. Which is why you keep making things up. Poor little man."
> 
> I take you're talking about the following post?
> 
> ...


Oldstyle, you are a clown.  I fully understand the use of quotation marks.  You just made a statement that is completely wrong.  Here is the actual definition for the common use of quotation marks:  





> Quotation marks(") are used to enclose words that are quoted from the original source.


How to Use Quotation Marks Correctly (with Cheat Sheet)

So, here you were telling me what an English expert you were.  I am so disappointed in you.  So, per the definition, the quotation marks indicated what had been originally said, by me.  So, are you just ignorant and annoying, or are you lying.  

Once again...you've proven yourself to be one of the duller tools in the shed...

But that was not the point of that post, now was it, Oldstyle.  The part of the post that you cut off was the point, me boy.  It showed you lying over and over.  Knowingly.  You were caught lying in your own words.  Funny how you forgot to comment.  A person with actual integrity would not have cut it out and would have had the honesty to address what he had done.  That, of course, assumes that you had integrity. Which, of course, you do not.  So, here is the part of the post that you ignored, Oldstyle.  In red, this time, so you can not miss it.   Want to comment.  And yes, I know what you will try to say next, and it will not work.  But it will be fun to watch.  

So, lets see if you lied lately. How about a week or so in December, when you asked the same question over and over. And I answered it over and over. And you pretended that you did not ever get an answer. Here you go, oldstyle. Proof that you lie. And, if you don't like that one, I can provide another example easily: (your questions are in quotes, with my response after. Simple copy and paste, me boy)

12-19-2012, 08:52 PM Post 314 



> *Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?*



Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.

12-20-2012, 12:15 PM Post 413



> Substance? Dude, *I asked you a simple question...to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in the midst of a slow economy *and you give me several paragraphs of nothing. Now you want to argue substance? *OK...then tell me what school of economics the Obama Administration is basing this tax increase on?*



I told you what they are doing, as nearly as I can tell, oldstyle. Obviously you can not or choose not to read. So, which one do you think. Obviously you are not going to believe anything I say, regardless of how obvious it is. so, do what cons do. Make something up and believe it. dipshit.

12-26-2012, 09:28 AM Post 402

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle 



> *So what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs,* Rshermr?



You and I have many, many posts back and forth. And I have told you this many, many times. I have also explained the following:
The basic belief by most economists is that tax decreases to the wealthy do no real good as far as stimulus is concerned. As reagan learned, across the board tax cuts are a really, really bad idea, because most of the tax reduction goes to the wealthiest taxpayers. 
So, you see, oldstyle, it is not that tax decreases can not be stimulative, it is that tax decreases to the wealthy are not. Because, as I have told you before, they do not spend the money. Now, tax idecreases to the middle class and lower are stimulative. Because they spend the money. 
Here is an article that explains this, again. I used this link before, and you seem to have ignored it.\\

DailyFinance - News and Advice for a Lifetime of Financial Decisions

So, again, oldstyle, try to understand this. The plan is stimulus. It is not tax increases. But, oldstyle, tax decreases to the middle class and below are stimulative. And the idea is NOT tax increases or decreases. It is STIMULUS.
I try and I try to educate you, oldstyle. But it just does not take. So, I am sure you will be back calling me a liar again. What is it, oldstyle, that you are compensating for? 

So, oldstye says:
Quote:
Desperate? LOL



> *I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy *and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.



I pulled nothing from any site, oldstyle, except the link in the last post that backed what I said. dipshit. And I have answered your question, ad nausium. You seem unable to understand the kings English. I have said, over and over, multiple economic theories support what I am saying. It is called stimulus spending, oldstyle. You are fixated on the tax increases, because that is not what the theories are about. Tax increases, me boy, are one way to generate revenue needed for stimulus spending. If, on the very unlikely event, you have the money sitting around you do not need to increase taxes. Then, oldstyle, as I have also said multiple times, if you do not have the revenue available, and you do not wish to raise taxes, you COULD borrow. Up to you, oldstyle, either pay as you go with taxes, or borrow and directly increase the national debt. 

12-26-2012, 01:23 PM Post 404



> *It's a simple question, Rshermr. One that an economics major that "taught" the subject at the college level should be able to answer easily...yet you can't.*



I can. And I have. Multiple times. Not my problem you can not understand. And that you want to keep asking the same stupid question time after time.

12-26-2012, 01:23 PM Post 405


> *Do you REALLY not understand that taxes don't create money.*.taxes simply take money away from the private sector and gives it to the public sector?


.

Again, showing desperation, oldstyle. Saying the same thing over and over. We have discussed this before. I provided links, you could not. Same old thing. 
So, oldstyle, once again, it is not about the taxes, it is about the stimulus spending tax increases allow. So, go complain to the Reagan admin. Tax increases worked for them. And for Roosevelt. And for Clinton. As you well know. 
Relative to that money going to the public sector, oldstyle, same thing. I have explained why reagan did those nasty tax increases. Because, by using that money to spend stimulatively, the money went right back to the private sector. To contractors, to private suppliers, to barbers, to retailers, and on and on. Is this just too complex for you to understand??? 

So, there you go, oldstyle. And that was just a few of over 20 posts asking the same question, and pretending that I had not answered the question. Funny. I kept answering to see how many times you would play your little childish game, and how many times you would try the same lie. Want more, Oldstyle. Or more examples of you lying. And, of course, you can not provide a single case in which I have lied. Because I never do. Because this post is not nearly important enough to loose integrity over, me boy. Assuming that you had any, which you do not.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 15, 2013)

I don't know what's more amusing, Tommy...that you think that drivel you posted ever answered the question I asked...or that you think the changing of one character of a word doesn't mean much.

Of course none of that even approaches the humor of you claiming to be an executive at BP...or of you having taught college economics classes as an undergrad.

I've come to the conclusion that you accuse others of being a liar so often because you just assume others lie as much as you do.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 15, 2013)

So, Oldstyle, incapable of conversation free of lies, says:


> I don't know what's more amusing, Tommy...that you think that drivel you posted ever answered the question I asked...or that you think the changing of one character of a word doesn't mean much.


No, I am sure that to you, the changing of one character means a lot, Oldstyle.  Because you have so little of importance in your life.  And, because you need a distraction since you are unable to discuss the subject of any thread.  Just continual stupid, juvenile attacks.  You obviously have a very small and meaningless life.

So, lets see why the drivel you say I posted that answered nothing you asked??  Here is one of the 20 or so exchanges when I responded to your continuing question.


12-19-2012, 08:52 PM Post 314 



> Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?


And I responded with:


> Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.



Clear as a bell, me boy.  And you did not ask for clarification of my response, should you have been confused by clear English.  What I said is that the question you asked was irrelivent, because the subject was deficit spending.  Stimulus spending.  So, perhaps you can explain why you were so confused, and why you did not ask for clarification in any of the over 20 times you asked that same question and I answered it.  
But then, it is obvious.  You were lying.  The question had been answered over and over.  And you just kept wasting my, and any one else's time, by playing you silly little game of re-asking and lying.  Re-asking and lying.  Over, and over.  

So, there you go.  Caught in an obvious lie.  No integrity, me boy.  None at all.




> Of course none of that even approaches the humor of you claiming to be an executive at BP.


Ah.  That lie again.  You simply have to lie, Oldstyle.  Stupid, but that is what you do.  What is that, three or four times over the past week you have said I claimed to be an executive at BP.  Which I never said.  Never.  And you are unable to produce a post of mine where I said anything close to what you say I said.  Because you are lying again.  Lying just comes naturally for you, Oldstyle.  



> or of you having taught college economics classes as an undergrad.



So, lets see what I said when you asked that I explain my econ teaching experience.  Because, you see, you are making what I did look like I was responsible for teaching an entire econ class.  So, here is the text of what was said when you questioned it:

Oldstyle said:


> Let's clear this up. I don't "question your degrees"...I question your story that you were allowed to teach a college level course as an undergraduate, something I've never heard of happening at ANY reputable college. When you claim that...I do indeed think you're lying. I only hope for your sake that you're also lying about getting a degree IN economics because if you DID and you're this ignorant about the subject...I find that really sad for you.



My Response:


> Oldstyle. you just gave me whiplash. You said earlier today that I obviously do not have a degree in economics because I did not know what Keynsian economics was. And I am not sure what subject you are refering to above, but it looks like the subject is economics. So, Oldstyle, I can go get your exact quote and you can re read it, but I think you know better.
> Now, one more time, oldstyle. I did not lie, and I never will. I told you what I did in college. So, let me say it one more time. Try to concentrate, please, because I do not feel that I have any reason at all to explain anything at all to you about what I did over 40 years ago:
> 1. I worked for Clair Lillard, a phd in economics who specialized in international economics, particularly as it related to South America.
> 2. Clair had Econ 100 to teach. It was a course in econ for non majors. It was, in other words, not a class that provided credit toward an economics degree as far as the economics credits required.
> ...



So, there you go, Oldstyle.  Fully explained though I had no reason to.  But then, I did so because you indicated you would stop wasting time with the efforts to question my teaching part of the class.  I did not know much of you then, or I would have not bothered.  Because, of course, you were not a man of you word.  Obviously.  Now I am fully aware that you have no integrity.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 15, 2013)

Gee, Tommy...why would any college let undergrads teach classes?  That's what they "pay" their professors to do.  And if they ever *did*...why would any professor select someone who obviously knows as little about the subject as you do, to teach for them?  

Yet according to you...LOTS of college professors at the college you went to (eye-roll) did just that!  Not just your econ professor but others as well?  Amazingly, no OTHER college I know of lets it's professors assign their classroom lectures to undergrads.  But at YOUR college it was commonplace?  All kinds of * other* professors in *other* classes used undergrads to teach for them?  Gotta love ya, Tommy!  When you tell a lie you tell a whopper and you stick to it come Hell or high water!


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 15, 2013)

Here's a "hint" for you, Tommy...

When someone asks for an explanation to something that sounds unlikely?  (Like you having a degree in anything)  Giving them an explanation that is even MORE unlikely than what they were questioning is generally NOT going to satisfy them.

It's the whole "give them enough rope to hang themselves" concept.  In your case it was you claiming to be well versed in economics and backing that rather hard to believe (given what you've shown here by such things as not knowing that someone using the term the Chicago School was not a referrence to a actual college in Chicago but to a school of economic thought) claim with another even harder to believe claim...that you *taught * college level economics as an undergrad.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Here's a "hint" for you, Tommy...
> 
> When someone asks for an explanation to something that sounds unlikely?  (Like you having a degree in anything)  Giving them an explanation that is even MORE unlikely than what they were questioning is generally NOT going to satisfy them.
> 
> It's the whole "give them enough rope to hang themselves" concept.  In your case it was you claiming to be well versed in economics and backing that rather hard to believe (given what you've shown here by such things as not knowing that someone using the term the Chicago School was not a referrence to a actual college in Chicago but to a school of economic thought) claim with another even harder to believe claim...that you *taught * college level economics as an undergrad.


Right.  Caught, red handed, lying like a rug.  So, you simply attack again.  Without facts, of course.  Just your opinion.  Here is the thing, Oldstyle.  No one has any interest in the opinion of a LIAR.  And funny, when caught lying, as I have caught you time after time, you immediately attack, trying to prove that I have lied.  

So, Oldstyle, you should really eo a search to prove that I said that I had been a BP executive.  If I wrote it in this post, then you could find it in under 5 minutes.  Yet you can not come up with proof of what you have said.  That I said I was a BP executive, that is.  Because you know that I did not EVER, at any time, say that I had been.  Nor anything that could even be confused as such.  Because, of course, you were lying.  Again.  Another simple case of Oldstyle LYING.  Another of many.  
Now, most would be ashamed.  If you had integrity, you would provide a  mea culpa .  Because lying is just part of what you do.  If you are totally ignorant of economic policy, then you need to lie, in your little pea brain.  Because you can not argue based on fact.  Sad, Oldstyle.  
By the way, you should probably loose the "eye roll" comments.  Makes you sound like a ignorant teenager.  And we all know you are not a teenager.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Here's a "hint" for you, Tommy...
> 
> When someone asks for an explanation to something that sounds unlikely?  (Like you having a degree in anything)  Giving them an explanation that is even MORE unlikely than what they were questioning is generally NOT going to satisfy them.
> 
> It's the whole "give them enough rope to hang themselves" concept.  In your case it was you claiming to be well versed in economics and backing that rather hard to believe (given what you've shown here by such things as not knowing that someone using the term the Chicago School was not a referrence to a actual college in Chicago but to a school of economic thought) claim with another even harder to believe claim...that you *taught * college level economics as an undergrad.


But you are a proven liar.  Proven many times.  Why should anyone care about your opinon.  

Jesus, Oldstyle, are you really that stupid??  Or simply a little person with no life, nothing that you have ever accomplished, reduced to trying to bring others down to your level?  Or both.  Really obvious, Oldstyle, it is BOTH.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 15, 2013)

Hmmm...unlike *you* I'm content with my life...content to the point where I don't have to embellish it by claiming to have taught college economics courses.  So who REALLY has the "little" life?

And pointing out that what you claim is absurd isn't bringing you down to anyone's level.  You bring *yourself* down by making ridiculous claims like that one.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Hmmm...unlike *you* I'm content with my life...content to the point where I don't have to embellish it by claiming to have taught college economics courses.  So who REALLY has the "little" life?
> 
> And pointing out that what you claim is absurd isn't bringing you down to anyone's level.  You bring *yourself* down by making ridiculous claims like that one.


But Oldstyle.  Of course you are not unhappy with your life.  Study the subject, and you will find that stupid people are never unhappy with their lives.  Visit a mental institution, and you will see a whole lot of people who are happy with their lives.  I would be ashamed, but I am sure you are happy.  Good for you, Oldstyle.  No need for you to ever set your aspirations beyond what you are capable of.


----------



## Grandma (Mar 16, 2013)

Oldstyle,

Kent State has undergrad teachers in all departments.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 16, 2013)

Grandma said:


> Oldstyle,
> 
> Kent State has undergrad teachers in all departments.


thanks for that, Grandma.  I know Oldstyle knows that it is not unusual.  Just a game he plays.  But I do appreciate someone else filling in that answer.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm...unlike *you* I'm content with my life...content to the point where I don't have to embellish it by claiming to have taught college economics courses.  So who REALLY has the "little" life?
> ...



I hate to point out the obvious here, Tommy...but if "I'm" the stupid one...then why am I always having to correct your 8th grade level grammar?  Duh?

I've been successful with my career.  Why would I be "ashamed"?  You on the other hand seem to have to make up things about your life which can only lead one to believe that you haven't been very successful with yours.  So who's the person who's really ashamed?


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 16, 2013)

Grandma said:


> Oldstyle,
> 
> Kent State has undergrad teachers in all departments.



I'll check that out, Grandma.  I find it rather hard to believe to be quite honest with you.  I've never seen that practice at any of the colleges that I've attended.  I've got a query into the Kent State admissions office now.  Let's see what they have to say about your claim.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 16, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Right, Oldstyle.  A history degree and a job in food services.  Good for you.  I did not say you should be ashamed.  I simply said I would feel shamed if I accomplished nothing more than to toss my college degree away and washed dishes all my life.  You, on the other hand, feel no concerns.  Good for you.
As for making things up about my background, simple.  Never, ever happened.  So how about your recent lie about me, Oldstyle.  A lie made up from whole cloth.  You remember, the BP executive job you said I claimed.  If you want to check something out, use the search capabilities of this board.  You could find if I ever posted such a claim in a couple minutes.  But you will not, because I did not make such a claim.  Just another lie on your part.  And, if I had posted such a claim, you would have posted it, several times by now.  But you can not, because you are lying.  Sad fellow.  Very, very sad.  You simply ignore my statement that you are lying about the BP Exec thing, because you know that you are lying.  Which, me boy, proves that you are lying.  AGAIN!!!

You claimed I did not have a college degree.  Easy enough to find out.  If you are in to checking with universities, simply check Central Washington University for 1969 and Oregon State University for 1971.  But you know better.  And you have had your chance, still open to you, to come on out and we will see if my degrees can be validated.  $10K to you if I do not have either degree.  Hell, $20K if I have neither.  Or, you pay me $10K for the trouble, when I prove the degrees.  But you will refuse again, because you know you are full of crap, me boy.  Just posting personal attacks.  Which seems all you are capable of.

Or the claim that I had a personal secretary.  Jesus, that was an interesting one.  Why you think that is bumping my rep is a mystery, oldstyle.  But again, a standing offer to provide you $10K if I am lying.  But again, you simply post personal attacks based on evidence of any kind.  And refuse the offer to prove your claim.  Because you know you will loose again.  Just another personal attack.

So, now you claim you have a question in to Kent State to see if they have undergrads teaching subjects.  Calling another person posting here a liar.  And you would expect anyone to believe you are actually checking anything?  Again, me boy, why would anyone believe a proven liar?

So, that is what you do.  Post personal attacks over and over and over.  Just plain garbage.  Wasting everyone's time.  What a waste of space you are, Oldstyle.  What a total and complete waste of time.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 16, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


By the way, Oldstyle.  When you started with the "undergrads don't teach classes at the college level" refrain, you asked me to provide you with specific information.  And, you stated, as I recall, that if I did so, it would prove that I was not lying.  And you would eat your words, or some such.  I provided the information you requested, yet you have gone on for months saying that I am lying.  So, me boy. You lied again.  No integrity, Oldstyle.  None at all.  A person with integrity would keep their word.  But you just ignore your commitments, and keep on with the personal attacks.  Damn, it must by awful being you.  A person with integrity would be ashamed, but you, oldstyle, have no shame.


----------



## Norman (Mar 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Here are some sources that say that Austerity is NOT working. And they say that Austerity is making things worse where it is being used. These sources are all economists, and well respected in the field. They are not politicians. Here is a short list:
> 
> Mark Blyth is Professor of International Political Economy at Brown University.
> Austerity
> ...




You can find out all those links but can't find a single year in history that the economy had reduced taxes and a fading recession at the same time? It's pretty hard to believe such an individual could graduate.

Let me ask you similar annoying question to you as your defacto question.

Find me a SINGLE economy that practiced true austerity, that has had a deficit.


Perhaps now you understand what austerity is, and what it isn't. (answers you both questions at once: What is real austerity, and what it is supposed to do, for the 10th time).



As for Kimura, it sounds like you graduated as bookkeeper, your defintions are very non standard. That doesn't matter, what matters is saying things like: "The private sector has net assets because of debt", mean nothing at all. The first thing you would have to do after such statment is to explain "Then what?", as every bookeeping item behaves that exact same way. It tells you nothing of real world.

Let's divide an economy into two items. We call the first part "china", the second "USA".  Yeah, one parts deficit is net asset of the 2nd part's. Does that mean deficit is good? of course not, but not necessarily the other way around either. You can do similar thing with any kind of division of an economy into "sectors". In your world there is two, Goernment and private sector, such imaginary division explains nothing though.

And in the real world, these deficits are a PROBLEM, that must be dealt with. There is a limit on deficit spending on bad times, if the govt policy would not always be to "go into more debt", perhaps it COULD spend more in the bad times without ultimately turning into Greece. And god forbid, perhaps there could actually be some savings that would be directed to actual investment so the economy could grow in the long run. The 0% interest rates that are used to 


Anyway, now that yet a other legendary troll "Rshermr" has entered this discussion, it remains to be seen if we can discuss this any further without all hell breaking loose.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 16, 2013)

So, Norman Says:


> You can find out all those links but can't find a single year in history that the economy had reduced taxes and a fading recession at the same time? It's pretty hard to believe such an individual could graduate.


Look, if you are saying austerity works, great.  Show the country in which it is working.  Relative to the US, you are asking me to show you WHAT?  I said you can not show a case where unemployment was reduced as a result of decreasing income taxes to the wealthy or as a general tax decrease to all..  Seems to be true.  If there is such a case, it should be easy to prove it.  Just a simple link from an impartial source.  You failed that one.



> Let me ask you similar annoying question to you as your defacto question.
> 
> Find me a SINGLE economy that practiced true austerity, that has had a deficit.


Asking what???
Ah, true austerity.  Want to define what that means to you??  I am sure you will find something in any austerity effort that would make it not "true" austerity to you.  But, if you asking what country had a deficit, when austerity was attempted, then you are truly naive.  I am not aware of ANY that did not have a deficit when austerity started, and that still do not have as much of a deficit after austerity was attempted.  Obviously you did not look at the subject before asking this question.




> Perhaps now you understand what austerity is, and what it isn't. (answers you both questions at once: What is real austerity, and what it is supposed to do, for the 10th time).


Your question is unreadable.  Perhaps a simple English class would help you.  By the way, I must have missed the first 9 times.  Austerity, me boy, is simply reduction of budget deficits by raising taxes/fees and lowering spending.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2013)

Norman said:


> Kimura: "The private sector has net assets because of debt", mean nothing at all.



Yes, Kimura claims the more debt the better for the economy. I asked him if $50 or $100 trillion would be really really helpful. He said, yes!

He's about like Rushermer who claims the more you tax an economy the more you help it grow. This is like saying the more you choke a man the more you help him breath.

Neither can explain; both stick to it merely on the basis of ignorance and MSM brainwashing.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura: "The private sector has net assets because of debt", mean nothing at all.
> ...


Yes, but then you lie.  I never said taxing was good for an economy.  Nor did I say it had much to do with making it grow.  I simply said that taxing to create revenue for stimulus spending has always worked.  And that you could not find a time when when decreasing income taxes to the wealthy or across the board to all has ever helped in times of a BAD unemployment economy.  Just way to complex for you, me boy.  And you have never shown such a case, where such income tax reductions during bad unemployment times have ever helped.  Because you are incapable of actual thought.
Now, ed, me boy, I have shown you multiple times when tax increases have resulted in stimulus spending that has helped reduce high unemployment, and I have shown you times when lowering taxes during high unemployment times has caused higher unemployment.  So, I have done my part.  Your turn.  Want to try to fail again??
Now, I know you want to say tax increases are always good.  Or you want to say I have posted that raising taxes always leads to a better economy.  I did not, however, say that.  Because I know that to be untrue.  But, a complex argument, with two factors where one factor allows the second is simply to difficult.  So, to have something that you can wrap your simple mind around, you simply reduce my argument to "Rshermr says taxes always make the economy grow".  But, that is simply your inadequate brain trying to capture what I said, and failing.  Or, perhaps you are simply lying.  Which you are prone to do.

By the way, who is Rushermer, you poor brainless twit??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> I simply said that taxing to create revenue for stimulus spending has always worked.



too stupid!! thats identical to saying taxing an economy will help it grow. It is assumed the tax money will be spent!!!

Its pure stupidity based on the idiotic  assumption that a dollar becomes magical when libturd bureaucrats waste in on soviet Solyndra projects!!


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > I simply said that taxing to create revenue for stimulus spending has always worked.
> ...


Well, you failed to read what I said again.  Maybe I should simply shorten it so that you can understand it.  Ed is simply unhappy because he would like more money in his own hands so he can wipe his ass.
But again, you have failed to show a time when lowering taxes during high unemployment times has ever helped the economy.  Poor brain deprived ed.  If only he could understand.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Its pure stupidity based on the idiotic  assumption that a dollar becomes magical when libturd bureaucrats waste in on soviet Solyndra projects!!



so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it???????????????


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Its pure stupidity based on the idiotic  assumption that a dollar becomes magical when libturd bureaucrats waste in on soviet Solyndra projects!!
> ...


Uh, ed.  It is not nice to attribute a statement to someone who did not make said statement.  That would be your statement, me boy.  Please do not attribute con drivel to me.  Way dishonest, you fool.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it??????????????? Why????


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


What I believe, based on your question, is that you have again proven yourself to be the single stupidest person on this board.  And you have some real competition.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



so now you do/don't believe a dollar becomes magical when soviet Solyndra bureaucrats tax and spend it??????????????? Why??? Does it stimulate the economy or depress it?? Cat got your liberal tongue????.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



For some reason, Tommy...you've gotten it into your head that when I questioned the veracity of your claim to have taught college level economics as an undergrad...that we had some sort of "agreement" that if you provided an answer to my questions (no matter how unbelievable that answer was!) that I would not question it and never bring the subject up again.  I'm sorry, little buddy...but that ISN'T something I ever agreed to.  I thought you were telling a lie before and your answers only reinforced that impression.

Now you're claiming not to have said you had a private secretary as well?  LOL  You honestly think you can tell lies and if enough time goes by that people won't be able to recall them...don't you?


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


You see, dipshit, I have looked and looked.  And I can not find Soviet Solyndra.  Nor Soviet Solyndra  bureaucrats. But I do see ed.  And ed is an idiot.  Ed is incapable of actual conversation, as this post proves.  And, Ed is incapable of learning anything.  So, why should I spend my time talking to you.  Because, you see, I prefer to deal with people that have class.  And Integrity.  And honesty.  You lack all three, so why bother with you.  Go back to your bat shit crazy con sites, where you belong.  And see if you can post a hundred times per hour, so you can make more money.  Dipshit.  Jesus you are stupid.  It must be pure hell being you.

You should post your normal drivel.  You know.  Every single solitary thing you post passes the Koch test.  If it is good for the Koch brothers, it is good for Ed. Makes it easy.  We understand whom you serve, and always know in advance what you will say about any given topic.  Just like all of the cons out there.  No need for a brain, just cut and paste.  Sad existance, but you have to make a buck somehow, dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 16, 2013)

So, oldstyle, you are about to see why you are to be known as a liar.  Just a little mistake on your part.  I set out a bit of bait, and you just bit.  Thanks, Oldstyle.  This will be educational to anyone out there that still wonders if you are a liar.  So, lets take the last piece first.  You said:


> Now you're claiming not to have said you had a private secretary as well? LOL You honestly think you can tell lies and if enough time goes by that people won't be able to recall them...don't you?


No, Oldstyle.  I do not lie.  Lets see what I said.  I did indeed say I had a private secretary.  And that was true.  I posted the following, which was the latest relative to you saying that I lied about having a secretary.  I said the following :


> Or the claim that I had a personal secretary. Jesus, that was an interesting one. Why you think that is bumping my rep is a mystery, oldstyle. But again, a standing offer to provide you $10K if I am lying. But again, you simply post personal attacks based on evidence of any kind. And refuse the offer to prove your claim. Because you know you will loose again. Just another personal attack.


Which you fully understood was that you questioned my claim that I had a personal secretary.  Called me a liar.  So, did you expect people to believe that I am offering you $10K to prove that I did not have a personal secretary.  Maybe a class in logic would be good for you.  But, of course, the truth is you are just trying to twist words to make it seem that I am changing what I have said several times.  Tacky, oldstyle.  And stupid.  I would say nice try, but what you are trying to say is too stupid to bother with.  

Now, there is your first statement from the above post:


> For some reason, Tommy...you've gotten it into your head that when I questioned the veracity of your claim to have taught college level economics as an undergrad...that we had some sort of "agreement" that if you provided an answer to my questions (no matter how unbelievable that answer was!) that I would not question it and never bring the subject up again. I'm sorry, little buddy...but that ISN'T something I ever agreed to. I thought you were telling a lie before and your answers only reinforced that impression.



Here is your problem.  You lie so much you loose track of what you said.  And, your posts are pretty much always in the archive, me boy.  So, here is your post and my response, cut and pasted to this post. For all to see.  Here we go, oldstyle:

Thread:  Consumers Create Jobs
08-16-2012, 07:34 AM                         Post #166
Rshermr 
Registered User
Member #37424

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle 


> of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."
> Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?
> This is very simple...
> You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.
> ...



I responded:


> Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. *Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. *Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief. Good as I was very broke.
> But as you will soon show, this proves nothing. You had my word, which is good for most. What I did 45 years ago is not provable today, nor do I care what you believe. Your premise, that I prove myself a liar, should I not respond to you, is total BS. As was your efforts to push this as you did. And may still. The only reason I am responding is to get you to spend your efforts at economics topics instead of wasting time trying to prove me a liar, which I am not. You see, oldstyle, I do not lie, as I prefer to maintain my integrity. A life obsession. Which is why I see you as a shit. And as I have told you, because this was a very small part of my life. Certainly not something that I brag about. But it served a purpose. It showed me that you learn more teaching a class than attending one.



That is about as clear cut as it gets.  Back in AUGUST OF LAST YEAR!!!  So, I understand "eat my words", as would anyone who reads this post.  Obviously you did not eat your words, now did you, Oldstyle.
 I also understand "When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar".  Now, me boy, perhaps you would like to explain why you have called me a liar, with no semblance of proof, over 30 times since then.  You know better.  You made a bargain, and you did not keep it.  

So there you go, Oldstyle.  Lets see what you said in your last post again:


> For some reason, Tommy...you've gotten it into your head that when I questioned the veracity of your claim to have taught college level economics as an undergrad...that we had some sort of "agreement" that if you provided an answer to my questions (no matter how unbelievable that answer was!) that I would not question it and never bring the subject up again.


So, you made the deal, saying if I did so it would prove to you that I was not a liar, and that you would eat your words.  Really, Oldstyle.  You do not see an agreement there?  Of course you do, because you made the agreement.  



> I'm sorry, little buddy...but that ISN'T something I ever agreed to.



Sorry, Oldstyle.  But it was what you agreed to.  Which would make you, again, a bald faced liar. It could not be clearer.  So, you are a liar who does not keep his agreements.  Classy, Oldstyle, really classy.




> I thought you were telling a lie before and your answers only reinforced that impression.



Sorry oldstyle.  There was absolutely no lie in my anything I have ever said.  Makes you crazy, eh oldstyle.  Caught again.  And again.  And again.  And no matter how hard you try, you can only make unsubstantiated accusations toward me.  Which you love to do.  And add a few more lies while you are at it.

Then, Oldstyle, to really, really prove that you are a liar and a game player, lets remember that the above exchange was in 
August of last year.  Eight months ago, Oldstyle. for OVER 8 months, since you started this claim a month or so before the above post, you have been playing your little game.  Wasting everyone's time.  And continuing to do what you committed that you would not do.  I have to admit, Oldstyle, that if you are trying to set a record for dishonesty, you did a great job.  And a great job of being a liar.  And a game player.  And, in general, a complete clown.  

Sucks to get caught again, eh, oldstyle.  Not sure how the hell you live with yourself.  I really can not wait to see you try to lie your way out of this, Oldstyle.  You will love the other posts that I have collected.  Sad to have to do that, but when you deal with a liar, like you, sometimes it is simpler to collect the evidence as you go.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 17, 2013)

> As for Kimura, it sounds like you graduated as bookkeeper, your defintions are very non standard. That doesn't matter, what matters is saying things like: "The private sector has net assets because of debt", mean nothing at all. The first thing you would have to do after such statment is to explain "Then what?", as every bookeeping item behaves that exact same way. It tells you nothing of real world.



I never said that. I said that deficit spending creates net financial assets. These budget deficits add financial assets to the private sector, which helps to create the demand for real goods and services, thus allowing Americans to maintain income growth. This very income growth has enabled Americans to accrue financial assets at a far greater pace than would be possible without deficits. Period. Case closed. End of story.



> Let's divide an economy into two items.



Let's not and say we did.



> We call the first part "china", the second "USA".  Yeah, one parts deficit is net asset of the 2nd part's. Does that mean deficit is good? of course not, but not necessarily the other way around either. You can do similar thing with any kind of division of an economy into "sectors". In your world there is two, Goernment and private sector, such imaginary division explains nothing though.



Trade deficits are a zero sum game. If one country runs a trade surplus, another must a trade deficit. All countries can't run trade surpluses at the same time. I use 'sectors' for the purposes sectoral accounting, so I can elaborate on stock and flow concepts.

The reason why the US can run a trade deficit is due to the fact that foreigners, who sell  Americans imports, have a desire to accrue financial assets in US dollars relative to our desire to accrue the foreign sector's various currencies as financial assets.

This requires that the foreign sector sends more real goods and services to Americans than they expect Americans to send over to them. As long as this scenario continues unabated, this imbalance provides the US with some benefits. If foreigners change their minds, and no longer want to hold financial assets in US Dollars, then the direction of trade flows will reflect this. Naturally, under this scenario, US trade terms would change. Maybe foreigners will no longer want to accrue financial assets in the form of dollars, which would simply mean we would have to export as much as we import. 




> And in the real world, these deficits are a PROBLEM, that must be dealt with.



No, deficits aren't necessarily a problem, you're being duped by a bunch of ideologues in a political cargo cult.



> There is a limit on deficit spending on bad times, if the govt policy would not always be to "go into more debt", perhaps it COULD spend more in the bad times without ultimately turning into Greece.



The US can't turn into Greece, it's impossible. The US government issues the US dollar, we haven't ceded our monetary sovereignty to the ECB or some other supranational entity. The US government can spend as many dollars as it desires into the domestic private sector economy. It doesn't have to obtain dollars from some third party, and it can always pay any of its debts. There is ZERO risk. What's critical to understand is that 'US debt' provides households, firms and others in the private sector with a way to put their wealth to work for them in a way risk-free manner. Government debt is nothing more than a savings account for the private sector.



> And god forbid, perhaps there could actually be some savings that would be directed to actual investment so the economy could grow in the long run. The 0% interest rates that are used to


 
You have it backwards:_ investments add to savings_. Savings aren't some finite pool  in the economy, because savings is directly related to national income. For example, when we have an increasing national income, we have rising savings. If government spending stimulates economic growth, which will increase national income and GDP, savings will increase simultaneously. The is Act I in a multiple act play.  

By the way, I didn't start insulting people. It was Ed and Oldstyle who started with the insults for no apparent reason. I was under the impression we could have a constructive dialogue without resorting to infantile outbursts and tirades.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 17, 2013)

I'm curious, Kimura...

What would you think about someone who claimed to have taught economics at the college level as an undergrad?

And if that same person didn't understand basic Keynesian priciples?

And if that same person didn't know that a reference to the "Chicago School" was a reference to an economic school of thought and not an actual college in Chicago?

Would you think that person was full of shit?  Because I do...and that's with only two econ classes in my whole life!


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 17, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, oldstyle, you are about to see why you are to be known as a liar.  Just a little mistake on your part.  I set out a bit of bait, and you just bit.  Thanks, Oldstyle.  This will be educational to anyone out there that still wonders if you are a liar.  So, lets take the last piece first.  You said:
> 
> 
> > Now you're claiming not to have said you had a private secretary as well? LOL You honestly think you can tell lies and if enough time goes by that people won't be able to recall them...don't you?
> ...




Show me where I ever agreed to that.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 17, 2013)

LOL...so which is it now, Tommy?  Are you claiming to have HAD a personal secretary or not?  You've told so many lies at this point you're having a hard time keeping them straight...aren't you?


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 17, 2013)

That's the problem with being a pathological liar...you tell a lie.  People doubt you and point out why what you've claimed sounds hard to believe...and you have to tell another lie.  And then another...and then another.  Pretty soon you've told so many lies you can't remember what you've said.

In this case you claimed to have taught college economics.  But gee...you didn't even know basic Keynesian theory so I questioned your claim and asked what college it was that you were a professor at.  Now there's a problem!  You can't claim to be a professor because colleges keep lists of faculty and your name isn't going to be on any of those.  So what to do!!!  Simple...tell ANOTHER lie!  That you weren't actually a professor but you were an undergrad who taught an economics class because the "real" professor couldn't be bothered. 

But anyone who's been to college knows that isn't the way things work.  Graduate students quite often help professors as teaching assistants but undergrads teaching college level courses?  What college is going to do that?  It's an entirely implausible story.  So implausible that I start to query you ABOUT the subject that you supposedly know so much about that you were selected to teach your fellow students by a grateful professor...but you don't even know what the "Chicago School" refers to?  If there were "bullshit alarms" in here they would have been BLARING at that point!

At this point I'm questioning your claim to even BE a college man because your spelling and grammar are so atrocious and you invent yet another hard to believe scenario to explain this.  You're a busy executive whose private secretary has always handled your correspondence and SHE spell checks you and cleans up your 8th grade grammar mistakes!  Well there you have it!!!

But you NEVER lie...right, Tommy?  And we know this...because you say so?  Too funny...


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 17, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, oldstyle, you are about to see why you are to be known as a liar.  Just a little mistake on your part.  I set out a bit of bait, and you just bit.  Thanks, Oldstyle.  This will be educational to anyone out there that still wonders if you are a liar.  So, lets take the last piece first.  You said:
> ...



Jesus, you are a liar, oldstyle.  You do not believe "you will eat your words" means you will give up on the issue.  You do not believe that "When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar"indicates youi would back off the issue.  You see, Oldstyle, you know I was not lying.  Then you asked for four pieces of info, which I provided.  And you said you would eat your words and that it would prove, to you, that I was not lying to you.  So, you want to tell me why you do not see that as the end of the issue.  

I knew you would come back with this methodology.  Because you have no integrity.  And no class.  Big surprise, oldstyle.  Must suck to be you.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 17, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> LOL...so which is it now, Tommy?  Are you claiming to have HAD a personal secretary or not?  You've told so many lies at this point you're having a hard time keeping them straight...aren't you?


So, Oldstyle says:


> LOL...so which is it now, Tommy? Are you claiming to have HAD a personal secretary or not? You've told so many lies at this point you're having a hard time keeping them straight...aren't you?



No need to comment, dipshit.  I only said one of the two, as you know.  What I am saying is that  you are a lying game player.  Wasting peoples time.  Lying all the time.  And then proving that you are a liar.  Sad, oldstyle, really sad.  You are a little, little man.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 17, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




So in your world "you will eat your words" translates to "if someone gives any answer at all to these questions, they can never be asked again"?  LOL  You're so desperate to dig yourself out of the lie that you got caught telling you WANT desperately for the subject not to be brought up again!  Who could blame you?  

The truth is...I had to hound you for *days* just to get you to answer those questions, Tommy.  You ducked and weaved like you were in a title fight with Mike Tyson in his prime.  Why?  The obvious answer was you were trying to come up with plausible explanations for the things that made ZERO sense in your stories.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 17, 2013)

So Oldstyle, having been proven a liar, now is out to prove that he did not lie.  Which is, of course, impossible.  Caught red handed, with his own post, he is screwed.  No way out.  Now a person with integrity would simply admit the lie.  A person who had ANY honesty would admit it, also.  But Oldstyle has neither honesty not integrity.  He simply knows how to lie.  Perhaps, based on the fact that he does lie, he is a sociopath.  Except that, in general, sociopaths are pretty smart.  Which leaves Oldstyle out.

So, having been proven a liar based on his own words, Oldstyle, who usually gets back to  you within a couple hours, took over 24 hours to construct this post. So, lets see it, and deconstruct it.  Because it is easy to do.  He should never, ever base arguments on lies.  So, Oldstyle says:



> That's the problem with being a pathological liar...you tell a lie. People doubt you and point out why what you've claimed sounds hard to believe...and you have to tell another lie. And then another...and then another. Pretty soon you've told so many lies you can't remember what you've said.


Yes, that would be true.  Spoken with a great deal of first hand experience, oldstyle.  And then you get CAUGHT.  Red handed.  And have to construct another set of lies, to get yourself out of the trap you found yourself in.  
But then you have a couple other tools.  Besides more lies, that is.  More accusations, without any proof, of course.  And more personal attacks.  Always, when you are cornered, you bring out the personal attacks.  Without any basis in fact.  



> In this case you claimed to have taught college economics.


Ah, wow, that sounds like I said I had a job teaching college economics classes.  But of course, what I actually said was that I taught part of one class, and specifically a very low level college econ class.  But what the hell, Oldstyle.  What would we expect from you??



> But gee...you didn't even know basic Keynesian theory so I questioned your claim and asked what college it was that you were a professor at.



So, let me get this straight.  A history major who took two basic classes in econ is saying that I did not understand keynsian theory???  Right.  Nice try, Oldstyle.  But I do, and have, for many, many years.  

Now, here is your next lie.  You NEVER asked at what college it was that I was a professor.  Because I made that clear long before y\that my degree was simply a BA.  So, if you did ask at what college I was a PHD at, you could easily prove it.  But you can not, because I did not.  Simply another lie.  This time simply trying to make this whole post full of your lies look plausible.  Go get that post, oldstyle!!!



> Now there's a problem! You can't claim to be a professor because colleges keep lists of faculty and your name isn't going to be on any of those. So what to do!!! Simple...tell ANOTHER lie! That you weren't actually a professor but you were an undergrad who taught an economics class because the "real" professor couldn't be bothered.


Wow, oldstyle.  That paragraph shows real, deep desperation.  You just said that I did not claim that I had a PHD because I would get caught in an untruth.  And you say this, with a straight face, I assume, with no semblance of proof of any kind.  Funny.  So, maybe I should assume that you having said that you have a career in the food services industry was said simply to explain why you know absolutely nothing about economics. 



> But anyone who's been to college knows that isn't the way things work. Graduate students quite often help professors as teaching assistants but undergrads teaching college level courses?
> What college is going to do that? It's an entirely implausible story.



Right, so as a self appointed expert on education, you are making that statement??  Maybe you did a study, and had it published?  Sorry, Oldstyle, but you are no expert.  And you are completely wrong.  But, perhaps you should go out to Central Washington State and get an affidavit that Clair Lillard did not use econ undergrads to teach part of his basic econ classes.  You are, obviously, completely delusional.



> So implausible that I start to query you ABOUT the subject that you supposedly know so much about that you were selected to teach your fellow students by a grateful professor...but you don't even know what the "Chicago School" refers to?


 So, you are now suggesting that I did not know what the Chicago School was???  Again, you are lying.  Jesus, you just can not stop.  Again, a simple search would prove that you were correct if I had ever shown that I did not know what the Chicago School of Economic Thought, or Economic theory, was.  Said by a dishwasher.



> At this point I'm questioning your claim to even BE a college man because your spelling and grammar are so atrocious and you invent yet another hard to believe scenario to explain this.


Right.  Maybe we should spend time correcting each others writing to see who has bad grammar.  But then, I do not worry about small issues.  That would be your department.  Hell, I could and have hired people to take care of removing the fly crap from the pepper.  And you are probably one of those who would be good at it.  Problem is, me boy, that will bring you exactly minimum wage.  Relative to the grade level of my grammar, that would be your opinion.  The opinion of a food services professional, who has such low levels of responsibility that his boss does not need him engaged.  Funny, Oldstyle.




> You're a busy executive whose private secretary has always handled your correspondence and SHE spell checks you and cleans up your 8th grade grammar mistakes! Well there you have it!!!


Used to.  Having been retired for a number of years, I have no such luxury any more.  But then, I have you, Oldstyle.  A truly low level person looking for the fly crap amongst the  pepper.  Funny,  eh, Oldstyle??  Probably not so funny for you, come to think of it.  Hard to admit you are of such low ability.  Most would feel ashamed of having nothing better to do than try to find misspellings and typos.  Such a lowly activity.  But then, one should never feel bad if one does his best, right, Oldstyle?



> But you NEVER lie...right, Tommy? And we know this...because you say so? Too funny...



Now that is funny, oldstyle.  You think that anyone is always a liar if they say so???  So, since you never say you do not lie, we should assume actually do not??  Funny.  
I never call a person a liar unless I can prove that he is such.  And I have done so in the post to which you are referring, above.  From you own lying mouth, you said you would eat your words if I provided the info you requested.  I did, but you did not.  Then, you said you would know that I was not a liar if I provided the information you requested.  I did, but you have called me a liar at least 40 times since then.  Those two things would prove you to be a liar in a court of law.  And they would prove you to be a liar among those with open minds.  It is so obvious, that even an 11 year old would understand it.  So, go ahead, Oldstyle.  Say you did not lie.  Because everyone interested knows that you did lie.  Big time.
Now, relative to your lies, you claimed that I said that I was a BP Exec,  And you have made that claim several times now.  Without any proof.  And, useing the search capabilities of this board, you could prove me wrong, if I were, in a couple of minutes.  And you could finally say that you had caught me in a lie.  Which you have tried SO hard to do over the months.  But you do not produce any evidence.  Because, of course, you can not.  Because you lied again.  Which means that the coveted post of me saying I had worked for BP is non-existent.  Want to say WHY you said that I claimed to be have been a BP exec???  OF COURSE NOT.  BECAUSE YOU WERE LYING.  FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EXCUSE.  Had I lied you could prove it.  But again, I do not lie.  So, you simply make up lies that were they true, would mean that I had lied.  No integrity, Oldstyle.  None at all.


----------



## Kimura (Mar 17, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm curious, Kimura...
> 
> What would you think about someone who claimed to have taught economics at the college level as an undergrad?
> 
> ...



It's my understanding that you can teach at the university level without a Phd. For example, in the US, most TAs are graduate students and one can teach at the junior college/community college level with an MS and or MA, depending on your major.

All economics and finance majors have to learn about the Chicago School (Friedman, Posner, Foger, etc.) at some point; however, I do continuously hear terms like Monetarists and Friedmanites used interchangeably with the Chicago School. It also depends where you go to college, who chairs the Econ department, what your major is, etc. If I'm a business major, do I really need anything past an intro course to macro and micro? 

I would also say Keynes is probably one the most important economists in the last one hundred years, so yeah, EVERY econ and finance major with be thoroughly familiar with JM Keynes.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 17, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious, Kimura...
> ...



So what do you think the chances are that someone was so learned in the subject that they taught economics as an undergrad...doesn't know basic Keynesian principles or what the Chicago School referred to?  

Rshermr is "shocked" that anyone would doubt him...I on the other hand, am shocked that anyone would believe him.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 17, 2013)

Now we have Oldstyle trying to get out getting caught in a major lie.  He is going to do so by questioning definitions.  It will be funny:



> So in your world "you will eat your words" translates to "if someone gives any answer at all to these questions, they can never be asked again"?



Funny, Oldstyle.  Really funny.  You call me a liar and prattle on about why you said I was a liar.  I responded to you many times prior to agreeing to providing your responses.  Now, Oldstyle, I did not say "I will only provide you with the following information".  I simply wanted to discuss actual issues.  I did not come here to respond to some clown's assertions that I did not do what I said I did.  Nor did I come here to be called a liar.  I came here to actually discuss economic issues.  However, doing so was difficult, since  you would not do so, and filled up the space making accusations for which you had absolutely no evidence.  And  you did so over, and over, and over again.  So, you pushed and threatened and cajoled me to provide me with specific answers.  Not answers that I provided you, but answers that YOU ASKED ME TO PROVIDE.  Now, had I lied, the answers would have been a bit difficult.  But since I had not lied, they were not.  So, Oldstyle.  I answered the questions YOU asked me.  All of them.  
Now, you provided the conditions.  If I provided the answer, you would eat your words.  If I provided the answers, you would know that I was not lying.  Though, I fully believe that you always did know that I was not lying.  
So, I  provided the answers to your questions.  Complete answers to YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.  Not partial answers.  Not incorrect answers.  So, apparently, you are saying that you were just kidding.  Right, Oldstyle.  But of course, you were not.  You simply made a deal with me, got exactly what you asked for, with no shortcuts.  And you then went on calling me a liar as though you made no deal.  In my world, that makes you a liar.  Simple to understand why, Oldstyle, to anyone but you.  You made the deal, I held up my end. and you did exactly what you said you would not.

Then there is this gem!!


> LOL You're so desperate to dig yourself out of the lie that you got caught telling you WANT desperately for the subject not to be brought up again! Who could blame you?



I have never, ever been desperate, dipshit.  Never.  Another accusation without foundation.  I did not lie, and so had NO lie to dig myself out of.  Digging yourelf out of a lie is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW.  That was NOT what I was doing.  I simply told the truth over and over and over.  While you, without any proof of any kind, called me a liar over and over and over.  How do you live with yourself, being such a lying ass hole.  I have known few like you in my life time.  And I am old.  But you are a true lying ass hole, without question.



> The truth is...I had to hound you for days just to get you to answer those questions, Tommy. You ducked and weaved like you were in a title fight with Mike Tyson in his prime. Why? The obvious answer was you were trying to come up with plausible explanations for the things that made ZERO sense in your stories.



You always have to be on guard when Oldstyle says "truth is".  Sorry, but you are lying again.  I did no ducking and weaving.  I simply said I had no reason to provide you with anything.  Which was absolutely true.  Because, me boy, though I only suspected at that point that you were a habitual liar, I did suspect it.  And I did say that I questioned that you would keep your word.  And I'l be damned if my intuition was not correct.  You were a liar, and proved it then and many times since.  And you did not keep your word.  

Really, Oldstyle, this one is so cut and dried that there is no real reason to go on about it.  You are caught.  Again.  And again, you turn yourself into a pretzel trying to get yourself out of your lies.  Most would feel some shame. Very few would feel none.  And those that would feel none would be in the sociopath category.

As I said, I prefer to deal with people that have class.  People who have class:
1.  Tell the truth always.  You lie very, very frequently.
2.  Never call someone else a liar without actual proof.  You obviously do call people liars with NO proof.

It must be crap being you. 

Again, Oldstyle.  You said I said I had been a BP Executive.  Which, you said, would have been a lie.  Problem is, I never said any such thing.  When are you going to bring that post forward, Oldstyle.  Easy to do if you are telling the truth.  Impossible to do if you are lying.  It is becoming obvious that you are lying, though it was obvious to me from the first time you made the accusation.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 17, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




But then, me poor food services worker, I do indeed know of the Chicago School of Economic Thought, or the Chicago school of thought.  Though it was taught little prior to when I graduated with a BA in Econ.  In 1970, you twit. Not much being talked about relative to the  Chicago Theory of econ at that point.  The heyday of the Chicago School of econ was from the mid 1970's through around 2008, according to those scholars still actually spending much time with the subject.  But I could go on.  Question is why?  You will simply lie again.

And I did not teach a class in economics.  I taught a breakout of 20% of an econ class 4 days per week.  Which you well know.  For an econ prof who was responsible for the entire class.  And I did so using the class guidelines provided to me, and the others who were doing the same.  
And I do have a pretty solid understanding of Keynesian economic theory.  Though I have not studied it for over 45 years.  So, want to prove your accusations???


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 17, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Gee, that's funny, Tommy...you didn't have a CLUE what I was referring to when I brought up the Chicago School back then!  You actually thought I was talking about a college in Chicago that taught economics!  How IS IT that someone who is an economics major doesn't know something as important to the study of economics as the Chicago School...or for that matter doesn't know that when someone refers to schools of economics that they are talking about schools of economic THOUGHT.  How much "proof" does someone need to know that you've been talking shit all along?


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Again, you lie.  You asked similar questions multiple times.  I stopped paying attention.  
But, I do know this.  There was never a case where you said Chicago School and I assumed that you were talking about a Chicago College.  Just you lying, me boy. Again.  But, if I am wrong, go search the archive and you will find it.  You will not, however, because you are lying again.

By the way, if you ever, ever said school of economics, I would know exactly what you were saying.  The same thing as economic theories, dipshit.  You are, again, lying.  But, if you said "economic schools that teach ...." then, dependent on the context, I could well believe you were talking about a university.  Because, you see, economic theories DO NOT TEACH.  And, me boy, that was the one time that you and I were on different subjects.  Because, you see, I understand that economic theories, or economic schools of thought, or schools of economic thought, DO NOT TEACH.  Dipshit.

So, again, you said that I claimed that I had been a BP executive.  And that I lied.  So, I have now challenged you on it on several occasions.  If I said that I was a BP Exec, you could find the post easily.  Since you have not, I take that as an admission that you were lying.  Again, Oldstyle.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 18, 2013)

Oh, you didn't answer because you "stopped paying attention"?  I love ya' Tommy!  You've got a reason for everything.

You just posted that I pestered you for the longest time for an answer.  You're right...I did.  It became glaringly obvious that you didn't want to discuss your "teaching career" at length because you were claiming to have knowledge about a subject that you obviously knew little about.

As for economic theories not teaching?  It would appear they have a lot in common with yourself then.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Oh, you didn't answer because you "stopped paying attention"?  I love ya' Tommy!  You've got a reason for everything.
> 
> You just posted that I pestered you for the longest time for an answer.  You're right...I did.  It became glaringly obvious that you didn't want to discuss your "teaching career" at length because you were claiming to have knowledge about a subject that you obviously knew little about.
> 
> As for economic theories not teaching?  It would appear they have a lot in common with yourself then.


So, there you are again.  Trying to say that I said something that I did not.  You can not post without lying.  If only you could read.   Or, more correctly, that you actually cared what was said in what you read.  
I did not miss what you said.  Because even though what you say is generally bs, or lies, i know that you will attack if you can find a single crack in anything.  And it need not be substantive.  Because, you see, you are an ass hole.
And, it took about 2 weeks before I gave you all the information that you asked for about my teaching part of an economics class.  You may remember.   The time that you committed to eat your words, and believe that I was not lying to you.  Based on your conditions that I answer 4 questions.  Which I did, thereby carrying out my side of the little bargain that you wanted.  And the time when you lied, because you have not stopped calling me a liar up until and including this post.  Which, very obviously, shows you to be a liar, again.  Twice so far in this single post.  

Then, Oldstyle, you said on several occasions that I claimed to be a BP Executive on .  I called you a liar.  And told you that you could prove me wrong, and a liar, if you would only post the statement that you claimed I made.  Which you have ignored again, for the fourth time.  So, that is another case of you lying, Oldstyle.  All proven.  Yet, you continue to lie.  Explain why you think you have any relevance at all, Oldstyle.  

What I said is that I never misunderstood the Chicago School.  Never.  And that you are lying about it.  
Then, i said that I did not misunderstand when you said economic schools of thought, or schools of economic thought, or economic theories.  That never, ever happened.  Simply another lie from you, Oldstyle.  What is that, oldstyle?  Four lies in one post.  About normal for you.  Which is why you can never, ever prove that I have ever lied on this post.  Not one single time.  Which is why you can never, ever prove that I did.  Just driving you nuts, eh, oldstyle.  I prove you lied over and over, so you have no issue with lying.  So, why would I, Oldstyle?  Because, Oldstyle, I have integrity.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 18, 2013)

Rshermr  
Registered User
Member #37424   Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,067 
Thanks: 6
Thanked 150 Times in 135 Posts 
Rep Power: 44 



So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:


Quote:
Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.
Well, Oldstyle, you are a dish washer. Making stupid statements. So, you never hear anything you do not want to here. So, the issue, for the 20th time is not raising taxes. The issue, my poor ignorant con, is Stimulus Spending. Here. Read this. See if you can understand it.

"The math is easy: the federal budget over the next decade cannot be made to square without raising a lot more money. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we stay on our current path, federal debt held by the public will grow from about two-thirds of gross domestic product today to roughly 100 percent in a decade and twice that much by 2040. It is unlikely that even the most committed Republicans could reverse the trend without higher taxes.

But an equally compelling reason relies on a new understanding of the economics of taxation. For 30 years, any proposal to raise taxes had to overcome an unshakable belief that higher taxes inevitably led to less growth. The belief survived the Clinton administration, when taxes rose and the economy surged. It survived George W. Bush&#8217;s administration, when taxes were cut yet growth sagged.

But now, a growing body of research suggests not only that the government could raise much more revenue by sharply raising the top tax rates paid by the richest Americans, but it could do so without slowing economic growth. Top tax rates could go as high as 80 percent or more."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/bu...anted=all&_r=0

So, Oldstyle says:

Quote:
Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.
*So, let me see if I understand this. You want me to investigate the curiculum of colleges to see which ones suggest raising taxes in a poor economy. And, oldstyle, why would I do that. As you know, the issue is not taxes, it is STIMULUS. And even you know that pretty much ANY college economics class dealing with macro economics discusses stimulus. How that stimulus is paid for is not generally the issue that college classes discus.* But perhaps, Oldstyle, since you think this is a bad idea, you should find some of Reagans economists. Or Clingons economists.

Now, lets see if we can make anything of the statement that indicates that Oldstyle does not believe that lowering taxes in a good economy makes any sense. Apparently, again, Reagan's economists believed it made sense. Certainly his tax decrease in a good economy in 1986 would make you think so. 

So, Oldstyle. Again. As a dish washer, you think you have the prescription for tax increases and decreases, and that the economists of Reagan and Clinton were wrong. My, my, my. You certainly have a high opinion of your economic knowledge. Especially since you have no background. I mean in economics, not dish washing.

You see, oldstyle, you raise taxes to pay for stimulus, if you want to pay for it as you go. Or, you borrow, and increase the national debt. And let your children pay for the stimulus. Reagan actually did both. Dems do not like to borrow to pay for stimulus. 
And when an economy is good, you may indeed want to lower taxes to sustain the good economy, or make it better. Is this too hard a concept for you, Oldstyle.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 18, 2013)

That's *you* responding to my question.  You quite obviously don't have the faintest idea what I'm talking about when I asked you about what school of economics advocated your theory.  You...in your complete ignorance thought I was talking about actual colleges!


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 18, 2013)

That's from the "Millions out of work - A crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!" string.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 18, 2013)

Houston...we have a problem!!!


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> That's from the "Millions out of work - A crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!" string.


And the date and post number?


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Houston...we have a problem!!!


Who has a problem, Oldstyle??  Hopefully, you were not referring to me.  
I really do not know what to say.  Apparently, you believe that a theory can advocate something.  And you have told me many, many times that you were a real expert in the English language area.  You have really let me down, in this case.

Oldstyle, read the following:



> Definition of ADVOCATE
> 
> 1: one that pleads the cause of another; specifically : one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court
> 2: one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal
> ...



So, is a theory ONE that does ANYTHING.  It is not.   A theory is a thing that does nothing.  

Is a university ONE that does anything???   Not really, but close.  You may get away with that since a university is made up of people.


So, I was just trying to be kind to you.  I gave you the school of economics as being close enough to beiong a person, since it is made up of people.  But a theory???  You have to be kidding.  No theory advocates anything.  And economic theories, in particular, may discuss alternatives and how things are likely to work.  But they certainly do not advocate.  Anything.  Is this the single concept that you have been basing your concept of me not understanding economics on???  Sorry, my boy, but you were the one who misunderstood. You needed to look up words that you did not understand.  

But here is the deal, Oldstyle.  I would never have made a big deal about this issue.  Because it is too basically stupid.  You could take what you said to mean an economic theory.  I would not, but you may.  On the other hand, what you said to me looked like you were asking what university econ department advocated tax increases.   Not correct use of the term, but what the hell.  No economic theory that I am aware of recommends raising taxes in any economy.  There are a number of factors that have to be taken into account prior to any tax increase, or tax decrease.  

But here is the deal.  I am pretty litteral.  And I go by the definition of the words being used.  So, ;while maybe I should have clarified your question, you should have used words that actually meant what you wanted them to mean.  For instance, what practitioners of any school of economics advocate for raising taxes in a bad economy??  

What is really, really unfortunate is that you have been hitting on this issue for a long long time.  Many, many posts.  Trying to prove that I did not understand economics.  All that you proved was that you did not understand the meaning of advocate.  So, I would say that was a hell of a lot of posts that wasted a lot of time, all to prove something as trivial as that.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 18, 2013)

You have zero explanation for not knowing what I was talking about other than you lied about having a degree in Economics.  Anyone who DID have their degree in that subject would know EXACTLY what I was referring to when I asked what economic school supported their contention.

And your doing your very best Bill Clinton "that depends on what the meaning of is...is" isn't going to change that fact.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 18, 2013)

The "trivial" thing that you now would like to forget and move on from...is you lying your ass off and being caught red handed at it.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> You have zero explanation for not knowing what I was talking about other than you lied about having a degree in Economics.  Anyone who DID have their degree in that subject would know EXACTLY what I was referring to when I asked what economic school supported their contention.
> 
> And your doing your very best Bill Clinton "that depends on what the meaning of is...is" isn't going to change that fact.



So, let me understand you.  I am supposed to read your mind so that I understand that when you ask not only a stupid question that I had already answered when you asked it using the correct wording, but it is my fault that I did not read your mind when you asked a question that did not ask what you thought it did.  And you accept no fault for asking a question that made no sense when you understand what you actually meant.  Damn, so you have no responsibility for being clear about your question.  Got it.

Right.  Exactly, Oldstyle.  You asked the very same question, in your mind, at least 40 to 50 times.  But you never tried the "what school of economics advocates" version.  So, I knew what you were trying to say all of the other times, but the one time you used the wording with the incorrect terms, and I answered accordingly, you trot out your favorite "you do not know anything about economics" refrain.  So, you see having asked the same question, the same way 49 times and having the same answer from me all of those times, as NO PROBLEM AT ALL.  Pretending, and in fact saying, that I did not answer your question.  
Besides being an accomplished liar, you play games.  Pretending you did not get an answer to your really stupid, but simple, question.  And you have the guts to be upset with me because YOU do not know the definition of " ADVOCATE".  
Sad, Oldstyle.  There, among some of your most egregious  efforts to mislead, and to LIE, you use the wrong term, and blame ME for you mistake.  

Must be crap being you.

I would feel like a shit.  And I would apologize.  Anyone with integrity would.  But you, of course, again take no responsibility for your own lies and game playing.  None at all.  Sad.   And you feel no responsibility for not understanding that a theory can not advocate.  And you rely on me to educate you.  Again.  And, rather than thanking me you attack me.  Funny.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 18, 2013)

So, Oldstyle, bieng Oldstyle, attacks for his very own mistake.   He says the following:



> The "trivial" thing that you now would like to forget and move on from...is you lying your ass off and being caught red handed at it.



I do not lie, Oldstyle.  Every thread that you get into you spend almost all of your many, many, many posts ignoring the subject of the thread, and instead trying to catch me in a lie.  And I fully understand that you can not catch me in a lie.  Because as in this case, I did not lie at all.  It is just you trying to even the score.  Here, me boy, is a news flash:  If you do not want to have to feel like you need to even the score, then you yourself need to STOP LYING.
So, we now know you are able to use the search engine on this board.  So, you could find the wording to prove that I said that I had been a BP Exec.  Remember?  You accused me of that a few times in the last month.  If you would like, I can go back and give you the post #'s.  Though you know exactly what I am talking about.  And you know exactly what you said.  And you know that I never said that I was a BP Exec, or even said I ever in my life worked for them.  NOW, THAT IS A LIE.  Because your contention was that I said something that I did not say in order to prove that I knew something.  To provide some credibility of my knowledge.  But, since I never said anything of the kind, that makes it a LIE, oldstyle.  And the fact that I have asked you to prove that I lied shows what you are all about.  And the fact that you do not respond, not a word, to my questions about why you lied, proves that you did indeed lie.  Because, Oldstyle, it was not only a lie, but a blatant lie.  If I had said what you said I did, then you could PROVE it very easily.  But you can not.  Because I did not.  Just another example of you lying.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 18, 2013)

"Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr."

What is it about THAT question that doesn't make sense?  It's a simple question.  One that any *real* economics major would understand immediately because they would have studied and debated the different schools of economic thought all through college.  But not YOU, Tommy!  You were totally clueless as to what I was talking about.

It's obvious that you're now frantic to come up with some way to switch this from you not knowing something that any REAL economics major would understand instantly, to a discussion of semantics.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 18, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, Oldstyle, bieng Oldstyle, attacks for his very own mistake.   He says the following:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually...you DO lie, Tommy and not particularly well.  Your problem is that I have an excellent memory for what you've said in the past.  That's problematic for a pathological liar like yourself because you can't keep all of the lies straight.  I'll find your post regarding working for BP at some point and then you'll make excuses for why you were "misunderstood" in what you said...and look just as ridiculous as you do NOW.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, Oldstyle, bieng Oldstyle, attacks for his very own mistake.   He says the following:
> ...


Jesus, Oldstyle.  Al you have to do, if there had ever been such a post, would be to use the search engine of this board.  
But here is the thing:
1.  You made up the statement that I said I had worked as an Executive at BP.  Made it up from whole cloth.
2.  I never said anything of the kind.  Never in my life suggested that I had worked there.
3.  If I had posted it, it would still be there.  
4.  You will not make the effort at this time to find the statement that you claim that I made.  
5.  That effort would be minimal.  Maybe 10 minutes.
6.  And now you say you wil run into it some day.  But you know you will not, because you know you are lying.  

Now, there is a lie, oldstyle.  And there is getting caught in a lie.  And you know it.
I caught you again, showing that you said you would get off of the whole issue of accusing me of lying about teaching part of a class.  Showed you said you would drop it IF provided you with answers that YOU wanted.  I did, you did not.  That is a lie, oldstyle.  Especially since you said you had never made that accusation.

So, here is the deal.  If I believe someone is lying, I may question it.  But if I can not prove it, I assume that there was no lie.  At least I leave it alone.  BUT, if I can prove that you are lying, as in these two rather recent cases, then I will document and prove the lie.  Which I have done to you many times.
So, I understand that you are trying as hard as possible to catch me in a lie.  But you CAN NOT because I DO NOT LIE.

And, Oldstyle, since you are a proven liar, why do you think calling me a "pathological liar" would be believable???  You lie, I can prove you lie, and I do not.  End of story.
Must be a sad way to live.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 18, 2013)

You've been shown rather conclusively to be a liar, Tommy.  Your claim to have taught college level economics yet not having any idea what someone was referring to when they asked what economic school backed up your claims showed that!  It would be akin to someone claiming to be an electrician but not knowing what an Ampere was.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 18, 2013)

And I will find your post claiming to have worked at BP...just as I found the post showing your total ignorance about economic schools.  That other shoe will fall, Tommy...it's just a question of wading through your hundreds of posts to find it.  As I remember...you went AWOL for a good week and a half after you got called out on that one...so it's going to be a challenge to find the correct string.  But I will...


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> And I will find your post claiming to have worked at BP...just as I found the post showing your total ignorance about economic schools.  That other shoe will fall, Tommy...it's just a question of wading through your hundreds of posts to find it.  As I remember...you went AWOL for a good week and a half after you got called out on that one...so it's going to be a challenge to find the correct string.  But I will...


Sorry, I never went awol.  I went FISHING a couple of times.  But that is the way you are, Oldstyle.  Claiming I went "AWOL".  Apparently you believe I owe it to you to always be available at your convenience.  Here is another news flash.  I owe you nothing, me boy.  Other than the truth, which I owe everyone.

So, now you are trying to tell me you have to wade through all those posts???  You obviously are too stupid to use the search function.  Jesus, Oldstyle, you can not be that dumb.  Can you???  Nah....

But, you will find no such post.  Never, ever said it.  You know so very well.  

The really funny thing is that you say I posted that I worked at BP, in your words as an executive.  I say that I never claimed to have worked at BP period.  So, one of us is lying.  And since it is not me, by process of elimination, that indicates it was you.  AND I AM PUSHING YOU TO FIND THE POST.  EVEN TOLD YOU HOW TO FIND ANY POST THAT ANYONE HAS MADE OVER THE PAST YEAR.  AND, SINCE I HAVE NOT BEEN A MEMBER FOR A YEAR, IF I HAD POSTED IT, IT WOULD BE THERE.  
Now, here is the deal.  I wondred if perhaps I had ever even mentioned BP.  Perhaps in a discussion relative to gas or oil prices.  I do not think so, but I could have been wrong.  So, I used the search tool to find where I had used the term BP in a post.  And, what do you know, Oldstyle.  Not a single mention, by me, of BP. 
You are lying.  And stalling trying to see how you can provide a cut and paste that you can modify.  Or just waiting for the question to go away.  But understand this, Oldstyle:  I will not let it die.

When I have provided a post to prove what you have said, I realized that I could modify that data in any editing software.  And post it fraudulently as an actual representation of what was said.  So, I have been very careful to provide you the post number, thread name, and date of the posts.  I noticed that you did not do so when you posted the copy of the post where we had exchanged information.  And I asked you for the post number and date.  You never provided that information.  Now, I assume that you did not change the text, but based on your history of dishonesty, I just wanted to be sure.  Odd that you did not provide it, eh, Oldstyle??


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 18, 2013)

What...you're now disputing that was your post?  LOL

Oh, Tommy...

You know very well that's your post but if you'd like I'd be more than happy to go back and get the exact # for you.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> What...you're now disputing that was your post?  LOL
> 
> Oh, Tommy...
> 
> You know very well that's your post but if you'd like I'd be more than happy to go back and get the exact # for you.


Perhaps you would like to show where I said it was not my post.  I simply asked for the post # and date.  Is that too difficult for you??


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> And I will find your post claiming to have worked at BP...just as I found the post showing your total ignorance about economic schools.  That other shoe will fall, Tommy...it's just a question of wading through your hundreds of posts to find it.  As I remember...you went AWOL for a good week and a half after you got called out on that one...so it's going to be a challenge to find the correct string.  But I will...


Well, oldstyle.  That was tough.  I just searched the entire post for when you or I used either the word exec or executive.  Interesting.   All were in the last 2 weeks and 3 days.  You started it out with your post on 3/1.  That was the very first post mentioning "BP Exec".  By you, of course, saying that I had said I was a BP Exec.  Nothing out there earlier, and I searched for a year. as far as posts with either exec or executive in them.   And for either you or I as post owner.  So, that is pretty damned simple.  Not hundreds of posts to go through, as you would have us believe.  The system does it for you.  In seconds.
In all previous places where Exec or Executive showed up, it was in other members posts.  Not ours.  Neither you nor I have used the word exec or the word executive in the past year except for posts since march 1, as broken out below.
So, to make it even easier, here are the dates and post #'s.  All are in this thread:
March 1     Post numbers 17, 21, 22.
March 2       Post number 31, 32, 34
March 16     Post number 178

In addition, there were posts on the last two days, March 17 and March 18.
And all of the posts were in the thread that we are now in.

There were a few mentions of exec or executive in threads other than this one.  But none by you or I and none connected to BP.  

So, there you go.  You can, should you want, check it out using the search function.  But then you will not bother to check, will you, Oldstyle.  

So, I would say anyone making a false accusation on several occasions and calling another a liar when it was the person making the accusations that was lying, would be an ass hole, wouldn't you, Oldstyle???  So, what does that make you, besides an obvious liar.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> And I will find your post claiming to have worked at BP...just as I found the post showing your total ignorance about economic schools.  That other shoe will fall, Tommy...it's just a question of wading through your hundreds of posts to find it.  As I remember...you went AWOL for a good week and a half after you got called out on that one...so it's going to be a challenge to find the correct string.  But I will...


Tweet. ..........................................Tweeet............................................Tweet.....................................
Tweet. ..........................................Tweeet............................................Tweet.....................................
Tweet. ..........................................Tweeet............................................Tweet.....................................
Tweet. ..........................................Tweeet............................................Tweet.....................................
Tweet. ..........................................Tweeet............................................Tweet.....................................
Tweet. ..........................................Tweeet............................................Tweet.....................................
So, Oldstyle disappears into the Sunset.  Hoping to completely ignore the fact that he can find no mention, by me, of having been a BP Exec.  Because Oldstyle had lied about it.  So there is no mention by me of being a BP Exec.  So, Oldstyle just hopes it goes away.  Just another lie, oldstyle.  Just another of your lies.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

Sorry, little buddy but as much as you'd like to hope that was the case...I'm still wading through the strings looking for your claim.  I'll find it eventually so start getting your excuses ready...

Tick...tick...tick...tick...


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

Ding...ding...ding...ding!!!

We have a winner!!!

So you claim that you never worked at BP, Tommy?  Funny...you claimed in the following post that you did...and at a high level.  You are *SO* busted...

"Simple enough. Because their method of raising prices is to raise, then lower. Not direct, continual raising. Because the oil companies know that the public gets used to a high price, then irate as it gets too high, and then happy again when the price declines part way. It is a repeat process. I worked at a relatively high level with BP in Anchorage, and to the folks there it is a joke.  Go look up oligopoly. It is classic oligopoly.  And wonder why, when the supply is higher and demand lower than it has been for years, the price has gone up, in general."

That would by your post # 260 from the "Should All Jobs Be Required To Pay At Least A Living Wage?" string.

See, here's the thing, Tommy...I happen to have a pretty good memory, which is Kryptonite to a liar like yourself because I REMEMBER what you said in the past...and you DON'T.  The reason you don't remember is that you're making it up as you go.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

Which once again proves that you are the Tommy Flanagan of this board.

And after you were called out on that claim...you instantly disappeared from that string...never to return.  That must have been when you "went fishing"...right, Rshermr?


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

And after having to scroll through hundreds of your idiotic posts to find that, Tommy...I'm going to sit back and enjoy watching you squirm your lying ass off trying to talk your way out of getting caught red handed telling another one of your WHOPPERS!  Have fun!!!


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

"The really funny thing is that you say I posted that I worked at BP, in your words as an executive. I say that I never claimed to have worked at BP period. So, one of us is lying."  Rshermr.

It really IS funny, Tommy!  How does someone "forget" that they worked for a company at a "high level"?  Gee, you must have had SO MANY high level positions that it's hard to keep track of them all?

Better break out the fishing poles, little buddy...this string has just become your biggest nightmare.


----------



## g5000 (Mar 20, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
> I have been waiting to determine what the outcome is likely to be.  My want is that it would be most likely that Austerity would be a disaster.  But I felt I owed it a look before mouthing off about the absurdity of the whole thing.  And in my opinion, my opinion is of little value until there is some proof of the likely outcome.  So, I kept watching, and after a year or two, I think the verdict is close to in.  Increasingly. impartial sources close to the subject have become more and more and more pessimistic.  And we are close to a time when it will be the decesion of most, by a wide margin, that austerity has failed, or is failing, in pretty much every country where it has been instituted.
> Here is an article out of the UK that is very representative of what is being said:
> 
> ...



If you party like it is 1999, spending more than you make, you are going to have put those party supplies on your credit card.

Eventually, your debt will exceed your ability to pay and your creditors will shut off your credit.

At that point, you will have no choice but to stop partying.  And then your whining and gnashing of teeth will commence.

People like you make it sound like it is the creditors' fault that you now have to cut back.

OF COURSE LIFE WILL BE HARDER.  What do you expect, even more credit to get deeper into debt you can't pay back?


Austerity IS good for you.  It forces you to re-evaluate where you royally fucked up, and it forces you to get your shit together.

Is it painful?  HELL YES.  But what else is going to force you to get your shit together?  Providing you with more cash to burn so your creditors can take a loss won't do it.

All this whining in an attempt to avoid the pain we brought on ourselves is childish and stupid.

So here's the thing.  We can impose auterity on ourselves *now*, ON OUR OWN TERMS, or we can wait until the people who lend us money impose austerity on us on THEIR terms, suddenly and without warning.

Your choice.

Time to grow up.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Sorry, little buddy but as much as you'd like to hope that was the case...I'm still wading through the strings looking for your claim.  I'll find it eventually so start getting your excuses ready...
> 
> Tick...tick...tick...tick...


So, that damned search function too difficult for you??  

Interesting.  You said I had claimed to have been a BP Executive.  But you do not remember when.  Or where.   But you would like someone to believe that you are sure I did say so.  
Makes no sense, oldstyle.  I think you will simply disapear into the sunset.  Because you have never, ever admitted you were wrong.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Ding...ding...ding...ding!!!
> 
> We have a winner!!!
> 
> ...


Problem is, dipshit, you have not the common sense to understand that I did not say, or suggest, that I worked FOR BP.  I was discussing what BP execs said when I talked to them as a VENDOR.  And I did explain that.  Dipshit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Ding...ding...ding...ding!!!
> ...



Where was it that you explained that you were a "VENDOR", Tommy?  Please show the post where THAT fabrication ever took place!

You can't because right after you got called on your claim to have worked at BP...you went "fishing" and never returned to the string.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Which once again proves that you are the Tommy Flanagan of this board.
> 
> And after you were called out on that claim...you instantly disappeared from that string...never to return.  That must have been when you "went fishing"...right, Rshermr?


Well, here is the thing, oldstyle, you are delusional.  You seem to think I need to stick around to answer questions for you.  Sorry, I frequently disappear from this post, whenever I so desire.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

"I wondred if perhaps I had ever even mentioned BP. Perhaps in a discussion relative to gas or oil prices. I do not think so, but I could have been wrong. So, I used the search tool to find where I had used the term BP in a post. And, what do you know, Oldstyle. Not a single mention, by me, of BP."

Funny thing, Tommy...you say you did a search and didn't find a single mention, by you, of BP yet there in your post #260 is YOU mentioning BP!  So did you REALLY do a search or are you just telling another "Tommy Tall Tale" because that really does appear to be you talking about BP!


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Which once again proves that you are the Tommy Flanagan of this board.
> ...



LOL...you seem to desire to go "fishing" alot, Tommy.  

So are you going to show me the post where you explained about being a VENDOR and not actually working for BP?  I somehow "missed" that in all the posts of your's that I had to suffer through reading.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> And after having to scroll through hundreds of your idiotic posts to find that, Tommy...I'm going to sit back and enjoy watching you squirm your lying ass off trying to talk your way out of getting caught red handed telling another one of your WHOPPERS!  Have fun!!!


Why, oldstyle???  You just spent all of that time looking for whata???  I worked WITH BP.  They were a fairly large customer of mine, when I worked for a company doing an SAP application.  Shit, now you will say I claimed to work for SAP.  We had a product that INTEGRATED with SAP software.  Now, what I did not say, and what would have been a lie, is if I had said I worked FOR BP.  You need to look up the definition of the two words.  With, and FOR, are different words.  Do I need to look them up for you and provide definitions AGAIN.  Ass hole.

You spent all of that time and energy to prove that I said I worked as a BP Executive, only to come back with worked with them.  Over time, I also worked with Arco, and with Texaco in Anchorage.  And with a number of other companies there.  But never lived there, and was never in anchorage at any point for more than 4 or 5 days.  

Now, as a dish washer, you probably do not have much occasion to visit with vendors.  But to IT professionals, what we did was important.  And we had a good relationship there.  Happens very, very normally for people in the software business.  Not so much, I am sure, in the dish washing business.

You know, oldstyle, you wanted SO BADLY to show that I had lied at some point.  It completely consumes you.  But I never, ever lie.  Sorry, little buddy.  And I do mean little.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

So if you never lie then you'll be able to show me the post where you explained that you worked as a VENDOR and not FOR BP?

Oops...caught yourself in *another* lie, Tommy!


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I am retired.  And, yes indeed, I do go fishing a lot.  And I go do other things a lot.  Because, you see, I have options.  And you, me boy, are very, very, very low on my list.

By the way.  About that memory of yours.  The one you said was SO GOOD.  Kind of fucked up, if you ask me, dipshit.  Funny.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> "I wondred if perhaps I had ever even mentioned BP. Perhaps in a discussion relative to gas or oil prices. I do not think so, but I could have been wrong. So, I used the search tool to find where I had used the term BP in a post. And, what do you know, Oldstyle. Not a single mention, by me, of BP."
> 
> Funny thing, Tommy...you say you did a search and didn't find a single mention, by you, of BP yet there in your post #260 is YOU mentioning BP!  So did you REALLY do a search or are you just telling another "Tommy Tall Tale" because that really does appear to be you talking about BP!


OK, Oldstyle.  Let me educate you.  You said that I said I had worked for BP as an EXECUTIVE.  So, oldstyle, I used the word Executive.  Then I used the word Exec.  Neither found that post, oldstyle.  And that would be because I DID NOT USE THE WORD EXEC OR EXECUTIVE.

Now, I have educated you some on search tools.  You can thank me, if you want.  

Jesus, you are dumb some times, Oldstyle.  Perhaps you should go take a class in use of web search tools.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
> ...


Great.  The question was do you believe Austerity is WORKING.  It has nothing to do with your opinion of the european countries needing to be punished.  And having it coming.  It has to do with is it WORKING.  

Relative to the US, perhaps you can show a time when cutting spending and lowering taxes has helped an economy with an unemployment problem.  And then we may have something to talk about.

Relative to your comment about growing up, I will keep that in mind.  I do value your opinion so much.

For instance, the Partying like it was 1999 statement.  You were talking, my poor ignorant friend, about a time when we had a DEFICIT.  Makes you look rather stupid when you say things like that.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > "I wondred if perhaps I had ever even mentioned BP. Perhaps in a discussion relative to gas or oil prices. I do not think so, but I could have been wrong. So, I used the search tool to find where I had used the term BP in a post. And, what do you know, Oldstyle. Not a single mention, by me, of BP."
> ...



You can't even keep your story straight from one page of posts to the next.  Does this sound familiar?

"I used the search tool to find where I had used the term BP in a post. And, what do you know, Oldstyle. Not a single mention, by me, of BP."

Care to try again, Tommy? 

So are you going to admit that you lied about explaining about being a "VENDOR" rather than "FOR" BP?   Or were you going to provide that post for us all to see?


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Jesus H christ, Oldstyle.  I did search for BP.  And I got no hits.  I subsequently used the words exec and executive.  Because, you complete clown, it turns out that this browser does not find short strings.  

Go try it for yourself, you idiot.  Quit wasting my time asking stupid questions.  I used a lot of combinations, shit head.  Like BP EXEC, for example.  And found that the search string has to be one continuous set of characters.  And I now know other things about this search tool.  

Jesus H Christ, you are dumb.  And trying SO hard to prove that I lied to you.  

So, to understand why I did not find the post you found do the following:
Go to advanced search, for search string use Exec, executive, and bp.   You will see that none find your post.  Now, take a look at the post you found.  It has the word Oligarchy in it.  Use that in the string.  And you will come up with that VERY post.

So, Oldstyle.  You said that I said I was a BP Exec, or executive.  Which is why I used those specific words.  And you were wrong.  (another memory failure on your part).  Get it yet, or do you need more explanation.

You are trying too hard, Oldstyle.  You already look desperate.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

Desperate?  LOL  I'm still waiting for you to show me the post where you explained how you were a VENDOR for BP...not actually employed by BP.

Will that be coming anytime soon?


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

And I can always tell when your panties are in a bunch after getting caught telling another one of your "embellishments"...you start throwing out the "shit head", "idiot", "dipshit" and "clown" insults faster and faster.  I think the record for that was calling me "dipshit" 10 times in one post.  Gotta love an "intellectual" like you, Tommy!    Or was that not you either?  It's so hard to tell with you.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Gee, Tommy...wasn't it *you* that was insulting me over not knowing how to use search?  Then it turns out YOU are the one that doesn't know how to use it?

Which must be why you STILL haven't provided that post where you explained that you were a VENDOR for BP and not an employee...right, little buddy?


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Desperate?  LOL  I'm still waiting for you to show me the post where you explained how you were a VENDOR for BP...not actually employed by BP.
> 
> Will that be coming anytime soon?


So, let me understand this, dipshit.  You call me a liar, saying for days that I had said that I had been a BP Exec. Said several times that I had lied about that.  So, finally, you bring back a post that says that I had WORKED WITH BP.  And danced all over the post because you were so happy.  

Which proved only that you were STUPID.  Because I said nothing about working for BP. 

So, you wasted my time.  And you wasted the time of anyone who would have been following the post.  And it proved you a lying shit, again.  Trying to prove that I had lied.  You may,Dipshit, have noted that the subject of this thread is AUSTERITY IN EUROPE.  So, again, you have wasted every ones time going about your little agenda of proving that I lied.  About something REALLY STUPID.  
And no admission that you were wrong.  No appology for calling me a liar.  And you want me to go search for the post where I believe I said that I had been a vendor.  And you must have some reason why I should spend more time on you.  But you are a complete ass hole.  You have no honor. You have no integrity.  But still you believe I should spend time looking for something that if I find it will prove absolutely nothing.  Right.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Desperate?  LOL  I'm still waiting for you to show me the post where you explained how you were a VENDOR for BP...not actually employed by BP.
> ...


By the way, Oldstyle.  If you want to know, use the search tool.  I have spent a good deal of time educating you on it's use.  Answering your completely ignorant questions about it.  And being called a liar because you could not figure it out.  
You are obviously a technical genius.  Jesus, me boy, even my 8 year old grandson could figure this search tool out.

Kind of like your great understanding of the English language.  Even though I have to keep defining simple words for you.  for.  with.  advocates. And the use of quotation marks.  You need to start understanding, oldstyle, that you are not the brightest bulb on any tree.  And you believe yourself to be very smart.  And then there is that GREAT memory that you claimed to have.  Jesus, Oldstyle, if it was not so sad it would be funny.

It really is not that you do not understand words or sentence structure, or special characters.  What is funny is that you continually build yourself up as an expert in these things, and then come out looking like an idiot because you do not understand.  Sad.  But funny.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Oh, hell, Oldstyle.  I think you have suffered enough.  I went ahead and found where I had told you that I was a vendor, and that I did not work for BP.  
So, here is the thing.  You say I can not use the search tool, which is stupid.  You could have found this very, very quickly and easily.  But since you are obviously technology challenged, here you go.  Oh, and by the way, I was absolutely correct.  Again.  As I said, I told YOU that I was a vendor.



3/1      Post 22
And that would be a bald faced lie. Which is nothing new for oldstyle. *I never in my life said I was an executive at BP. I never worked for them. I did work with execs at BP, in a position with a vendor selling to them. But I never in my life worked for them. *Now, maybe if you disagree, you would like to provide some proof. But of course, you can not, because you are lying. Again. As you are wont to do. 

3/1         Post 17
Then, Oldstyle said:
Quote:
He took a little leave of absence after *declaring that he was an executive at BP while folks were discussing energy policy. I think even Rshermr knew he was a little "over the top" on that lie.*

And that would be a bald faced lie. Which is nothing new for oldstyle. *I never in my life said I was an executive at BP. I never worked for them. I did work with execs at BP, in a position with a vendor selling to them. But I never in my life worked for them. *Now, maybe if you disagree, you would like to provide some proof. But of course, you can not, because you are lying. Again. As you are wont to do.

Now, Oldstyle, that was on March 1, less than three weeks ago.  Where is that GREAT MEMORY you claim to have.  And, Oldstyle, I am really getting tired of having to educate you.  I educate, and it never takes.  You just go on calling me a liar.  Too bad you lack integrity.  We could have avoided all of this stuff, which must be really embarrassing to you.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

*Cmon, Oldstyle.  I am waiting for the apology you owe me!!!*


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You're going to educate me on how to use the search feature?  Ah, Tommy...I found the post where you said you worked with BP at a high level...you didn't...or have you forgotten that?  You said it didn't exist.  Funny how you constantly demand that I provide links and post numbers for anything I question in regards to you but you find my asking the same of you to be a major inconvenience.  

As for your schooling ANYONE on the English language?  Are you kidding, Dude?  In case you hadn't noticed... you're borderline illiterate!  You schooling someone on the English language would make as much sense as Jodi Arias mentoring an anger management group or Bill Clinton being a house father at a sorority house.

The waste of everyone's time is you posting something that would lead people to believe that you worked with BP at a high level...but you're too fucking stupid to comprehend that.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Just as I thought.  You said that I had claimed to have been a bp exec.  Said I had lied.  Then, it turns out that, as I said, I had never said I worked at BP.  And, what do you know, me boy.  You were unable to muster the common courtesy to appologize for calling me a liar.

Then, you called me a liar for not having provided you with the proof that I had said I was a vendor representative.  You could not prove your statement, just called me a liar for not proving it to you.  So, I proved it to you.  Gave you the post.  And, you were unable to muster the common courtesy to appologize for calling me a liar.

So, apparently you have no class.  That is no surprise.  And you have no integrity.  That is no surprise.  Funny thing is, I can do nothing, get called a liar, prove you were wrong, and you have no response but to keep on attacking.  Must suck to be you.

And, relative to your saying that I could not find the post with the really simple search, that would be because you said that I had said I was an executive.  And, me boy, according to you, you were digging through all of those posts manually.  Took you a couple days, me boy.  The search function would have taken a couple minutes.  

As for my english, perhaps you can let me know what words I did not know the meaning of.  Nah, that will just require you to lie again.  And act like a low paid secretary.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 21, 2013)

Well let's start with "specious" and "spacious", Tommy.  That's just the latest *butchering * of the English langauge by you.

If anyone should be here giving English lessons...it would be your "pretend private secretary"...you know, the one who proofs all of your correspondence so you don't come across as the idiot that you obviously are?


----------



## jwoodie (Mar 21, 2013)

"A forced program of free market policies."  An oxymoron if I ever heard one...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> "A forced program of free market policies."  An oxymoron if I ever heard one...



not really since even libertarians need a fairly ubiquitous government to impose capitalism and freedom on  all those who would oppose it


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 21, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Well let's start with "specious" and "spacious", Tommy.  That's just the latest *butchering * of the English langauge by you.
> 
> If anyone should be here giving English lessons...it would be your "pretend private secretary"...you know, the one who proofs all of your correspondence so you don't come across as the idiot that you obviously are?


So, you are still upset that I misspelled one word.  Now that is a big deal.  But I do indeed know the meaning of specious.  And I do indeed know how to use it in a sentence.  
So, what we just proved is that you have no ability to actually discuss economics, because all of your arguments are specious.  
Perhaps we should look at the word advocate.  In fact, lets use the word in a sentence:
"Oldstyle thought, incorrectly, that a theory could advocate something; but in fact, anyone should know that a theory is incapable of advocating anything."

Or we should look at the word "with".  Another word which, unbelievably, Oldstyle does not understand the meaning of.  So, lets use "with" in a sentence:  Oldstyle said I had claimed to be a BP executive because I said that I had worked with their people in Anchorage, as he did not know that the meaning of with is not the same as the meaning of for.

Funny thing is that though I do not try at all hard to check my posts for spelling, punctuation, etc., since it is not really important to me, Oldstyle does find it very important.  So, when I misspell a word such as specious, it makes Oldstyle do a happy dance.  And he is really quick to point out my error.  Which, to him is a very, very big deal.  But, he makes mistakes, and I could care less.  Except when he uses words that have the incorrect meaning to try to build a specious argument that suggests that I am lying.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Funny thing is that though I do not try at all hard to check my posts for spelling, punctuation, etc



typical libturd tries to change subject to spelling because he lacks IQ for substance


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 22, 2013)

Typical Tommy Flanagan response to why he didn't know what the Chicago School referred to even though he claims he was not only an economics major in college but taught the subject at a college level as an undergrad.  But somehow that's not something that should raise eyebrows about his believability because "a theory is incapable of advocating anything"...whatever THAT gibberish means!

It's why I've never believed much of *anything *that Rshermr posts.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 23, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Typical Tommy Flanagan response to why he didn't know what the Chicago School referred to even though he claims he was not only an economics major in college but taught the subject at a college level as an undergrad.  But somehow that's not something that should raise eyebrows about his believability because "a theory is incapable of advocating anything"...whatever THAT gibberish means!
> 
> It's why I've never believed much of *anything *that Rshermr posts.


Well, me boy, maybe you had better start looking for proof that I did not know what the Chicago School of Economics was.  But you may want to think twice, me boy, because every time you say things like that, you end up looking the fool.  Because, you see, Oldstyle, I do indeed know what the Chicago School of economics is.  And always have.  But why don't you go out and prove that I did not, dipshit.  Make a fool of yourself.  Waste more of everyone's time.  
Because, me boy, you are incapable of discussing economics.  And incapable of staying with the subject of any thread.  And, of course, what is really, really funny is that you, a simple dishwasher who claims to have had two college classes in economics, believes he is capable of suggesting that he knows more than anyone about the subject. 
Do you see how stupid that is, Oldstyle.  You have spent the past week plus trying to say that I have lied about this or that, and have been unable to do so.  Because I do not lie.  But, you have come out the liar multiple times.  And, being the great economic mind, you have shown yourself completely unable to discus economic theory of any kind.  Hell, you do not even seem to be able to IDENTIFY economic theory.  You are, me boy, a true joke.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 23, 2013)

Oh, my God...now you're claiming that you knew all along?  You truely have brass balls.  You had *zero *idea what I was talking about when I asked what economic school it was that backed your theories.  You started blathering about what did I want you to do...check the college curriculum of all those schools? 

What's pathetic is that I *do* know more about economics with a two class college background than someone who *says* that not only did he graduate with a degree in the subject but knew it so well that he was teaching college level classes as an undergrad!


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 23, 2013)

You've obviously decided that your best course of action is to simply lie about how ignorant you were back then because it's patently obvious that anyone *that* clueless about economic schools of thought is a total bullshit artist if he's claiming to have taught at the college level.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 23, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Well, me boy, maybe you had better start looking for proof that I did not know what the Chicago School of Economics was.  But you may want to think twice, me boy, because every time you say things like that, you end up looking the fool.  Because, you see, Oldstyle, I do indeed know what the Chicago School of economics is.  And always have.  But why don't you go out and prove that I did not, dipshit.  Make a fool of yourself.  Waste more of everyone's time.
> Because, me boy, you are incapable of discussing economics.  And incapable of staying with the subject of any thread.  And, of course, what is really, really funny is that you, a simple dishwasher who claims to have had two college classes in economics, believes he is capable of suggesting that he knows more than anyone about the subject.
> Do you see how stupid that is, Oldstyle.  You have spent the past week plus trying to say that I have lied about this or that, and have been unable to do so.  Because I do not lie.  But, you have come out the liar multiple times.  And, being the great economic mind, you have shown yourself completely unable to discus economic theory of any kind.  Hell, you do not even seem to be able to IDENTIFY economic theory.  You are, me boy, a true joke.



all boring personal attack from psycho soap opera libturd who lacks IQ for substance!!


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 24, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Oh, my God...now you're claiming that you knew all along?  You truely have brass balls.  You had *zero *idea what I was talking about when I asked what economic school it was that backed your theories.  You started blathering about what did I want you to do...check the college curriculum of all those schools?
> 
> What's pathetic is that I *do* know more about economics with a two class college background than someone who *says* that not only did he graduate with a degree in the subject but knew it so well that he was teaching college level classes as an undergrad!


Right.  Man, can you lie.  Anyone with any background in economics knows what an economic theory is.  And they know what an economic school of thought is.  But only Oldstyle believes that a school of economics can advocate ANYTHING.  Because, you see, that is what Oldstyle would LIKE to believe.  Even though an Economic school is not a person, and by the basic definition of advocate, as I have shown you, can not possibly advocate.  But Oldstyle does not care.  He wants to push forward with his blather.  On, and on, and on, and on.  Because that is all that he is capable of doing.  
It must suck to be Oldstyle.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 24, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> You've obviously decided that your best course of action is to simply lie about how ignorant you were back then because it's patently obvious that anyone *that* clueless about economic schools of thought is a total bullshit artist if he's claiming to have taught at the college level.


And you, me boy, spend your time trying to say that I am ignorant.  Funny.  No proof, just lies about what you say happened.  Just more lies, because that is what Oldstyle does.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 24, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, my God...now you're claiming that you knew all along?  You truely have brass balls.  You had *zero *idea what I was talking about when I asked what economic school it was that backed your theories.  You started blathering about what did I want you to do...check the college curriculum of all those schools?
> ...



You're right, Tommy!  Anyone with a background in economics SHOULD know what is being referred to when someone brings up the term economic school!  Yet you didn't.  You didn't have a CLUE what I was asking for when I asked you what economic school advocated the theories that you espoused.

Which is why you are one of the bigger liars on this board.

Taught economics at the college level?  Dude...I doubt you could even find the classroom...let alone teach the class!  You're an internet fraud.  One of those pathetic people who has to embellish who they are because they have so little self esteem.  You ARE Tommy Flanagan.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 24, 2013)

"Examine the person&#8217;s reaction when they're busted in a lie. The worst thing that can happen to a pathological liar is to be busted for telling the lie.
Extreme defensiveness. Expect the person to become extremely defensive, doing whatever he or she can to pin blame on someone else.
Quickly fabricating another lie to cover up the original fib. The pathological liar will start the cover-up process quickly to ensure that their reputation remains in tact. This may include a bigger lie than the original fib&#8211;&#8211;which may be quite apparent.
Vindictive and may seek revenge. Rage and anger may be another reaction stemming from being &#8220;outed&#8221;, so expect possible retaliation or vindictive behavior."
How to Spot a Pathological Liar  How to Spot a Pathological Liar: 7 steps - wikiHow


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 24, 2013)

Like claiming to have a degree in economics but then not knowing basic Keyensian theory.

Challenged on that?

Instantly claims to not only have an economics degree but to have *taught* college economics...as an undergrad.

You're text book, Tommy...


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 24, 2013)

Challenged on the total implausibility of undergrads teaching college courses?

Responds with posts rife with "dip shit" "ass hole" & "liar" thrown at the challenger.  Text book, Tommy...text book.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 25, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Funny.  You think that you have the stones to tell anyone what they know or do not know.  A simple dish washer.  You had two classes in econ, a degree in history, and a background washing dishes.  Sorry, me boy, you do not impress anyone with your accusations.  
Are you capable of discussing economics??  It would seem not.
And yes, of course you should know what an economic School of Thought is.  Which I do.  An economic school of thought is the same thing, me boy, as an economic theory.  
What you are trying to hide, of course, is that you said "what economic school advocates".  And, my poor pitiful dish washer, you do not need a degree in anything to know that a theory does not advocate.  As we have been through before.  Many, many times.  It mist be pitiful to have to keep bringing up crap that you have already been thrashed on.  Maybe you need to go look up the word advocate again. 

So, poor Oldstyle. Trying as hard as possible to make some point.  Whatever it is.  In whatever subject it is.  It must really suck to be you.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



personal attack from liberal without IQ for substance-go away why waste our time!!


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 25, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> "Examine the person&#8217;s reaction when they're busted in a lie. The worst thing that can happen to a pathological liar is to be busted for telling the lie.
> Extreme defensiveness. Expect the person to become extremely defensive, doing whatever he or she can to pin blame on someone else.
> Quickly fabricating another lie to cover up the original fib. The pathological liar will start the cover-up process quickly to ensure that their reputation remains in tact. This may include a bigger lie than the original fib&#8211;&#8211;which may be quite apparent.
> Vindictive and may seek revenge. Rage and anger may be another reaction stemming from being &#8220;outed&#8221;, so expect possible retaliation or vindictive behavior."
> How to Spot a Pathological Liar  How to Spot a Pathological Liar: 7 steps - wikiHow


So, Oldstyle, having been caught in numerous lies, continues to do the only thing that he can do.  Which is lie more.  You have never caught me in a lie, Oldstyle.  Same old problem.  I simply do not lie.  

Now you, on the other hand, seem to be completely incapable of doing anything but attacking.  Calling me a liar.  Which you can never, ever prove.  Because I do not lie.

It must be pathetic being you.


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 25, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Like claiming to have a degree in economics but then not knowing basic Keyensian theory.
> 
> Challenged on that?
> 
> ...


First, me boy, you do not know how to spell Keynesian economics.  There is no such thing as Keyensian theory, which you seem to be so confused about.  Look it up by the correct spelling.  It will work better for you.

And again, Oldstyle lies.  I did not bring up "teaching college economics".  I did not "teach college economics", but rather taught a breakout group for a professor.  Which you know.  And, talking about a stupid accusation, my poor ignorant dishwasher, saying that I do not have a good understanding of Keynesian economics would be stupid.  Your accusations are the same, over and over and over.  Stupid, childish, juvenile games.  

But I have to admit.  You do know more about washing dishes than I do.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > "Examine the persons reaction when they're busted in a lie. The worst thing that can happen to a pathological liar is to be busted for telling the lie.
> ...



personal attack from liberal without IQ for substance-go away why waste our time!!


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What??  You trying to help Oldstyle???  He needs help, but this is funny.  A libertarian and a con tool, with a combined IQ of under 100???  Really, check out the following:

University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives
University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives


Brock University Study   Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience


New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

U of Arkansas study   Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study  Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study   Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) : Gene Expression

Watching Fox makes you stupid  http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ews-actually-makes-you-less-informed-20120524 

Alterman Study:  Conservatives Display Ignorance | Nel's New Day


----------



## Rshermr (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What??  You trying to help Oldstyle???  He needs help, but this is funny.  A libertarian and a con tool, with a combined IQ of under 100???  Really, check out the following:

University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives
University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives


Brock University Study   Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience


New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

U of Arkansas study   Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study  Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study   Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) : Gene Expression

Watching Fox makes you stupid  http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ews-actually-makes-you-less-informed-20120524 

Alterman Study:  Conservatives Display Ignorance | Nel's New Day


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



personal attack from liberal without IQ for substance-go away why waste our time!!

why not try to tell us again the theory behind how a liberal stimulus works???


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 26, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



A theory does not advocate?  That's gotta be one of the dumbest things ever posted on here.  Seriously, Tommy...just admit that you didn't have a clue what I was talking about when I asked you what economic school you were basing your theories on.  But you can't DO that...can you?  Because if you admit THAT...then it's obvious that you don't have an extensive background in economics and you certainly never taught the subject at the college level...which means you have been telling lie after lie on this board.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 26, 2013)

I'm curious, Tommy...do you really think you annoy me with the whole "dishwasher" thing?  I find that amusing actually because you swear that you never lie...yet we both know that you lie each and every time that you accuse me of being a dishwasher.  I'm a food & beverage manager and have done that for over 30 years at some of the highest volume properties in the country.

You see, unlike yourself, I don't feel the need to embellish who I am and what I've done.  I'll let the intelligence of my posts (or lack thereof) speak for themselves.  Unlike you, I don't have to *claim* to have taught college economics or be a high powered executive with a private secretary!


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 26, 2013)

"And again, Oldstyle lies. I did not bring up "teaching college economics". I did not "teach college economics", but rather taught a breakout group for a professor. Which you know."

So now you're not the person who claimed to have taught economics in college?  If *you* didn't bring it up, Tommy...then how would it ever have come up?  A "breakout group"?  What is a "breakout group"?  You've tried to walk this lie back since you first told it, Tommy.  First you taught college economics.  But when you were asked where it was that you were a professor you changed your story to being an undergrad who taught *for* a professor.  Then you clarified the story further by claiming that it was just *part* of the class...not the whole class.  Now you've changed that to a "breakout group" (whatever THAT is!) which I assume from your expertise in the subject is a class led by someone who knows nothing about the topic being taught...which is quite the radical approach to providing a college education!

You're a text book pathological liar, Tommy...you continually try to "explain" improbable claims that you make by making more improbable claims...and if anyone questions those claims you react by attacking them with posts where you call into question their intelligence or honesty.


----------



## Alcantara (Apr 20, 2013)

Norman said:


> There is no austerity in europe. Each year the public debt is higher than last year, nominally and relative to GDP.
> 
> However, everything seems like austerity if you compare to USA.


In E.U. during last years(especially in 2012 but also in 2013)there wad an heavy politics of austerity,that amplified the big depression of European economy,especially of more indebted States,as Greece,Italy,Portugal and Spain.
This politics has wanted by Northern Europe(especially by German and by Finland)but it was very wrong and dangerous in a general recession,while it would be appreciable in a other contingency;in fact,it increased public deficit and recessione in some States and it caused a deep hate in confront of United Europe's ideal.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 20, 2013)

Alcantara said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> > There is no austerity in europe. Each year the public debt is higher than last year, nominally and relative to GDP.
> ...


----------



## Alcantara (Apr 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Alcantara said:
> 
> 
> > Norman said:
> ...


----------



## Toro (Apr 21, 2013)

Norman said:


> There is no austerity in europe. Each year the public debt is higher than last year, nominally and relative to GDP.
> 
> However, everything seems like austerity if you compare to USA.



Government spending in Greece has fallen from 125 million to 95 million.

 Greece - Government revenue and spending 2013 | Statistic

Government spending in Spain has fallen from 480 million to 450 million.

 Spain - Government revenue and spending 2013 | Statistic

Government spending in Portugal has fallen from 90 million to 80 million.

 Portugal - Government revenue and spending 2013 | Statistic

Government spending in Ireland has fallen from 100 million to 70 million.

 Ireland - Government revenue and spending 2013 | Statistic


----------



## Norman (Apr 21, 2013)

Alcantara said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> > There is no austerity in europe. Each year the public debt is higher than last year, nominally and relative to GDP.
> ...





Alcantara said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Alcantara said:
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 21, 2013)

Alcantara said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > In E.U. during last years(especially in 2012 but also in 2013)there wad an heavy politics of austerity,that amplified the big depression of European economy,especially of more indebted States,as Greece,Italy,Portugal and Spain.
> ...



Let them spend all they want to, but the other members of the EU would be crazy to lend them another dime.  What you're actually arguing for is welfare from the responsible countries to the spendthrift countries.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 21, 2013)

Norman said:


> Alcantara said:
> 
> 
> > Norman said:
> ...


----------



## Grandma (Apr 22, 2013)

Ed, all economists agree that the stimulus was a good idea and that it worked. The only ones opposed to it are neocons that don't want Obama to succeed.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 22, 2013)

Grandma said:


> Ed, all economists agree that the stimulus was a good idea and that it worked. The only ones opposed to it are neocons that don't want Obama to succeed.



Sorry, Grandma...but that statement is patently false...all economists do not agree that the Obama Stimulus was a good idea...nor do they agree that it "worked".  Here's a clue as to why it DIDN'T work!  You don't invent a statistic like "jobs created or saved" if your stimulus plan actually did what it was supposed to do, which was to create jobs.  You do THAT if it DIDN'T work and you need to hide just how badly it failed!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 22, 2013)

Grandma said:


> Ed, all economists agree that the stimulus was a good idea and that it worked. The only ones opposed to it are neocons that don't want Obama to succeed.



of course if true you would present some evidence!!

"40 or so economists surveyed agreed with the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, that the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus law. The survey asked a second question about whetheraccounting for future costs arising from financing the stimulus with debtits benefits would end up exceeding its costs.  Here, 46 percent thought that they would and another 27 percent were uncertain, leaving only a small percentage that did not.


----------



## Alcantara (Apr 25, 2013)

Toro said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> > There is no austerity in europe. Each year the public debt is higher than last year, nominally and relative to GDP.
> ...


In my opinion,an excessive austerity isn't just an economic mistake,as economic recession in Southern Europe  demonstrates;it's mostly a TERRIBLE political error,because of a terrible disaffection in confront of Europeist ideal,especially in Southern Italy(Spain and Italy are traditionally Europeist countries,not Euro-sceptical countries as England!!!).
However,I don' believe that the economic strictness is not necessary but it would be moderate.In Italy we say that a cicada could no became an ant in a day!!!


----------



## Alcantara (Apr 25, 2013)

European austerity consists of more taxation and more cuts to Welfare State.I'm a liberal and europeist but I believe that especially an increase of fiscal pression,as Monti's cabinet made in Italy in 2011/12,could be letal for Italian economy and so in Greece and Portugal.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 25, 2013)

Alcantara said:


> In my opinion,an excessive austerity isn't just an economic mistake,




how can it be an economic mistake?? Government spending does not invent new products so it can't help an economy grow. This is Econ 101!! Have you even been to HS??


----------



## Alcantara (Apr 27, 2013)

I'll repeat my opinion:I'm not contrary to economy strictness and I admit that Italian tradition-as in all Souther Europe-is not favourable to economic sobriety,except for some cabinets(Amato,Ciampi and Monti).
However,the hard politics made by former Prime Minister(Mario Monti)and wanted by Angela Merkel and by Northern Europe is a motive of further recession and a cause of hate towards European ideal.
The economic healing of Southern Europe would be gradual and progressive,otherwise it could kill the E.U.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 27, 2013)

Alcantara said:


> However,the hard politics made by former Prime Minister(Mario Monti)and wanted by Angela Merkel and by Northern Europe is a motive of further recession.



dear, hard politics or capitalism is the exact cure for recession!! This is Econ 101. Sorry


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 28, 2013)

I saw this very interesting article, I'm  not sure it's been posted yet.
*Who Is Defending Austerity Now?*
Austerians have had their worst week since the last time GDP numbers came out for a country that's tried austerity.
But this time is, well, different. It's not "just" that southern Europe is stuck in a depression and Britain is stuck in a no-growth trap. It's that the very intellectual foundations of austerity are unraveling. In other words, economists are finding out that austerity doesn't work in practice or in theory.
What a difference an Excel coding error makes.
Austerity has been a policy in search of a justification ever since it began in 2010. Back then, policymakers decided it was time for policy to go back to "normal" even though the economy hadn't, because deficits just felt too big. The only thing they needed was a theory telling them why what they were doing made sense. Of course, this wasn't easy when unemployment was still high, and interest rates couldn't go any lower. Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna took the first stab at it, arguing that reducing deficits would increase confidence and growth in the short-run. But this had the defect of being demonstrably untrue (in addition to being based off a naïve reading of the data). Countries that tried to aggressively cut their deficits amidst their slumps didn't recover; they fell into even deeper slumps.
Enter Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff. They gave austerity a new raison d'être by shifting the debate from the short-to-the-long-run. Reinhart and Rogoff acknowledged austerity would hurt today, but said it would help tomorrow -- if it keeps governments from racking up debt of 90 percent of GDP, at which point growth supposedly slows dramatically. Now, this result was never more than just a correlation -- slow growth more likely causes high debt than the reverse -- but that didn't stop policymakers from imputing totemic significance to it. That is, it became a "fact" that everybody who mattered knew was true.
Except it wasn't. Reinhart and Rogoff goofed. They accidentally excluded some data in one case, and used some wrong data in another; the former because of an Excel snafu. If you correct for these very basic errors, their correlation gets even weaker, and the growth tipping point at 90 percent of GDP disappears. In other words, there's no there there anymore. 
Austerity is back to being a policy without a justification. Not only that, but, as Paul Krugman points out, Reinhart and Rogoff's spreadsheet misadventure has been a kind of the-austerians-have-no-clothes moment. It's been enough that even some rather unusual suspects have turned against cutting deficits now. For one, Stanford professor John Taylor claims L'affaire Excel is why the G20, the birthplace of the global austerity movement in 2010, was more muted on fiscal targets recently.
The discovery of errors in the Reinhart-Rogoff paper on the growth-debt nexus is already impacting policy. A participant in last Friday's G20 meetings told me that the error was a factor in the decision to omit specific deficit or debt-to-GDP targets in the G20 communique.
For another, Bill Gross, the manager of the world's largest bond fund, and who, as Joseph Cotterill of FT Alphaville points out, used to be quite the fan of British austerity, made a big about-face in an interview with the Financial Times on Monday:
"The UK and almost all of Europe have erred in terms of believing that austerity, fiscal austerity in the short term, is the way to produce real growth. It is not. You've got to spend money. Bond investors want growth much like equity investors, and to the extent that too much austerity leads to recession or stagnation then credit spreads widen out -- even if a country can print its own currency and write its own checks. In the long term it is important to be fiscal and austere. It is important to have a relatively average or low rate of debt to GDP. The question in terms of the long term and the short term is how quickly to do it".
For more go to: Who Is Defending Austerity Now? - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic 

Austerity is a failed experiment,,not only in theory but also in real life case points. There is no doubt.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 29, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Austerity is a failed experiment,,not only in theory but also in real life case points. There is no doubt.




Austerity means limited government. THe USA has the most limited government and is the richest in the world so it is utterly stupid or liberal to say austerity has failed.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 29, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Except it wasn't. Reinhart and Rogoff goofed.



actually the corrected numbers show they were correct. THe more debt the less growth. This is obviously true anyway since government does not invent new prodcts to grow the economy. The more money they take the less left to grow the economy!!


stupid stupid stupid libturds act as if there is some theory out there that says the more debt the government has the better the economy will be!! The only thing liberalism really cares about is more and more welfare.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 29, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Austerity is a failed experiment,,not only in theory but also in real life case points. There is no doubt.
> ...



Yeah, the world's economists are idiots right Ed?
What exactly are your qualifications?  You seem to think you know it all, but you have yet to prove you even have the very basic knowledge ala Econ 101..
So Ed, please show me your qualifications.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 29, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Yeah, the world's economists are idiots right Ed?


they all disagree don't they??? and none saw the huge huge housing bubble about to burst-right?



kiwiman127 said:


> What exactly are your qualifications?  You seem to think you know it all, but you have yet to prove you even have the very basic knowledge ala Econ 101..



well dear then show me where conservatism is mistaken??



kiwiman127 said:


> So Ed, please show me your qualifications.



dear, I have repeatedly; if not please show me where conservative arguments are mistaken or admit you lack the education and IQ to do so.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 29, 2013)

Qualifications?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 29, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Qualifications?



dear, I have repeatedly; if not please show me where conservative arguments are mistaken or admit you lack the education and IQ to do so.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 29, 2013)

Ed, did you read the article?  Furthermore, did you understand the article?


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 29, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Qualifications?
> ...



Oh, Graduate of the U of Minnesota w/BS Degree Business Administration & Marketing, Class of 89'.  My education included 3 quarters of Econ 101-301.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 29, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



ok then dear I'm sure you'll win the next argument big time. Pick a substantive topic and show us how good your liberal education was!! I'm shaking in my boots now that I know your "qualifications."


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 29, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



It seems to me we are discussing austerity.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 29, 2013)

For the craziest reason and despite economists and governments indicating austerity has failed, you seem to think the opposite!!!!!
A while back I stated the austerity doesn't work in weak economic situations (weak recovery), like that in Europe, where it is failing, now. Countries are in serious recessions bordering on depressions, thanks to austerity. Their governments admit and economists admit it.  Yet, you don't believe it.  Why?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 29, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> For the craziest reason and despite economists and governments indicating austerity has failed, you seem to think the opposite!!!!!
> A while back I stated the austerity doesn't work in weak economic situations (weak recovery), like that in Europe, where it is failing, now. Countries are in serious recessions bordering on depressions, thanks to austerity. Their governments admit and economists admit it.  Yet, you don't believe it.  Why?


 
Dear, Europe is trying to steal money from Germany that it has thanks to German austerity!!!! Slow????????????????????? 

a bust????? too stupid by 1000% !!! austerity in Europe is working wonderfully!! Their numbers are getting better while ours are getting worse!!!The idea that tax and spend idiotic liberalism will get us to a smaller debt  is identical to saying more drugs will cure the junkie. How stupid can a liberal be??? 

Only a blind stupid monkey liberal would say more drugs  would work. Why be so afraid to explain how on earth that is possible???? What does your inability tell us say about the IQ and character of liberals???????


Wolfgang Schauble:

"According to the latest estimates, the Euro zone's budget shortfall should be 3.2% of GDP this year, half the level of 2009 and well below the deficits of the USA and Japan. In the last 3 years the structural deficit- the fiscal shortfall adjusted for the change in the business cycle- has shrunk to 
2.1% from 4.6%.

After years of steady rises in Spain Portugal and Greece and other places the current account deficits have fallen rapidly driven not just by retreating consumption and imports but also, crucially, by rising exports.

Unit labor costs in Ireland and Greece have dropped 12% since 2009 and by 6% and 5% in Spain and Portugal respectively. As the OECD acknowledged in its recent "Going for Growth"
the crisis has served as a catalyst for structural reform in those countries that most needed it, particularly in the labor market.

As these trend show Europe's crises management has proved itself."

By SIMEON DJANKOV
Fiscal austerity is blamed for all of Europe's ills. If only we could loosen the belt somewhat, the argument goes, everyone would be better off. This refrain is repeated by Presidents François Hollande and Barack Obama, bureaucrats at the IMF and in Brussels, and striking workers across Europe. More public money, they say, means better growth and job prospects.

The evidence is to the contrary. The European Union economies that have experienced the highest growth in the past three yearsGermany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Swedenall take austerity seriously. The European Commission's Winter 2013 forecast shows a similar trend. The five fastest-growing economies in Europe are projected to be Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romaniaall fiscal hawks.

In 2009, Bulgaria's budget deficit was 4.4% of GDP, above the Maastricht limit of 3%. Following cuts in government expenditure and a pension reform that increased the mandatory retirement age by two years, the budget deficit fell to less than 1% last year. Yet Bulgaria's economy has recorded 12 consecutive quarters of positive growth, one of only four such economies in Europe.

Austerity simply means that governments spend what they earn, or close to it. People agree with this principle when applied to a household budget. A recent poll in Bulgaria finds that only 17% of respondents want their family to live off debts during the crisis. Yet when you ask the same question for the nation, 58% want a looser budget. Someone else should pay the government's bills.

Enlarge Image

 Reuters

Antigovernment protestors in Sofia, Bulgaria, on March 10.
Many analysts say that the government of Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, in which I served as deputy prime minister and finance minister, fell last month due to its austerity drive. But the real reason is our failure to reform sectors like energy and health care, and to force austerity upon them, too.

The strikes that led to the government's resignation started in February due to higher electricity prices. These were made necessary by the ever-increasing inefficiency of the energy sector. High-cost power producers continuously joined the energy grid, and the state-owned energy company was forced to cover the resulting losses. The choice was between a price increase to save the energy company from bankruptcy and much-delayed reform. The regulator chose the former.

Health care is another unreformed sector. Successive governments have caved under pressure from pharmaceutical companies, medical associations and labor unions to increase public expenditure on health care. Yet the perception of service quality has worsened; an astounding 93% of Bulgarians say health services are inadequate. Each attempt at reform during our time in government was met by calls for the dismissal of the minister of health. Four ministers came and wentmission not accomplished.

Europe needs austerity. Otherwise inefficiencies in certain sectors go on. Moreover, large public expenditures open more opportunities for corruptionanother reason for strikes in countries like the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Spain. Patience is running thin. Not only is there less money to go around, but public officials misuse it to their benefit.

Europe also needs a frank discussion about competitiveness. The main weakness on the Continent is that many countries produce and export too little and at too high a cost. This is seen in the external trade data. In 2012 France ran a current-account deficit of 82 billion, Spain 32 billion, Greece 20 billion, Portugal 11 billion and Cyprus 4.3 billion.

Some blame the euro. The reasoning is as follows: The Southern Rim countries joined the single currency at an overvalued exchange rate, and as a result their prospects for export-led growth were minimal. In contrast, Germany undervalued its currency at entry and thereby continued to gain in productivity, also in part thanks to the labor-market reforms of Gerhard Schröder. Hence its trade surplus of nearly 200 billion.

There is a lot of truth to this monetary explanationtake Iceland's quick recovery as an example. But the other main culprit is the regulatory burden. According to World Bank data, it takes 11 procedures and 9,000 to open a small business in Athens. It takes 735 days and 43 procedures to resolve a simple commercial dispute in Larnaca, Cyprus. And it takes 59 days and visits to eight different offices to register a small piece of property in Paris.

It is cheaper and faster to do all this in Berlin. And a lot cheaper and faster to do it in New York, Singapore, Toronto or Sydney.

So suppose that the euro-zone countries that have undergone various rescue efforts do eventually manage to balance their budgets. Suppose that it only takes them an extra few years. And suppose they do it by cutting unnecessary expenditures and boosting revenues. Would it suffice? Hardly. By then, unemployment would be over 25%, as it already is in Greece and Spain. Popular discontent would have thrown out or scared off another government or two.

Europe, therefore, also badly needs a growth plan to get the economy going. At various Ecofin meetings over the last four years, I raised the growth issue in concert with fellow ministers from Poland, Sweden and the U.K. But it never truly came into focus. There were always too many emergency rescues to discuss. Too much attention was paid to fiscal pacts, tax harmonization and bank supervision as the next big thing.

Perhaps we should have named it "austerity in the burdens to business." Then it may have caught policy makers' attention. Austerity in government budgets, combined with reduced red tape and structural reforms, may just make Europe work.

Mr. Djankov was deputy prime minister and finance minister of Bulgaria from 2009 until last month.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 29, 2013)

Sorry, I've been on the phone and we are leaving to fly to Madison, WI.  My daughter is having her baby two weeks early and is on the way to the hospital!   
You might want to check your resources Ed.

Germany still in recession
Published on April 23, 2013 by admin in Germany in recession 2013
The latest economic data out of Germany depicts a deepening recession. April&#8217;s preliminary (called a flash report) data shows: Manufacturing Output dropped to 47.9 &#8211; a 4-month low. The Manufacturing PMI dropped to 47.0 &#8211; 4-month low. The Services Activity index fell to 49.2 &#8211; a 6-month low. The Composite Output index fell to 48.8 &#8211; a 6-month low
Germany in recession 2013 | Triangle Wealth Blog

I'll be back Thursday


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 30, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Sorry, I've been on the phone and we are leaving to fly to Madison, WI.  My daughter is having her baby two weeks early and is on the way to the hospital!
> You might want to check your resources Ed.
> 
> Germany still in recession
> ...



dear our subject was not whether Germany was in recession?????
See why we say a liberal will be slow??


----------



## Norman (May 1, 2013)

So Kiwiman believes that you get out of a debt crisis by increasing debt. Hmm... Actually it must have been that austerity that led to the crisis! I mean austerity is the blame for everything! If an economy is doing bad it's cause that austerity, there could possibly be no other explanation!

There is no austerity in europe, it's a fact that the debt of european countries on aggregate increases each year. The countries that are more austere on average do better than the ones that rack up more debt. Despite the fact that the austere countries are giving out sizeable benefits to the reckless countries.

That article gives out an example of an "Austere UK" destroying itself. When did that austerity happen? Could you give out the exact debt chart of UK. Oops. 

Let the merry-go-round go on...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 1, 2013)

Norman said:


> There is no austerity in europe, it's a fact that the debt of european countries on aggregate increases each year.



This is 100% true yet liberal liars keep parroting it like the fools they are.

More importantly, austerity in 100% mandatory. Libturd complete fools act as if its a choice. Germany is not going to make bailout loans to  Greece unless Greece  grows up and cuts its government in half and seems able to payback its loans. 

Would a bank make a loan to an idiot who was deeply in debt way beyond his ability to pay back his existing loans???????????? 

The idea that another loan or another shot of cocaine is going to cure the addiction is too stupid for words.


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 5, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I've been on the phone and we are leaving to fly to Madison, WI.  My daughter is having her baby two weeks early and is on the way to the hospital!
> ...



The discussion was austerity during weak economic times, you implied everything was just great and austerity would work anytime and going slow with austerity during weak economic times was bunk.  You used quotes as proof you were right, I used Germany to prove that your sources were clueless.  And here's more:

*EU forecasts 2013 recession, signals ease in austerity *
Published 03 May 2013

Europes economy will contract by more than expected this year and budget deficits will decline more slowly, the European Commission said on Friday (3 May), signalling that rising unemployment and the bleak outlook allow some scope for slowing the pace of austerity.
EU forecasts 2013 recession, signals ease in austerity | EurActiv

*EU Eases Budget Rigor as Recession Bites, Joblessness Up*
March 15, 2013
European governments loosened the shackles on national budgets as the euro-area recession deepens and unemployment climbs, with pro-growth appeals coming even from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the leader most closely associated with austerity.
EU Eases Budget Rigor as Recession Bites, Joblessness Up - Businessweek

*Self-defeating austerity shocks*
Reda Cherif, Fuad Hasanov, 3 May 2013
Europes austerity-first approach has triggered research-based efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of debt-reduction strategies. This column, based on a US empirical study, suggests that an austerity shock in a weak economy may be self-defeating. Public-debt reduction historically occurs gradually amid improved growth. If policymakers, firms and households respond as in the past, we should expect lower deficits amid higher growth and, eventually, decreasing debt ratios
Self-defeating austerity shocks | vox

*G-20: the World Does Not Need So Much Austerity*
Finance leaders of the G-20 economies on Friday edged away from a long-running drive toward government austerity in rich nations, rejecting the idea of setting hard targets for reducing national debt in a sign of worries over a sluggish global recovery.
G-20: the World Does Not Need So Much Austerity

Recent historical facts back me up and that's the bottom-line.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Recent historical facts back me up and that's the bottom-line.



as a liberal you lack the IQ to understand that austerity is mandatory because Germany won't bail Greece out unless Greece cuts its government in half so it has money to pay Germany back.

Is that really over your head???


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 5, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Recent historical facts back me up and that's the bottom-line.
> ...



You don't read people's links do you?
This entire subject is over your head.  
Secondly, I'm not a liberal, it's very likely that I have may have had more positive conservative feedback for my posts on various subjects than you.
I'm all for spending cuts, it's just that as historical facts show, you just don't go nuts making cuts when your economy is weak.  As we see in Europe, they are pulling back on spending cuts because of recessions and high unemployment.  When the economy is more sound, they will add more cuts.
Come back when you have something intellectually honest to say.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> it's just that as historical facts show, you just don't go nuts making cuts when your economy is weak.



as I said, dear, they had to so they could get loans from Germany. Germany refuses to put Greece and the rest of Europe on welfare.
Is that really over your head?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> When the economy is more sound, they will add more cuts.



too stupid by 1000%!!! There is never a time for liberals to cut welfare spending. Our budget just went from 2 to 3 to $4 trillion and we have a huge recession. To suggest more spending will cure what spending caused is as stupid as saying more alcohol will cure a hangover!

Why not wait till college before you talk about economics 101??? Think!!


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 5, 2013)

Norman said:


> So Kiwiman believes that you get out of a debt crisis by increasing debt. Hmm... Actually it must have been that austerity that led to the crisis! I mean austerity is the blame for everything! If an economy is doing bad it's cause that austerity, there could possibly be no other explanation!
> 
> There is no austerity in europe, it's a fact that the debt of european countries on aggregate increases each year. The countries that are more austere on average do better than the ones that rack up more debt. Despite the fact that the austere countries are giving out sizeable benefits to the reckless countries.
> 
> ...



"So Kiwiman believes that you get out of a debt crisis by increasing debt."
I never have ever stated that.  However, I have stated that going all out with austerity when an economy is weak, doesn't work.  What we have seen in Europe shows that I am correct.  Countries that went into austerity too hard and fast are now in recession/negative growth.  So now, even the very pro-austerity countries are planing on easing the reins of spending to off-set the exploding high unemployment and recession.  In my previous posts entered today verify what is going on in Europe and why.


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 5, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > When the economy is more sound, they will add more cuts.
> ...



Too stupid?  Well, thats the Euro Zone plan as my previous links show.  So, the leaders and economic experts of all these countries are 1000% stupid because you say so. 
You know, you are a joke on the boards, don't you?  With your Republicans are heroes thread, you called some pretty serious and intelligent conservatives "slow liberals" only because what they stated was over your head!


----------



## whitehall (May 5, 2013)

How was the economy in Europe doing before the anemic "austerity" programs? It's going to get worse until the Frogs get used to less than 6 months vacation and the Itals work a full eight hours in a day.


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 5, 2013)

whitehall said:


> How was the economy in Europe doing before the anemic "austerity" programs? It's going to get worse until the Frogs get used to less than 6 months vacation and the Itals work a full eight hours in a day.



As the number of unemployed Europeans continues to grow, more and more people won't have to worry about vacations or hours worked per day, will they?


----------



## Franticfrank (May 6, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > How was the economy in Europe doing before the anemic "austerity" programs? It's going to get worse until the Frogs get used to less than 6 months vacation and the Itals work a full eight hours in a day.
> ...



Austerity is really sucking the life out of Europe right now and those European unemployment figures are still rising. I often wonder about the idea of bailing out governments and banks. I wonder about the economic effects of giving the people a bailout of several billion euro and forcing them to spend it. Surely it would be more positive than a bank bailout.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 6, 2013)

Franticfrank said:


> Austerity is really sucking the life out of Europe right now



Econ 101 for you: when the government spends less the people get to spend more of their own money and the economy takes off. If Europe would try this in a significant way their economy would take off. Sorry.

Try to remember that when the government takes your money they don't make it magical and then spend (or waste) it; so its much better for you to spend your own hard money in a careful sustainable way than have the liberals spend it on a Solyndra bridge to nowhere.


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 6, 2013)

Ed, I'm pretty sure you'd flunk Econ 101 you are clueless.


----------



## oldfart (May 6, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Ed, I'm pretty sure you'd flunk Econ 101 you are clueless.



He certainly wouldn't have passed my class.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 6, 2013)

oldfart said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed, I'm pretty sure you'd flunk Econ 101 you are clueless.
> ...



I'm sure you were a part of the brain dead liberal monoculture which explains exactly why you are so afraid to explain exactly where conservative economics is mistaken.

Libturds don't have to explain, they know in their bleeding hearts that they are right. They are, then, essentially violent!!


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 6, 2013)

Ed, you keep on telling us we are wrong, yet you have offered nothing to back yourself up.  On the other hand, I have offered and linked many resources that back me up, including historical facts.
So I have an idea, why don't you prove the historical facts that I have provided, are wrong.  Can you do that?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 6, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Ed, you keep on telling us we are wrong, yet you have offered nothing to back yourself up.  On the other hand, I have offered and linked many resources that back me up, including historical facts.
> So I have an idea, why don't you prove the historical facts that I have provided, are wrong.  Can you do that?



too stupid!! Nothing?? You say austerity does not work when there is no austerity. Firstly you must say why you think there is austerity, and then the theory behind  how on earth anti austerity tax and spend  could possibly work.

You pure liberal fool, before you present evidence or links on something you must establish that something exists. Did you ever think that the liberal press had brainwashed you once again.

They tell you to parrot that trickle down, austerity, supply side, and Reaganomics don't work, not that capitalism doesn't work!! Do you know why ??

Maybe if you went to college first you'd have a chance to figure it out!!


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Ed, you keep on telling us we are wrong, yet you have offered nothing to back yourself up.  On the other hand, I have offered and linked many resources that back me up, including historical facts.
> So I have an idea, why don't you prove the historical facts that I have provided, are wrong.  Can you do that?


Of course he can not.  He only quotes conservative dogma.  And insults when pinned down, which happens to him often.  Kind of like trying to have a discussion with the badly, badly mentally ill.  He is incapable of actual discussion, because he knows only what he wants to know.  And that is not based on reality.  You are coming from the reality based community.  Ed is from the tool community.


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Sorry, I've been on the phone and we are leaving to fly to Madison, WI.  My daughter is having her baby two weeks early and is on the way to the hospital!
> You might want to check your resources Ed.
> 
> Germany still in recession
> ...


Funny, ed was quoting SIMEON DJANKOV!!!   He was the finance minister in Bulgaria, used very strict austerity methods to bring down the deficit in Bulgaria, and took the economy down the tubes.  The rightest PM of Bulgaria fired him a couple months ago because he has an election coming up shortly, and he does not want to be connected to the clown.  Speaking of clowns, where does ed get this crap???  Why, he gets it from the bat shit crazy con web sites and hopes no one ever checks up on him.  
So, ed just did a great job of helping to prove that austerity has failed in Bulgaria.  Funny.  He will be right back to personal insults shortly.
Actually, I kind of enjoy the insults from Ed.  Works well with the concept of "consider the source" in making me feel I am on the correct track.


----------



## oldfart (May 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed, you keep on telling us we are wrong, yet you have offered nothing to back yourself up.  On the other hand, I have offered and linked many resources that back me up, including historical facts.
> ...



Come on guys!  Ed is our pet troll.  Just don't feed him very often.


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...


Yeah, I guess.  Though Ed seems to have only one purpose, which is to end any rational discussion in any thread.  Funny thing is, he does not think folks notice that he posts all the time.  More than anyone else.  So I guess he thinks people believe he has a job, other than making a few bucks posting for money.  
So, even trolls have some value, I guess.  
Good to see you posting, oldfart.  Helps to have some rational thought after a few hundred posts by ed, the troll.


----------



## itfitzme (May 14, 2013)

Today's Austerity Smackdown: US vs. UK | Mother Jones


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Funny, ed was quoting SIMEON DJANKOV!!!   He was the finance minister in Bulgaria, used very strict austerity methods to bring down the deficit in Bulgaria, and took the economy down the tubes. .



The government of Boiko Borisov elected in 2009 undertook steps to restore economic growth, while attempting to maintain a strict financial policy.[32] The fiscal discipline set by Finance Minister Djankov proved successful and together with reduced budget spending it placed Bulgarian economy on the stage of steadily though slowly growing in the mids of world crisis. On 1 December 2009, Standard and Poors upgraded Bulgaria's investment outlook from "negative" to "stable," which made Bulgaria the only country in the European Union to receive positive upgrade that year.[33] In January 2010 Moody's followed with an upgrade of its rating perspective from "stable" to "positive."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Today's Austerity Smackdown: US vs. UK | Mother Jones



Austerity is a word like supply-side, trickle-down, or Reaganomics that libtards use instead of capitalism because we all know capitalism is obviously superior to liberalism. The best recent examples being East/West Germany and Communist China/capitalist China. 

If a liberal feels liberalism is superior to capitalism let him present his reason or admit by his silence that he lacks the IQ to do so.


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, ed was quoting SIMEON DJANKOV!!!   He was the finance minister in Bulgaria, used very strict austerity methods to bring down the deficit in Bulgaria, and took the economy down the tubes. .
> ...


Yup, and now it is 2013.  And the economy has decreased in size since then, and the country is poorer.  A few made a lot, but the majority lost a lot.  Which is why Djankov was fired by the PM in Feb of this year.  He was a HIGHLY unpopular guy with the population of the country.  As I said, because the PM wants a chance of being reelected.  
You really need to look at an actual impartial site to see how things are going.  Then you would not look so ignorant.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



are you saying capitalism does not work?? If so please say what works better and why or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Today's Austerity Smackdown: US vs. UK | Mother Jones
> ...


SEE!!!  See.  There it is again.  Ed saying something that makes absolutely no sense.  Just like trying to discuss something with a severely mentally ill patient.  Sad.
Liberalism is a political orientation.  Capitalism is an economic system. 
I know.  Much to complex for you, ed.


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Cmon, ed.  I never said any such thing.  Lying again, eh.
But you are a self admitted libertarian.  I am still waiting to have you tell us where a Libertarian economy has ever, ever, ever succeeded over any period of time.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



well if austerity or capitalism does not work why be so afriad to tell us what does work?? You support Obamacare socialism so I assume you are a treasonous socialist who would prefer a government monopoly bureaucracy in all industries?? Don't be afriad to tell us.


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Afraid to tell you is not the problem.  I only try to educate those who have the ability to accept education.  That exempts you.
Austerity is not an economic system.  Capitalism is.  Again, you are confused.  Comes with your mental condition, I am sure.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> .
> Austerity is not an economic system.  Capitalism is.  .



so why not explain the relationship between austerity and capitalism 
or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so??


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


And you have no memory.  As I said, I only educate those with the ability to be educated.  I suspect others have tried.  But it just does not take.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



a typical liberal without the IQ to state his objection to capitalism tries to change the subject and hopes no one will notice!


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Ah, but where did I say I had an objection to capitalism??  You are lying again.  Kind of a pattern with you, me boy.
Now ed, try to follow this.  Since I did not say I had an objection to capitalism, how do you suggest I could change the subject???
Logic just is not your strong point, me boy.  
Ed, a rational person would stop.  You just keep looking dumb.  And it will continue.  Cause, you see, you lack the intellect to make sense, much less an argument.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Since I did not say I had an objection to capitalism, .



Ah, so if you have no objection to capitalism do you want capitalist health care or do you want Obamacare?? Isn't thinking fun????


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Since I did not say I had an objection to capitalism, .
> ...


Obamacare, me poor ignorant clown, is not healthcare.  It is health insurance.  We have social healthcare.  It is called the VA.  Are you suggesting that we get rid of the VA, me boy???
You see, my poor ignorant boy, the ACA simply provides medical insurance, supplied by private insurance corporations, to the citizens.  And the medicine is provided by private doctors.  

Now, do you want to suggest we close down that social medical system, the VA??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Ah, so if you have no objection to capitalism do you want capitalist health care or do you want Obamacare?? Isn't thinking fun????
Try to answer the question, please, or admit you are afraid to.


Also, Obamacare has 100's of mandates where they direct medical care with strong incentives away from fee for service. Another subject about which you apparently know nothing!   What a surprise.


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


I did, dipshit.  But you did not answer my question.  You say you hate social healthcare, so, by basic logic, that must mean that you hate the VA system.  Should we cut those military folks off of the dole and make them pay for their own damned health care, and shut down that socialist VA system???  Or is this to difficult a question for you?

And ed, me poor ignorant con tool, regulations do not mean something is socialist.  Do you drive??  Oh, hell, I know this is too difficult for you.

Ed me boy, you need to do better.  This is like killing ants.  No contest.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



For 3rd time:
If you have no objection to capitalism do you want capitalist health care or do you want Obamacare?? Isn't thinking fun????


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Already answered, ed.  If you do not want to answer my questions, then go play elsewhere.  You have no game, me boy.  
So, again.  What do you want to do with the VA and where is that successfull libertarian economic country?  Can't answer eh??  Thought so.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


For 3rd time:
If you have no objection to capitalism do you want capitalist health care or do you want Obamacare?? Isn't thinking fun????

happy to answer yours as soon as yours answer mine which was asked first


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 14, 2013)

Trying to get Ed to go off script is basically impossible.


----------



## Rshermr (May 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Ed, you are a tool.  I did answer your question.  But until you take a crack at answering the questions I asked you, I think we can assume you can not.  Which is not unusual.  And you are lying, as usual.  So, since you have proven yourself to be, as usual, incapable of response, see you around.  
Must be a drag to be so incapable, eh, ed??


----------



## itfitzme (May 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



He can't accept that most people just dislike him, personally, so he convinces himself that it's a conspiracy of "liberals".  He suffers from a psychosis.  If your not experienced in mental health, you can't be expected to recognize it as such.  You would most likely think he's being a dick.  Rather, you have noticed that he literally cannot comprehend the words on the page before him, words that he should otherwise be expected to understand.  What you have seen is him literally unable to comprehend reality when it diverges to far from the fantacy he has created.  I can assure you that he is presenting an excellent example of what a psychosis looks like.  Think, "seeks out, rearranges, and invents evidence to fit a theme based perception of reality where he is the good guy and others are the enemy."


----------



## Rshermr (May 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Maybe you have it.  I have been looking at the neo-con mind for years, in total awe.  I had a friend who was exactly that.  One day, when discussing an issue, he became aware that he was obviously wrong.  His response was that "he preferred to believe what he wanted to believe".  That was 25 years ago, roughly  Since then, I have discovered, and read analysis, of the neo-con mind.  The 15 % or a bit more of the population who needs the order that being told what to believe provides.  The need to have explanations without the need to do the work.  The people who listen to Rush, and believe what he tells them, even when it can be proven wrong, easily.  They are the weak minded type who were the same ones who Hitler convinced to mindlessly follow him.  Totally without need for proof, with no interest in the facts in any matter.  The little minds that make Fox successful.  Sad little people who believe what they are told, happily.  Because it puts order in their life.  And because it provides them an enemy which they need.  And the enemy is anyone who does not agree with the beliefs that they CHOSE to have, and their entertainment heroes feed to them.  
But had you noticed, I have been saying how similar talking to ed is to talking to a mentally ill person.  Funny how we have said the same sort of thing.  Though, please understand that I am far from an expert in mental illness.   But it is easy to recognize in ed.
Then again, it is important to understand that many of these clowns, ed included, are paid by the far right to post the right wing dogma.  Which I have told ed many times that he does, to provide himself with a few bucks.  And he knows that I am on to him.  Never actually objects to that truth.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Maybe you have it.  I have been looking at the neo-con mind for years, in total awe.



yes, modern conservatives believe exactly what Jefferson and Friedman believed. You should be in awe of superior reasoning!

If you object to Jeffersonian reasoning please give us your best example or admit as a standard liberal you lack the IQ to do so.


----------



## Rshermr (May 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you have it.  I have been looking at the neo-con mind for years, in total awe.
> ...


Now, now ed.  It is not nice to lie.  What I said was quite different than what you are trying to say that I said.  I said that cons believe what they want to believe.  Which, me boy, makes cons stupid.  Which is why you are reduced to lying.  And why you appear so stupid.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> I said that cons believe what they want to believe.



Cons beleive in freedom from liberal government just as Jefferson did. Thats why they sign the pledge among other things. If you object to Jeffersoninan reasoning please say why or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

Isn't thinking fun?? Its like dealing with a child. You're so use to slithering away form substance you don't even know you are doing it.


----------



## itfitzme (May 15, 2013)

The subject is austerity in Europe. *So I use the liberally biased search engine, Google. *I pick the first result, Wikipedia. *It says

"Initial austerity results in Europe have been as predicted by macroeconomics, with unemployment rising to record levels and debt to GDP ratios rising, despite reductions in budget deficits relative to GDP. Eurostat reported that Euro area (EA17) unemployment reached record levels in March 2013 at 12.1%,[7] up from up from 11.0% in March 2012 and 10.3% in March 2011;[8]"

Austerity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Google also produces

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which presents

*The paradox states that if everyone tries to save more money during times of economic recession, then aggregate demand will fall and will in turn lower total savings in the population because of the decrease in consumption and economic growth.*


----------



## itfitzme (May 15, 2013)

The highlighted article is

"South Europe Carmakers Rise on Signs of Austerity Ending."

"Fiat SpA (F), Renault SA (RNO) and PSA Peugeot Citroen (UG) gained more than 5 percent on signs that governments may take measures to spur growth after the euro-area economy contracted more than forecast in the first quarter."

South Europe Carmakers Rise on Signs of Austerity Ending - Bloomberg


----------



## itfitzme (May 15, 2013)

Down further is

"IMF Working Paper - Successful Austerity in the United States, Europe and Japan."

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12190.pdf

Thia will take some studying. A quick impression is that It is a presentation of how austerity may be implemented at minimal impact.


----------



## Rshermr (May 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Down further is
> 
> "IMF Working Paper - Successful Austerity in the United States, Europe and Japan."
> 
> ...


This latter study is kind of the normal attempt by some group of economists to use microeconomic modeling techniques to find the truth, whatever the truth is.  Problem is, there are usually way too many variables.  Kind of like predicting weather patterns with a laptop.  But then, that is just my opinion.  
But it is great to see an attempt to get back to the actual subject of the thread.  
Looks to me like primary factor is going to be the public reaction in the countries involved.  Seems people want to work, and the concept that debt is decreased does not help them put food on the table.  But then, when people work, they pay taxes.  Increased revenue seems to me to have always been the required ingredient in eliminating recession, and in decreasing debt


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> concept that debt is decreased does not help them put food on the table.




Sure it does!!! any debt paid frees you from an eternity of interest on the debt and thus enables you to but more food on the table.

Also, austerity in Europe is mandatory anyway and not open to discussioin really. Germany, for example, said it was not going to bail out Greece unless Greece could pay back its debts. Got it??

So the real question is not how is austerity working, but how is it working compared to the anarchy that would have occured without saintly austerity.

Over your head??


----------



## itfitzme (May 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Down further is
> ...



The economic agent,s unfortunatly, act like a drunk driver, drifting too far to one side then over correcting and vearing sharply to the other.  It's a group behavior thing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Increased revenue seems to me to have always been the required ingredient in eliminating recession



100% stupid of course. More revenue for government means less revenue for the private sector and a prolonged recession since all economic growth comes from an expanding private sector.

Econ 101. Sorry


----------



## Rshermr (May 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > concept that debt is decreased does not help them put food on the table.
> ...


Well, ed, me idiot con tool, why do you not get your ass over to europe and try to tell those folks without jobs and unable to buy food that austerity is good for them.  Lets see if you make it back.  Dipshit.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



as I said, austerity is not an issue because naturally  the Germans or Americans or Girl Scouts are not going to put Greece on permanent welfare!! Austerity is far better than complete anarchy just like rehab is far better then overdosing to death!!

Still over your head??


----------



## Rshermr (May 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Were you of the opinion that Greece was the only country in europe?  Seems to be the only one you know.  
But then, me boy, what I said had nothing to do with that.  What I said was, quite simply, you should go over to a european country where austerity is being exercised and tell the workers who are unemployed that they should love austerity because things will be better for the wealthy.  
You need to stop trying to insult folks.  You are too well known as a troll, and it simply makes you amusing.  People just keep laughing at you, ed.  It is just not a good thing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> you should go over to a european country where austerity is being exercised and tell the workers who are unemployed that they should love austerity because things will be better for the wealthy.



I agree that I should never go over and do that, so what???????


----------



## Rshermr (May 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > you should go over to a european country where austerity is being exercised and tell the workers who are unemployed that they should love austerity because things will be better for the wealthy.
> ...


Of no interest to you, me boy.  You are a con.  You could care less about workers.  As long as the wealthy get more so.  But, I was hoping you would go over.  I would have enjoyed your education.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 15, 2013)

Oh...my...God!  If it isn't "Professor Rshermr"!  Back to lecture the US Message Board about economics, Tommy?  

It must feel gratifying to know that you aren't the biggest liar on the planet...that distinction now being held by Jay Carney.  Kind of like Jimmy Carter being grateful that Barry is slowly but surely getting him off the hook for being the worst President of the modern era.


----------



## Rshermr (May 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Oh...my...God!  If it isn't "Professor Rshermr"!  Back to lecture the US Message Board about economics, Tommy?
> 
> It must feel gratifying to know that you aren't the biggest liar on the planet...that distinction now being held by Jay Carney.  Kind of like Jimmy Carter being grateful that Barry is slowly but surely getting him off the hook for being the worst President of the modern era.


No, me boy.  I never, ever lie.  As you well know.  But then, you lie enough for everyone.

But what is more interesting is that you never, ever comment on the subject at hand.  You simply attack.  Must be sad to be as clueless as you are.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 15, 2013)

You know...little buddy...you'd be PERFECT for the job of Obama Press Secretary if Jay Carney can't handle the pressure much longer!  You've been telling lies nonstop since you came on this site and you don't stop even when you're caught red-handed.  You're EXACTLY the guy they need!!!


----------



## Rshermr (May 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> You know...little buddy...you'd be PERFECT for the job of Obama Press Secretary if Jay Carney can't handle the pressure much longer!  You've been telling lies nonstop since you came on this site and you don't stop even when you're caught red-handed.  You're EXACTLY the guy they need!!!


But then, oldstyle, you lie again.  You have never caught me lying because I do not lie.  If I am wrong bring on some proof.  but then you have none, so you simply make accusations.  
Now I, on the other hand, have you lying on at least two occasions where you are caught red handed.  And it really makes you angry, eh, os.  Can not get a lie on me.  So you just keep on lying.  Saying that I did lie, you see, is a lie.  Obviouse to anyone.  But you just keep on.

But then, you waste everyone's time with that.  Which is your real purpose.  Because as a conservative tool, that is your job.  Never let people have actual discussion and advocate things we cons do not like.  Just destroy the post, if you can.  Personal attacks are perfect.  So, the first thing that you do, os, is NOT discuss the topic of this thread, but attack.  And that is all that you will do.  Because that is your purpose.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



too stupid as usual!! Austerity is the policy of Europe so obviously there are lots of advocates there; without me inout being necessary!! Also, yes of course many in rehab would object to staying in rehab until they are sober, but nevertheless it must be done! 

Oh and I love the liberal bigotry!! You are morally superior because you support crippling welfare. Thats makes so much sense-right??


----------



## Kimura (May 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Yes, austerity is the policy of the EU and it's a disaster. A third year econ undergraduate could tell you why. 

The following EU member states are in a recession: Austria, Greece, France, Italy, Spain, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Finland and Portugal. 

I read some of your more nonsensical posts (well, all of them are inherently nonsensical).

Here's some things you need to realize:

1) The money supply isn't static. It's actually endogenous.
2) A deficit reduction is the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase. They both remove income from the economy.

I think you need to buy a plane ticket and charter a bus through Spain and Greece and see for yourself what these thoroughly discredited policies are breeding.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Yes, austerity is the policy of the EU and it's a disaster. A third year econ undergraduate could tell you why.



dear, a drunk getting sober is not a diaster! Not only is getting sober a good thing but in the case of Europe it is necessary since  Germany naturally does not want to put Greece, for example, on eternal liberal welfare!!

Simple enough for you now??


----------



## Kimura (May 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, austerity is the policy of the EU and it's a disaster. A third year econ undergraduate could tell you why.
> ...



LOL.

Do you even read the lunacy that you post? I've made concerted efforts to respond in the past.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



and you are afraid to respond now??
What does your fear tell you about the liberal IQ?


----------



## Rshermr (May 17, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Hmm.  You seem to know a bit about rehab.  And I thought your problems stemmed from mental illness.  Perhaps it is from substance abuse. Yep, could be.
But it really does show your stripes, me con tool, when you call job creation, and the resultant movement of income to the workers, "crippling welfare".  Funny, but subsidizing the wealthy is good, but moving income to the middle class by creating more jobs is crippling welfare.  Right out of con tool school 101, and supported by your favorite bat shit crazy far right con web site.  And, happily for ed, NO THOUGHT REQUIRED!!!!


----------



## Rshermr (May 17, 2013)

Kimura said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...


Ed is still in wonder about the word endogenous.  Can't find it in the bat shit crazy con web sites he lives in.  And is also ignorant of the word dictionary.  So he is staying with something he knows much more about, somehow, which is Substance Abuse.  Simpler.  For a simple mind.


----------



## oldfart (May 17, 2013)

Kimura said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Ed is our resident pet troll.  He's good for comedy relief.  Just don't feed him too often.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



translation: as a violent liberal I lack the IQ for substance


----------



## Rshermr (May 18, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...


Funny, ed.  You just called a phd economist stupid.  How do you suppose that makes you look.  Yup, old cabbage head strikes again.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 18, 2013)

What's funny, Tommy...is *you* on the same string pretending to BE an economist as someone that has a Doctorate in the subject!


----------



## Rshermr (May 18, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


What is your considered opinion of the overall situation in europe with their efforts at austerity.  I could use a dose of reality, after dealing with the conservative crowd here.  
By the way, on a personal note, I was listening to a radio program where an economist from Australia discussed a book he had recently published that won awards for his analysis of austerity throughout the world, but particularly in europe.  I lost his name, and the name of his book, so I have been trying to google all the relative words but with no success.  Sound familiar to you?  Just hoping.  I believe that book was published between 1 and 2 years ago, though not certain.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 20, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



WSJ: "if borrowing money for the government to spend on growth worked Europe would not be in this mess. The Continent finds itself in a never ending slump because it has mostly failed to reform its sclerotic labor market, cut job-killing regulations, reduce the rolls of the civil service, improve its tax competitiveness, and rein in public unions. When government accounts  for 50% of GDP- as it does in Italy, Portugal, France, and Greece-that's a fair indication that's what ever else is ailing Europe its not austerity."


----------



## Kimura (May 24, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



It may have been Steve Keen. He's a professor of economics from the University of Western Sydney. He's a BRILLIANT economist, one of the few doing cutting edge research.

Austerity is a failed policy, with zero historical basis in reality. Austerity measures have failed every time they've been attempted, regardless of taxation policy recommendations by the IMF. It simply cannot work if we follow the sectoral balances approach. The end result of austerity is that it will atrophy labor and capital, thus pushing the country into actual depression. If the government sector runs a surplus, then the domestic private sector will go into deficit, similar to what occurred under Clinton in the late 90s, which caused private debt to increase dramatically.


----------



## Kimura (May 24, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



Complete bullshit. 

The fiscal austerity imposed on certain EU counties was done by the Troika. Their austerity policy is an EPIC FAIL. The private sector in these EU countries haven't increased spending as their public sectors were cut. They simply can't. The second EPIC FAIL was telling their populations that massive cuts in the public sector would increase the competitiveness of these nations, thus closing the gap with Zee Germans resulting in an export renaissance. It never happened. This was all a massive lie.  These policies have destroyed and impoverished the lives of untold millions and a whole generation of Europeans. 

It's time for the adults in the room to stand up.


----------



## itfitzme (May 24, 2013)

"WSJ - "... job-killing regulations ..."

For instance, do people realize the number of jobs created to clean up an oil spill?  It far offsets the labor paid to initially build equipment that reduces accidents.


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2013)

There has been some questioning of the effect of austerity on the health of the nations involved.  This is the best I have run into, as far as having some proof well documented:
"Scientists at Oxford and Stanford Universities have brought to light the negative effect austerity measures have on health. They say spending cuts and mass lay-offs across Europe and North America are fueling a spike in suicide and depression. *The academics behind the study believe the global financial crisis has caused as many as 10,000 to take their own lives.*"
?US, European leaders in denial about human cost of austerity? ? RT Op-Edge


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2013)

Then, the cause of the Eurozone financial crisis.  The popular cause pushed by every conservative with sufficient time and brain activity to post was that it was the fault of the people themselves.  Too much spending on the people of those countries.  Which is, of course, complete drivel.
The cause of the economic meltdown in europe was about the same as the cause of the meltdown in this country.  Which is why it happened at exactly the same time.  

Here is a really well written explanation of the problems causing the EU meltdown:
The reasons behind the Eurozone financial crisis | New Europe


----------



## editec (May 26, 2013)

Having a debate with an obvious troll is largely a  waste of time.

I guess about the only purpose it can serve is to make one a better writer.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2013)

Kimura said:


> It's time for the adults in the room to stand up.



1) economists support capitalism or socialism

2) austerity (less government spending) is only a small  step toward capitalism

3) the is no significant austerity in Europe since most governments there spend 50% of GDP

4) austerity is mandatory in Europe since Greece cant pay its bills and most cut spending to get the loans from Germany to stay afloat as it downsizes to a life saving sustainable level.

A liberal will have no where near the IQ needed to understand the above so will continue to parrot as he is told.


----------



## itfitzme (May 26, 2013)

editec said:


> Having a debate with an obvious troll is largely a  waste of time.
> 
> I guess about the only purpose it can serve is to make one a better writer.




Yep, you gotta know what is in it for you.


----------



## itfitzme (May 26, 2013)

Austerity-

A state of reduced spending or increased frugality ...

In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during extreme economic conditions.

Seems like some people are making up their own definition.


----------



## itfitzme (May 26, 2013)

How might austerity be measured?  Is it simply reduced spending?  Is it any attempt to reduce the budget deficit, regardless of the outcome?  Is it actual budget deficit reduction?  Is it zero deficit?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Austerity-
> 
> A state of reduced spending or increased frugality ...
> 
> ...



yes, if Europe cuts spending from 53% of GDP to 50% liberals claim that is austerity and that it disproves capitalism (which is far more than austerity) which China just used to eliminate 50% of the world's poverty!!

Liberal is another world for stupid I'm afraid to say.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> How might austerity be measured?  Is it simply reduced spending?  Is it any attempt to reduce the budget deficit, regardless of the outcome?  Is it actual budget deficit reduction?  Is it zero deficit?



whats important is to recognize the relationship between capitalism and austerity since austerity alone is not a viable or recognized economic system, it is merely an aspect of capitalism.

Europe needs to cut it government spending back to 25% from 50% before you might look for results, plus it must reform its eurosclerotic labor market, cut job-killing regulations, reduce the rolls of the civil service, improve its tax competitiveness, and rein in public unions, to name a few of things it must do to approach capitalism efficiency and growth.


----------



## itfitzme (May 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 3) the is ...
> 
> 4) ... Greece cant ...
> 
> ... no where near ...


Correctly, they are;
3) theERE is
4)Greece can't
...nowhere near

1) You can either spell correctly or you cannot.

2) Spelling correctly is a small step towards intelligence.

3) There is no significant intelligence there because 60% of the paragraphs contain spelling errors.

4) Apparently, spelling isn't mandatory because all feedback is internal.

The average IQ of this forum is significantly decreased as a result.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > 3) the is ...
> ...



typical liberal trying to change the subject because he lacks the IQ for the subject!!


----------



## itfitzme (May 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > How might austerity be measured?  Is it simply reduced spending?  Is it any attempt to reduce the budget deficit, regardless of the outcome?  Is it actual budget deficit reduction?  Is it zero deficit?
> ...



So when did this derailment of capitalism start?


----------



## itfitzme (May 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You keep bringing up IQ. *Or did you forget?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



it has been going on for a long long time. Obamacare is the best recent example. Why?????? It seems like a silly idle question because you lack the IQ to discuss the main point?


----------



## itfitzme (May 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I'm still waiting for you to explain what the production function is and how it relates to a Cournot monopoly of n firms, or have you forgoten that topic that you avoided?

Because you need to be specific.  Was it 1950?  1970? 2000? 2007?  

What did you say your IQ is?  

Where did you take Econ 101 and what was your grade?

These all are topics you keep bringing up and avoiding.


----------



## itfitzme (May 26, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Then, the cause of the Eurozone financial crisis.  The popular cause pushed by every conservative with sufficient time and brain activity to post was that it was the fault of the people themselves.  Too much spending on the people of those countries.  Which is, of course, complete drivel.
> The cause of the economic meltdown in europe was about the same as the cause of the meltdown in this country.  Which is why it happened at exactly the same time.
> 
> Here is a really well written explanation of the problems causing the EU meltdown:
> The reasons behind the Eurozone financial crisis | New Europe



Curiously, there is an indication that aggregate health increases, at least for a while, during recession.

QJE

The basic idea is that obesity dropsand other stuff.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



So when did this derailment of capitalism start?

it has been going on for a long long time. Obamacare is the best recent example. Why?????? It seems like a silly idle question because you lack the IQ to discuss the main point?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 9, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


As we all thought, ed, me boy.  You have no idea at all.  Just posting con dogma from the bat shit crazy con sites you frequent.  As always.  
Is the middle class growing, or shrinking, ed?  Do you have any idea?   Do you care?
So, corporate wealth is growing and getting more concentrated.  Mergers and acquisitions keep increasing in value.  Does that make you happy?  Maybe if it gets to one person, having all the wealth and all the rest have nothing, you will be ecstatic?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



He IMAGINES that he would have been that wealthy person, or at least one of them.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, corporate wealth is growing and getting more concentrated.



yes I agree; we're down to about 50 million corporations which explains why you are so afraid to state the most prounouned ill affect of all this wealth concentration that only fool liberals seem to talk about with a straight face.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 9, 2013)

Ed, me boy.  You are apparently unaware that a corporation can have as few as 1 person.  Dipshit.  And, me poor ignorant con tool, here I am having to educate you again.  Hard, but let me try:
In 2007, there were 28,952,489 total incorporated establishments.  Of those, 21,351,320 had NO EMPLOYEES.  Only 7,601,169 had at least ONE employee.  And of those million plus that had at least one employee, about half had 4 or less employees. 
Statistics about Business Size (including Small Business) from the U.S. Census Bureau

So, ed, you should not state statistical numbers.  Too easy to prove that you are a liar.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Ed, me boy.  You are apparently unaware that a corporation can have as few as 1 person.  Dipshit.  And, me poor ignorant con tool, here I am having to educate you again.  Hard, but let me try:
> In 2007, there were 28,952,489 total incorporated establishments.  Of those, 21,351,320 had NO EMPLOYEES.  Only 7,601,169 had at least ONE employee.  And of those million plus that had at least one employee, about half had 4 or less employees.
> Statistics about Business Size (including Small Business) from the U.S. Census Bureau
> 
> So, ed, you should not state statistical numbers.  Too easy to prove that you are a liar.



Thank.  My last numbers were from '00.  Around here, many businesses don't pay taxes.  They are just to small and have no profit, if the owner draws a salary. The owner is lucky to scratch out a living and pays standard income taxes. One guy was having a heck of a time trying to figure out how to have employees at all.  Business was sporadic.  Still, he needed the people there.  The State labor agency took a look at him, fines and all.  It's not like he's ever actually going to pay them.  You can't get blood from a turnip.

Starting up and running a business is no as easy as saying "free market".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Ed, me boy.  You are apparently unaware that a corporation can have as few as 1 person.  Dipshit.  And, me poor ignorant con tool, here I am having to educate you again.  Hard, but let me try:
> In 2007, there were 28,952,489 total incorporated establishments.  Of those, 21,351,320 had NO EMPLOYEES.  Only 7,601,169 had at least ONE employee.  And of those million plus that had at least one employee, about half had 4 or less employees.
> Statistics about Business Size (including Small Business) from the U.S. Census Bureau
> 
> So, ed, you should not state statistical numbers.  Too easy to prove that you are a liar.



perfectly stupid liberal trying to quibble over how many millions of  corporations there are in the world because he is cant  support his parroted 19th Century Marxist claim that there is some  important consequence to having "power"[whatever that means] concentrated in millions and millions of competing corporations all over the world!!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 9, 2013)

You said 50M corporations.  You lied.  Now, in my mind, 20 million or so is not quibling.  I know, ed, counting useing your fingers and toes makes it hard for you to fathom 20 million.  And, me boy, I simply said, originally, that wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.  Here.  Try to actually read something:  Oh, I forgot, it is Ed.  You never read anything that does not agree with your bat shit crazy con web sites that you are paid to support.  But if you did, you would actually read the following:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg
Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Ed, me boy.  You are apparently unaware that a corporation can have as few as 1 person.  Dipshit.  And, me poor ignorant con tool, here I am having to educate you again.  Hard, but let me try:
> ...


No, it is not.  And being a stupid as ed is even more difficult.  Watch him change the subject.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 10, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



perfectly stupid liberal trying to quibble over how many millions of  corporations there are in the world because he cant  support his parroted 19th Century Marxist claim that there is some  important consequence to having "power"[whatever that means] concentrated in millions and millions of competing corporations all over the world!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 10, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> You said 50M corporations.  You lied.  Now, in my mind, 20 million or so is not quibling.




dear, how stupid can one person be???? it could be 20, 50 or 80 million businesses depending on how you count, but the issue still remains: what is the evil consequence  you claimed of having power concentrated in 80 million businesses  ???????????????????????????????


here is a count showing 71 million, not counting USA!! 
Are you at least smart enough to feel stupid??? Sorry!
1,783  	2003 	
#	 81  	  Yemen:	 0.09 per 1,000 people 	2003 	
#	 67  	  Zambia:	 23,193  	2003 	
#	 2  	  Zimbabwe:	 6,330,047  	2003 	
Total:	 71,553,465   		
Weighted


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 10, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Ed, me boy.  You just continue to lie.  But then, you ARE a con.
Now, about that whole monopoly power issue.  Perhaps you remember an economist by the name of Smith.  Adam Smith.  You know, Wealth of Nations.  Go take a look, dipshit.  Even he saw the problem with monopoly power. Only a few well paid conservative economists think otherwise.  And ed.  But then he is paid by the cons, also.  Funny.  
Here is the thing, ed.  You can post the con dogma from now till the cows come home.  If you see no monopoly power, or any problem with monopoly power, then you are either a liar, or a paid con dogma slinger.  And, since you are both, where is the surprise?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 10, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > You said 50M corporations.  You lied.  Now, in my mind, 20 million or so is not quibling.
> ...


Again, ed, me boy.  Being a con tool, you lie.  I educated you earlier.  There are less than 6 million corporations in the US that have one or more employees.  Over 21 million have NONE.  
And, large corporations, which are the only ones that matter in this discussion, are few indeed.  There are less than 2000 corporations with over 2000 employees.  
Statistics about Business Size (including Small Business) from the U.S. Census Bureau

Ed, here is a news flash.  No one cares how many corporations there are or are not in Yemen or Zimbabwe. Idiot.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 10, 2013)

Jesus...Tommy...you're STILL trying to pretend you know something about economics?  Here's a "news flash" for *you*, little buddy...you wouldn't know Adam Smith from Adam Ant.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Ed does not know.  He simply posts conservative dogma.  He has long since determined that he does not care about economic reality.  He simply posts what he is paid to post.  Dogma from his conservative handlers.  No one, and I mean NO ONE, posts as often as ed.  And always in perfect alignment with the right wing bat shit crazy conservative web sites.  And always, always, always, Ed passes the koch test.  If it is good for the Koch brothers, it is what ed "believes".  
Ed is a fraud.  As are a number or right wing tools posting on this site.


----------



## editec (Jun 11, 2013)

This continued battle where some people think the problem is government while others believe it is corporations sort to misses the reality in favor or some goofy ideology

I fail to see how any citizen of even average intelligence can miss this fact..*government (both parties)  works hand in hand with insider corporations.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 11, 2013)

editec said:


> This continued battle where some people think the problem is government while others believe it is corporations sort to misses the reality in favor or some goofy ideology
> 
> I fail to see how any citizen of even average intelligence can miss this fact..*government (both parties)  works hand in hand with insider corporations.*


Way too much.  I agree.  But there is still the whole issue of how to see our economy improve.  And, if you actually look, you will see that there is no intent to improve the ECONOMY by the cons.  There is simply an intent to get back complete power, and to make the wealthy more so.  If you miss that, then you are not looking with an impartial mind.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



He is a theme based thinker. He sees two themes and categorizes accordingly. If information won't fit the categories, he ignores it.*

One theme is this thing he calls capitalism/free-markets. It guarantees that all companies price at cost. *This drives prices down, consumer expenses are as low as possible, and everyone gets rich. *

Anything that doesn't fit that model is caused by interference in the market.

He doesn't know when this derailment happened, just that it did. The proof is simple, he's not rich. *If not for market interferance, we'd all be millionaires.

It works like this:

1) Formulate a theory based on theme that will get him rich.
2) Collect data.
3) Fit data into theory.
4) Put data that won't fit aside until it can be fitted.
5) Return to step 2.

(Procedure for fitting data. *Increase generalization of words until can fit.)


That's why he knows that global climate change is a hoax.

Climate change scientists use the same process.

1) Formulate a theory based on theme that will get them rich.
2) Collect data
3) Fit data into theory.
4) Put data that won't fit aside until it can be fitted.

That's "science". *It's so simple, even a liberal could do it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

editec said:


> This continued battle where some people think the problem is government while others believe it is corporations sort to misses the reality in favor or some goofy ideology
> 
> I fail to see how any citizen of even average intelligence can miss this fact..*government (both parties)  works hand in hand with insider corporations.*



Corporment?   Goverations?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 11, 2013)

editec said:


> This continued battle where some people think the problem is government while others believe it is corporations sort to misses the reality in favor or some goofy ideology
> 
> I fail to see how any citizen of even average intelligence can miss this fact..*government (both parties)  works hand in hand with insider corporations.*



liberal or crony socialist government believes in business and government being combined, as in Obamacare, while Republican capitalism is about the separation of business and government. 

A child can grasp this just not a liberal


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > This continued battle where some people think the problem is government while others believe it is corporations sort to misses the reality in favor or some goofy ideology
> ...




Awesome, Ed. *Give us your best historical example of a nation where gov't and business were perfectly seperated.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



too stupid!!! What on earth makes you think there is an example of perfect separation?????????

See why we say slow, very very slow!!!.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I don't. *But you're the expert. *How about a historical example of substantial seperation then?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> [quot=itfitzme;7365331]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, Ed. *You actually have to edit my response so you can believe yourself. Then you can't even do that right.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > [quot=itfitzme;7365331]
> ...


Ed is a admitted libertarian.  So, I keep asking him for an example of a successful libertarian economy.  Can you believe that ed is incapable of doing so?  Tried the USA once.  But, his heroes (Koch bros, et al) want the economy to move in that direction.  They are smart enough to know that moving in that direction will make them richer and more powerful.  They probably also know that they will NEVER get to an actual libertarian economy.  But poor ed is not smart enough to know all that.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I wouldn't go so far as to insult the entire Libertarian party, Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government, without getting to know them better.

I've learned a couple things from Ed, when he get's specific. *I research it, find out he's completely wrong, then I know something new.

How awesome for econ when we find any periods or nations of reasonably predominate anything. *To bad he doesn't know of any. *I'm quite disappointed. *Never hurts to ask.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


I know them well.  But all one has to know is that libertarianism does not work.  Never has, and never will.  There needs to be a balance between gov and bus.  Too far either way, it will never work because the people of the nation will never let it.
Just as communism does not work for the long term, after the advantages of central planning have played out, so libertarianism leads to the absolute power of a few extremely wealthy cats who control everything, including the gov.  And the result is a cesspool for the workers.  And revolt, and tyranny will always result.  If it ever gets that far.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You gotta figure there is a reason we don't see it. 195,000 years of homosapiens, 50,000 years of tools, 12,000 years of culture, 10,000 years of agriculture, 4,000 years of writing, and 200 years of democracy. *

Seems like plenty of time to develop. * *And with the world nations converging to mixed economies, it doesn't look like an idea that's time has come. *More like came and went.

It sounds more like what you get when you breed animals for dominate characteristics. *To stupid to breed on it's own.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Yup.  And so you get ED!!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Ah, hate to break this to you, Sparky but Democracy has been around since the 5th Century Greek city states.  200 years?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 12, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> so libertarianism leads to the absolute power of a few extremely wealthy cats who control everything, including the gov.



Obviously then its no longer libertarian. We need to think before we write don't we?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Okay.  So what's you're point, that it's older than the US? That I haven't read everything? That there has been a Libertarian nation? 

Or are you just jerking yourself off?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > so libertarianism leads to the absolute power of a few extremely wealthy cats who control everything, including the gov.
> ...





So how you doing on;

Carnout ologopolies of m firms?

when capitalism first began to be undermined?

A historic example of a nation that was predominately seperate capitalism and gov't.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



My point would be that Democracy has been around for a lot longer than 200 years and YES...it's older than the US.

I would also put forward the point that the United States of America is in many ways the foremost example of a libertarian nation...taking many of John Locke's libertarian ideas and using them in the framing of the Declaration of Independence.

And in case you haven't figured it out...Rshermr is the "jerk off" of this board.  He's the pathological liar who says he taught college economics classes as an undergrad yet doesn't understand basic Keynesian economics and thinks a "school of economics" is an actual college campus.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 13, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


And that would be Oldstyle.  Lying like a rug as usual.

Oldstyle is a con tool.  He gets his stuff from the bat shit crazy con web sites.  Then, when he is proven a liar, he starts his attacks.  And never, ever stops.  Never, ever talks about the subject of the thread again.  Because he can not.  
Oldstyle is a food services employee.  I believe that means dishwasher.  Because he posts all the time, at work.  Says his boss does not mind.  Can you imagine a job insignificant enough that he his boss does not mind him posting on a blog. 
What he says about me is largely untrue.  First, I do indeed understand Keynesian economics.   He  had two economics classes and now thinks he is an expert.  And I do indeed understand School of Economics.  Another lie from Oldstyle.  In the midst of playing games, saying the same thing for the 30th time (or so) he said something about an economic school.  I was not paying much attention, and thought he was talking about a university, given the context. Again, he has made this claim at least 50 times. 
So, what you will see from here is personal attacks and  game playing from the clown.

Here is an example.  I did not teach an economics class as an undergrad.  I taught part of a class for an econ proff, using his class plan and schedule.  Over 45 years ago.  No big deal.  Simply something that Oldstyle has grabbed hold of.  He has made this same accusation at least 50 times.  After, as the following will show, he said he would stop if I agreed to provide some details.  He did not.  Because he has absolutely no integrity.  Here are the relevant posts, just to keep it short:

Thread:  Consumers Create Jobs
08-16-2012, 07:34 AM                         Post #166
Rshermr 
Registered User
Member #37424


of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."
Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?


> This is very simple...
> You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.  *
> So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar.* When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.
> Balls in your court, Sparky...



Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief. Good as I was very broke. 
But as you will soon show, this proves nothing. You had my word, which is good for most. What I did 45 years ago is not provable today, nor do I care what you believe. Your premise, that I prove myself a liar, should I not respond to you, is total BS. As was your efforts to push this as you did. And may still. The only reason I am responding is to get you to spend your efforts at economics topics instead of wasting time trying to prove me a liar, which I am not. You see, oldstyle, I do not lie, as I prefer to maintain my integrity. A life obsession. Which is why I see you as a shit. And as I have told you, because this was a very small part of my life. Certainly not something that I brag about. But it served a purpose. It showed me that you learn more teaching a class than attending one.


So, as you can see, this was over a year ago.  And Oldstyle has proven himself a liar.  And that he has no integrity.  But that is Oldstyle.  He just keeps on with the attacks, insults, and accusations.  Which is pretty much all he is capable of.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 13, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


So, Oldstyle says:


> I would also put forward the point that the United States of America is in many ways the foremost example of a libertarian nation...taking many of John Locke's libertarian ideas and using them in the framing of the Declaration of Independence.



Again, do you have a point  Are you saying that we are an example of a libertarian nation because you believe that many of john loche's ideas were used in the Declaration of Independence??  You must have a source for this, right???  
As far as being a foremost example of libertarian nation, you may want to take a look around.  Anyone who would call the US libertarian is brain dead.  Only Ed has ever made that claim, and then even he backed down.  
So, Oldstyle, your statement does not pass the giggle test.  I remember you saying you were not a libertarian.  Then found that your only economic hero is a libertarian.  I think maybe you are a libertarian, just know you can not support it.  
So, where is that libertarian economy.  Where is that country with the libertarian economy.  Google which country is libertarian, and you will find all kinds of self admitted libertarians trying to find that nation themselves.  To no avail.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 13, 2013)

Poor Tommy...still whining about being exposed as a complete bullshit artist!  Still begging to be let off the hook for that silly lie about teaching college level economics.  You were forced to walk that claim back one step at a time, Rshermr because it was quickly evident that you didn't even know the BASICS of economics let alone have the where with all to TEACH the subject.

You continue to amuse, little buddy.  Now your excuse for not knowing what was being referred to when I spoke about a school of economics is that you weren't paying attention?  Really?  

Internet liars generally get caught because they paint themselves into a corner by pretending to *be* or *know* things that it quickly becomes apparent that they know nothing about.  Your claim to have taught economics in college is the perfect example of that.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




Well great, democracy has been around for more than 200 years. *So that would be better then. *Even more time to have developed.

I can't quibble with that.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > so libertarianism leads to the absolute power of a few extremely wealthy cats who control everything, including the gov.
> ...



Because it didn't work.  Really Ed, are you really that dumb or do you just pretend to be?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What's that saying about the company we keep?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Poor Tommy...still whining about being exposed as a complete bullshit artist! *Still begging to be let off the hook for that silly lie about teaching college level economics. *You were forced to walk that claim back one step at a time, Rshermr because it was quickly evident that you didn't even know the BASICS of economics let alone have the where with all to TEACH the subject.
> 
> You continue to amuse, little buddy. *Now your excuse for not knowing what was being referred to when I spoke about a school of economics is that you weren't paying attention? *Really? *
> 
> Internet liars generally get caught because they paint themselves into a corner by pretending to *be* or *know* things that it quickly becomes apparent that they know nothing about. *Your claim to have taught economics in college is the perfect example of that.



Kinda irrelevant. *Either the ideas stand on their own or they don't. *Problem with econ is it generally comes down to no solid empirical evidence. *econometrics really took off with the invention of the PC. Now the average economist can actually crunch some data.

I'm still waiting for for that pure examples of capitalism and libertarian economy and nation. *Either that or something fairly substantial that demonstrates their sustainability.

Now I am to understand that "Democracy has been around since the 5th Century Greek city states" yer those 5th Century Greek State somehow got lost on the dustbin of time. *So how come their not around any more? *What happened? *So democracy was tried and failed only to attempt a resurection later? *Doesn't seem like very strong evidence cor democracy either.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Poor Tommy...still whining about being exposed as a complete bullshit artist! *Still begging to be let off the hook for that silly lie about teaching college level economics. *You were forced to walk that claim back one step at a time, Rshermr because it was quickly evident that you didn't even know the BASICS of economics let alone have the where with all to TEACH the subject.
> ...



"Pure examples" of capitalism don't exist...just as pure examples of communism don't exist.  Everything is a hybrid.  That being said...the United States began it's existence with both a strong capitalist foundation and a strong libertarian slant.  You could make the case that both of those things contributed in major ways to the subsequent success of the country.  You could also make a strong case that the path we've taken since the Great Depression and FDR's "New Deal", have made us less of a capitalistic nation with less of a libertarian slant and because of that our country has become a shadow of it's former self.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 14, 2013)

So, Oldstyle, as I said, continues on with his attacks. 


> Poor Tommy...still whining about being exposed as a complete bullshit artist! Still begging to be let off the hook for that silly lie about teaching college level economics.


Name is not tommy.  And I am not poor.  I have integrity, and I do not lie.  You have none, and lie continually.

If you could read your own post, you would know that there was no begging. If you read the post, you know that I said that you would go on with you claims about me.  And you did.  But, you know I never lie. Ever. Just makes you crazy. But you do. As the little lie above demonstrates. Please show me where I ever begged you for anything.  Never happened.  Just another of your lies.



> You were forced to walk that claim back one step at a time, Rshermr because it was quickly evident that you didn't even know the BASICS of economics let alone have the where with all to TEACH the subject.


And again you lie.  Just can not stop yourself, can you, oldstyle.  I never, ever walked anything back.  Jesus, you are a true sociopath.

Quote:
You continue to amuse, little buddy. Now your excuse for not knowing what was being referred to when I spoke about a school of economics is that you weren't paying attention? Really?
I am not little.  And I am not your buddy.  I will let you know if I ever want to be your buddy.  But it is unlikely.  I hate sociopaths.

Even in the state of complete boredom that I was in when I looked at that question, I would have know immediately if you had said school of economics what you were referring to.. You did not. Just another lie. You lie so easily, where most people would have a conscience. Are you a sociopath, oldstyle. Or do you simply totally lack integrity.


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...








That is laughable.  I suggest you read some economic history to get a grasp of just what socialism does to a countries willingness to work.  Workers can only support so many non workers...Greece has also got the added problem of a severely bloated public employee pool.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 14, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Many economies tend to START as fairly libertarian in nature.  But when they do, they tend to move forward more slowly than others.  But, the question is not what was somewhat libertarian, but where is an actual example of a libertarian, or even pure capitalistic, economy in any nation.  And there are none.  They sometimes start out that way, but they do not last.
They do not last because the populations of those countries that are faced with them do not like them.  They fail because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  And in every single case, that has been what has happened.

Your statement about the downturn of our country as a result of the great depression is straight out of the bat shit crazy con web sites.  What is your proof, and what terrible things have happened that came about to crush what you apparently thought was a libertarian leaning nation?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You're as ignorant about political science as you are about economics, Tommy.  The entire premise behind libertarianism is the retention of personal freedoms and the putting in place checks and balances to *restrain* the power of government.  The reason I state that the US was an example of libertarianism is that the country was formed in large part because the founding fathers didn't want to comply with the dictates of a king.  A monarchy is absolute power!  THAT is what liberalism was designed to negate.

As for the rest of your little rant?  What's the biggest problem facing the country right now?  A looming insolvency due to out of control entitlements?  Where did all of THAT get it's start?  FDR's New Deal was a fork in the road in which we chose a new path.  That path has led us here.  And HERE is not a better place for American!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 14, 2013)

So, Oldstyle says:




> You're as ignorant about political science as you are about economics, Tommy.


So, Oldstyle starts with an insult right out of the box.  What you do not yet understand, apparently, is that is your opinion.  And no one respects you opinion.  So, lets see your argument.  I am sure shortly, we will be back to no arguments and entirely personal attacks;



> The entire premise behind libertarianism is the retention of personal freedoms and the putting in place checks and balances to restrain the power of government. The reason I state that the US was an example of libertarianism is that the country was formed in large part because the founding fathers didn't want to comply with the dictates of a king. A monarchy is absolute power!



True, and I never said that it was not.  Too much gov is a bad thing.  When gov is out of control of the population, bad things can happen.  Again, power corrupts.....  Be it gov or be it corporate.  But you may want to remember the fact that the founding fathers were also afraid of corporate power.  The start of the revolution, that whole Tea Party thing in Boston, was a revolt against a corporation.  
In the states, as they were formed, were very strict rules against the formation and activities of corporations.  You tend to forget that.  And there were fewer than 5 corporations at the time of the start of the revolution.


> THAT is what liberalism was designed to negate.


That is your interpretation. Your opinion again.  Libertarianism today is supported by very wealthy folks.  The Koch brothers founded the largest libertarian think tank in the world.   Cato, and another over 80 "think tanks" that espouse libertarian views, are in all cases run by very wealthy far, far right wing political minded operatives who have views about the same as you post here.  But their reason for their intent is largely believed to be to control politics and back libertarian views in any way they can.  Including huge amounts of expenditures in political races, payments directly to politicians and economist to express their views, taking over of publications to further their ideas, and efforts to control colleges through grants with strings requiring the hiring of instructors with libertarian views.  And those activities, and that concentration of power, is EXACTLY what the founders of this country feared.  Not just concentration of power in gov, but concentration of power anywhere.  Including the private sector.



> As for the rest of your little rant?


Another personal attack??  Just can not live without them, can ya.  Personal views are not rants.  I could call what you said a rant.  But I am simply arguing what I believe, trying to stay away from the attacks.



> What's the biggest problem facing the country right now? A looming insolvency due to out of control entitlements?


I would disagree.  As would almost all economists.  What exists as our largest problem today, in the minds of most economists, is the continuation of high unemployment, and the reduction in personal wealth resulting from the recession of 2008.  



> Where did all of THAT get it's start? FDR's New Deal was a fork in the road in which we chose a new path. That path has led us here. And HERE is not a better place for American!


Your opinion again.  If you would study the great depression, and the reason it occurred with an open mind, you could very well have a different view.  Unemployment was at 25% BEFORE  the inauguration of FDR.  Even hoover had begun efforts at raising money for stimulus spending.  You would have been, had you lived there with your views, in a very small minority.  People were living and dying on the streets.  Starving to death.  But a few very wealthy were doing quite well.  So, you had a very normal outcome of Liaise Faire economics.  Concentration of wealth, control of the gov by the wealthy, and the inevitable crash.  Power corrupts...
You are correct in saying "we chose a new path".  Democracy, one vote per citizen, all that sort of stuff.  So, lets see how things were before the fork you expressed dissatisfaction with.  It may give you an idea of why the populace wanted the gov to create a safety net (which they would pay for):


How did the Great Depression affect the lives and dreams of those that lived through it

I. The Great Depression

A. What made life so hard during the Great Depression?

1. Unemployment

2. Homelessness

3. Poverty

4. Destruction of families

5. Farm losses

B. What was President Herbert Hoover's economic policy during the depression?

1. Refused to use the Fed to increase money supply.

2. Followed Laissez Faire philosophy - left the economy alone: "the ship would right itself."

3. Believed in "Rugged Individualism" people should "pick themselves up by the boot straps..."

4. Passage of Smoot-Hawley Tariff (40% Protective Tariff)

5. Eventually created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) to loan money to business but this was too little too late.

C. What was the reaction to Hoover's policies?

1. He was basically hated.

2. Homeless set up "Hoovervilles" - tent cities.

D. How did this effect people's perception of government?

1. They felt for the first time that government was not their to protect them.

2. People's ideals began to shift away from the conservative laissez faire ideology.

3. Those that lived through the depression are very frugal and careful with their money. They also tend to distrust banks.
Effects of the Great Depression

So, if you chose this place as opposed to where we are today, I would disagree with your statement that before FDR was a better place.  Again, you would have been iamong a very small minority.  Libertarian beliefs are diametrically opposed to the opinions of those who backed the supports put in place by the populace at that time.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> That is your interpretation. Your opinion again. Libertarianism today is supported by very wealthy folks. The Koch brothers founded the largest libertarian think tank in the world. Cato, and another over 80 "think tanks" that espouse libertarian views, are in all cases run by very wealthy far, far right wing political minded operatives who have views about the same as you post here.



ll you proved here is that you're a clueless brainwashed drone.  All leftwing think tanks are funded and controlled by wealthy individuals, like Theresa Heinz Kerry.  What you find so sinister is exactly what characterizes the source of all your talking points. I wouldn't call them "ideas" because that would imply you are capable of rational thought rather than just parroting left-wing propaganda.




Rshermr said:


> But their reason for their intent is largely believed to be to control politics and back libertarian views in any way they can.



Wow, that is sinister.  Imagine libertarians using their money to promote their values.  Leftwingers would never do that, would they?

You are a class-A moron.



Rshermr said:


> Including huge amounts of expenditures in political races, payments directly to politicians and economist to express their views, taking over of publications to further their ideas, and efforts to control colleges through grants with strings requiring the hiring of instructors with libertarian views. And those activities, and that concentration of power, is EXACTLY what the founders of this country feared. Not just concentration of power in gov, but concentration of power anywhere. Including the private sector.



What the Founders of the country feared is government using taxpayer funds to promote views that are despised by the taxpayers, and that's what public universities do.  So when a libertarian spends his own personal funds to counter this vast flood of government sponsored propaganda, that's something to worry about?  

The idea that "concentration of power" in the private sector is something to be more concerned about than government power is too idiotic for words to describe.

I could spend all day ridiculing your idiocies, but I have other things to do.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 14, 2013)

Kimura said:


> We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.



You're another major league idiot.  You don't even know what feudalism is.  You obviously don't know the slightest thing about economics.  In other words, you're a typical left-winger.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 14, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Now that's one of the dumber statements made on here in quite some time (no wonder Tommy thought it deserved a thanks!  You got the idiot's seal of approval!).  Feudalism is NOTHING like libertarianism.  Feudalism is based upon a contract between a lord and a vassal...the lord pledging to protect the vassal from outside forces and the vassal pledging to provide service to the lord in exchange for that protection.  How THAT translates into libertarianism is something you'll have to try and explain!


----------



## Kimura (Jun 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.
> ...



I have an BA and MS in Economics.  Try again, cupcake.

If you want to debate, I'm definitely game. You pick: macro, micro, labor theory, monetary operations? Since you're clearly a superior intellect, and I'm clearly an idiot, I'll give it my best.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 14, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



It should be glaringly obvious the "libertarianism" of the variety espoused by the Murray Rothbard/Robert Nozick/Ayn Rand axis _most definitely _resembles feudalism. I can get into detail if need be.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 14, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I'd be interested in reading the details.  Just an overview with a few significant points supported by a supporting detail.  Nothing too long, but a classical essay style would be a welcome relief from all the "I told you.."s and sweeping overgeneralizations.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I'd like to preface this by stating Robert Nozick differs in many ways from Murray Rothbard, and Murray Rothbard represents more of the contemporary libertarian movement in the US.

Most of them want to dismantle the modern nation-state. What is the government for the Libertarian? It's essentially privatized, consisting of private contracts, and the ultimate goal being the privatization of arbitration and protection services, whereby political power also becomes exclusively privatized. The protection of your rights are then commoditized: protection of said rights are based on one's ability to pay, based on private authority in the form of contracts. 

What's the problem with this arrangement? There's no type of public power which can act in an impartial capacity. There also isn't any type of legislative scaffolding which is answerable to the public in any type of non-market form. We'd have zero equal rights in such as system. We're talking about feudal, private governance in such a system. In such a system, political power is acted on for private ends, not toward the public good in any way, shape, or form. 

We can get into their market delusions later on at some point.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


And another attack.  Jesus, Oldstyle.  Is that all you have.  
Let me try to help you.  You are in way over your head trying to argue economics.  Good time to exit right.  
but I predict that you will simply do what you always have done, which is attack and insult, cause you are toast economically.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



You know what's really sad, Tommy?  You supposedly *majored* in economics while I only took two classes in the subject and yet I know so much more about it than you do that it's not even funny!  Oh, that's right...the reason you didn't know what a school of economics was...was because you weren't "paying attention"...it had nothing to do with your obvious ignorance about the topic!  I can argue economics with YOU all day.

You might want to ask yourself if that's something you want to get into...since it's obvious that you've *embellished * your academic background.  To be blunt...you couldn't hold up your end of a discussion about economics with a sixth grader.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 15, 2013)

Here is something;

United States:- Global economy is improving but Europe lags behind, says OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



C'mon, Kimura!  Don't tell me you're one of those people that thinks if they present something so unintelligible that nobody can decipher it that they're going to come across as scholarly?  That answer you just gave didn't even come CLOSE to defending your premise that feudalism and libertarianism are alike.  It WAS wordy and obtuse...was that what you were shooting for?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I don't find it "obvious" at all, Kimura.  Feel free to describe how liberalism and feudalism resemble each other.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2013)

Good for you, Oldstyle.  Lets see it.  So far, I have never seen you win an economic argument.  So I look forward to seeing it.
But I do know you are really good at lying, and at personal attacks.  Economics???  You have no clue.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Good for you, Oldstyle.  Lets see it.  So far, I have never seen you win an economic argument.  So I look forward to seeing it.
> But I do know you are really good at lying, and at personal attacks.  Economics???  You have no clue.



How soon they forget!

You seem to have forgotten that it was during a "discussion" about economics when I asked you what school of economics you based a contention you were making...and your response was that unless you knew what economic classes were being taught at various schools there was no way for you to answer my question.

THAT was when I knew without a bit of doubt that your claim to have taught economics at the college level was complete and utter GRADE A BULLSHIT!  The same thing is going to happen if we go down that road AGAIN, Tommy...because you know about as much about economics as George Costanza knows about architecture.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...


And oldstyle, true to form, starts attacking as soon as he is unable to discuss the subject.  
Never asks for clarification, just attacks.  
Remember, you are discussing economics with a dishwasher.  He actually THINKS he understands economics, but all he is capable of is posting drivel from bat shit crazy con web sites, where he gets his stuff.

Then, when he is unable to argue a subject, or does not understand it, he immediately starts the personal attacks.  Soon he will be lying like a rug.  
At first I thought he was delusional.  Over time, I have come to understand him as a sociopath.  No conscience, no integrity.  Just an attack animal.
From a posting standpoint, trying to have a discussion with him is very much like entering home for the insane.  You can win the argument, easily enough.  But it is a waste of time.  Because he just can not, in any situation, admit you are correct, and he may be wrong.  That, of course, requires integrity, which he does not have. 

Discussion with oldstyle soon degenerates to the point that it is like stepping on a dog turd in the yard.  Hard to kick it off.   No interest, after a bit, in anything but personal attacks and insults.  Beyond that, he simply wants to post conservative dogma.  No interest in actually discussing a subject.

His economic hero is Thomas Sowell, an avowed libertarian.  Has very close ties to the CATO institute and the Koch brothers(no surprise there, obviously).


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2013)

Dude, I'm a restaurant manager.  It's been my career for over 30 years.  Unlike YOU, I don't feel the need to embellish who I am.  I haven't pretended to have taught subjects in college.  I haven't claimed to have degrees that I obviously don't have.  That's YOUR gig, little buddy.

You simply hate me for being the person who *exposed* you as the internet poser that you are!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2013)

So, oldstyle says:

How soon they forget!



> You seem to have forgotten that it was during a "discussion" about economics when I asked you what school of economics you based a contention you were making...and your response was that unless you knew what economic classes were being taught at various schools there was no way for you to answer my question.


That, of course, is a complete lie.  You had asked what school of economics taught the theory of raising taxes in times of high unemployment.  You asked that question at least 40 times, and I answered it the same way each time.  My answer was;  raising taxes was not the issue.  Raising taxes simply provided revenue for stimulus spending. 
But, being the game player that you were, you continued asking that same question over and over.  
I know you have a little lying problem.  Actually, I fully believe that you are a sociopath. 



> THAT was when I knew without a bit of doubt that your claim to have taught economics at the college level was complete and utter GRADE A BULLSHIT!


But, of course, that is a lie again.  You know what I said was not that I taught economics at the college level.  Because that would indicate that I was in charge of an economics class.  What I said was this:
"Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief. Good as I was very broke. 
But as you will soon show, this proves nothing. You had my word, which is good for most. What I did 45 years ago is not provable today, nor do I care what you believe. Your premise, that I prove myself a liar, should I not respond to you, is total BS. As were your efforts to push this as you did. And may still. The only reason I am responding is to get you to spend your efforts at economics topics instead of wasting time trying to prove me a liar, which I am not. You see, oldstyle, I do not lie, as I prefer to maintain my integrity. A life obsession. Which is why I see you as a shit. And as I have told you, because this was a very small part of my life. Certainly not something that I brag about."
Thread:  Consumers Create Jobs
08-16-2012, 07:34 AM                         Post #166

Yes, August of 2012.  And the beat goes on.  You know you believe what I said.  You know you made the deal that I provide the info and you would stop the accusations.  But then, you broke the deal, again proving you have no integrity.




> The same thing is going to happen if we go down that road AGAIN, Tommy...because you know about as much about economics as George Costanza knows about architecture.


Another attack.  Just as I predicted.  Childish, at that.  And your opinion only. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

But as W said, bring it on, Oldstyle.  Lets see your great economic ability to argue economics.  I have yet to see it.  But you should just crush me, since you are so knowledgeable of economics and I am so clueless.  My bet is what we will see is simply more insults and lies.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


I just reread kimura's response you call obtuse.  And wordy,  It was, me boy, extremely clear.  And arguably correct.  Your problem is that you can make no argument.  Again, you are in way over your head.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 15, 2013)

As long as you spend money on Infrastructure, Science and technology=success.

Paying off the banks or idiocy isn't doing it.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...









The problem with your theory of course, is that government itself rarely acts in an impartial way.  And that problem is getting worse, not better.


----------



## PredFan (Jun 15, 2013)

How screwed up left wing reasoning works:

Socialism destroys the economy,
The people elect politicians to fix the problem,
They try Austerity to fix it,
The economy doesn't get better,
Lefties blame austerity.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, oldstyle says:
> 
> How soon they forget!
> 
> ...



Poor little Tommy!  You get caught telling a rather obvious lie which you then try desperately to walk back, all the while declaring that because you gave an answer (albeit one that was totally unbelievable...) that the matter was closed because I'd made some non-existent "deal" with you.  Integrity?  You actually have the stones to accuse *me* of a lack of integrity simply because I point out that you've portrayed yourself as something that it's quite apparent that you are not?  If you actually HAD any integrity...you'd apologize for talking out of your ass but instead you remain here whining about *attacks* on your "integrity"...like somehow doing so is going to change the fact that you were dishonest.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, oldstyle says:
> ...




So, Oldstyle, attacking again.  So, you do not call this a deal.  You posted:


"You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.
*So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar*. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.
Balls in your court, Sparky...
To which I posted:  Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. *Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief.* Good as I was very broke. 
But as you will soon show, this proves nothing. You had my word, which is good for most. What I ...."
Again,August of last year.  And you will still be posting this next year, because you can not find a place where I lie.
So, oldstyle, you set the terms.  You named what you wanted to know.  I provided everything you asked for.  You said you would "eat your words". You even admited it would "prove you are not a liar", where the you is me.
So there you go, Oldstyle.  Your terms, your deal, you did not keep your end of the deal.  As I suggested you would not.  

So, where is that integrity, Oldstyle.  You know I did not lie.  Because I never, ever do.

Sure, oldstyle.  Eat my words, you say.  Funny how you interpret eat my words.  If I said that, or anyone else who said what you did, and had any integrity, they would not nave made the same unsubstantiated and ignorant attack at least 40 times.   And you can not stop doing so.  Funny.   Suggesting that I would try to lie about something so unimportant does, however, does show that you are insignificant. 
I am sure that everyone is really enjoying reading your attacks.  Most would have some concern about others.  You do not.  You simply attack.  Because that is what you always do.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I suggest you read some Rothbard and Nozick. I just gave you a summation of the drivel these people spoon feed their cult members.

Let me as you this: If libertarians are correct in their belief that they somehow know best how to organize a society, why isn't there a single country in the world in the 21st century organized along libertarian, anarcho-capitalist lines?


----------



## Kimura (Jun 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...




So you think the protection of rights should be based on people&#8217;s ability to pay?  Individual rights don't function the same way as property rights.  Our rights are fundamental, meaning they can't be traded against non-rights. I'm sure you would agree they're also inalienable. For example, I can't give up my rights or contractually send them away. 

When libertarians talk about "rights," they're talking about treating basic rights as property rights. In such a scenario, our basic rights receive no more protection than property rights. You can rescind or bargain them away in such a system, and property rights can never be regulated and are fundamental.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I'm just here to debate. I really don't understand the need for personal attacks unless they're warranted. 

Ironically, I actually have a background in Economics, which sort of makes me cringe when I read some of these posts. This by no means makes me an expert, but there's so many misconceptions on here, I feel compelled to post whenever I have some downtime. 

LOL @ CATO and the Koch Brothers.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



"Anarcho-capitalist"?  Seriously?  You continue to amuse, Kimura.  The main premise behind libertarianism is the preservation of individual rights.  You make THAT out to be anarchy...which is totally absurd.  That isn't something that you organize a country around...it's simply a philosophy.  

Now did you want to take a stab at explaining why feudalism and libertarianism are similar...or did you want to admit that you spouted a lot of nonsense?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



So let me ask you a simple question, Kimura (because to be quite honest with you...I'm growing tired of dealing with a certain idiot)...with your background in Economics would you or would you not know what someone was talking about when they asked you what school of economics you were basing an economic argument on?

And if someone told you that they taught economics at the college level yet didn't know what you meant by that question...what would be your reaction?


----------



## Kimura (Jun 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yes, anarcho-capitalism:

Here's a Wiki overview

I'm talking about libertarianism along Rothbard/Nozick lines.

They want to dismantle the state, thus commoditizing individual rights based along the same lines they view private property. So yeah, it's feudalism at the end of the day because your rights become based on contractual obligations and are ostensibly owed to various people. There aren't any political institutions in the mix whatsoever.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 15, 2013)

PredFan said:


> How screwed up left wing reasoning works:
> 
> Socialism destroys the economy,
> The people elect politicians to fix the problem,
> ...



You can't cut 
High paid tech jobs, Infrastructure jobs and education jobs and have a economy get better. These three area's are the back bone of the economy.  

The government won't fire the people that need to be fired, but will fire the above without thought as the government won't fire members of the idiocy.  Giving billions to bailing out failure also really hurts.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I work in finance just to be clear. I'm not an academic, nor do I play one on television.  

Yeah, I could tell if someone had a background in economics through casual conversation. Obviously, if someone claimed to teach at the junior college level or college level, and couldn't answer questions regarding basic concepts, I might call bullshit. Sure.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Come on, Kimura...you know as well as I do that "Ancarcho-capitalists" as defined by that Wiki piece are the EXTREME of the libertarian movement and that what the majority of libertarians are seeking is a more limited role for government.  To maintain that libertarians want to "dismantle" the State simply because they (rightly) view government as becoming more and more intrusive in our everyday lives is a viewpoint that ignores reality.

You still are struggling to make a coherent argument that feudalism equates to libertarianism.  Libertarians are all about maintaining personal freedoms and preventing their being usurped by "higher powers"..  Feudalism was all about giving up personal freedom in return for safety.  Quite frankly, they are almost polar opposites in how they function.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



And if someone who claimed to teach at the college level didn't know what you were talking about when you asked them what school of economics their claim was based on...would you call "bullshit" on that?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Four problems your post, me boy:
1.  Teaching at a college level implies that I was authorized, and paid, to teach college courses or at least, A college course.  I was neither paid not authorized by the school to do so.  That was Clair Lillard's job.  He determined, on his own, to let me and other students teach parts of the class, according to his class plan, and under his control, 4 days per week.  One class, Introduction to economics for non majors.  Econ 100.  As you know, as you have been told several times.
2.  I would indeed have know what you were talking about had you writen "school of Economics".  You did not.  You said economic school out of context.
3.  I have answered this same question from you, me boy, at least 40 times.  You have no proof that I lie.  You have tried multiple times.  You have said that I lied about having a degree in econ, about having an MBA, and you even said I claimed to have been a British Petroleum executive.  All are untrue. All were either proven untrue (I showed you the post relative to bp after you maid the claim several times, and exposed that lie on your part), or you had the option to see the proof.  You chose not to.
4.  You asked that same question, relative to schools of economics, several times.  Since I understood it each time before, why would you assume I did not know what a school of economics is???
5.  No one cares but you, me boy.  You are simply pushing an agenda, and it is wasting good people's time.
I never, ever lie on this post.  Doing so would be trivial.  And it would totally lack integrity.

Had there been an Economics graduate program at Central Washington in the late 60's, Lillard would have chosen members of that program to teach the partial class.  There was not.  So, I and a few other undergrads with good performance, IE grades, were chosen by Clair.   
I guess suggesting you be honest in what you say is asking too much.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2013)

"I would indeed have know what you were talking about had you writen "school of Economics". You did not. You said economic school out of context."

My question to you, Tommy...was what economic school you were basing your contentions on.  Now how is THAT out of context?  The fact that you thought I was talking about an actual college illustrated to me that you know so little about the study of economics as to be laughable.

As for your fairy tale about teaching an economics class?  You can always tell when someone's story starts to come apart because their explanation always turns out to be something that can't be verified.  I point out that undergrads don't teach college courses to other undergrads and you scramble to come up with a plausible explanation...which is that you didn't *really *teach the class.

What I find most amusing is that you now claim that *exceptional* students were chosen by Professor Lillard to teach his class for him and that YOU were one of those *exceptional * students.  Funny how such a bright bulb back then doesn't know basic Keynesian economics now nor what schools of economics is in reference to.

You're an internet poseur, Rshermr...the kind of person who's so insecure about themselves that they have to embellish their "resume".


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 16, 2013)

This will be the last time I will address this issue, me boy.  You know that I never lie.  And I know that it irritates you that I do not. 


> My question to you, Tommy...was what economic school you were basing your contentions on. Now how is THAT out of context? The fact that you thought I was talking about an actual college illustrated to me that you know so little about the study of economics as to be laughable.


Well, at least your story has changed part way.  You admit you said economic school.  Which is correct.   You did not say school of economics, as you said above.  But, you are still not telling the truth.  You asked what economics school teaches raising taxes in bad unemployment times.  Now, we all know that schools of economic thought do not teach.  Economic schools, however, such as U of Chicago, do teach.  Or at least their instructors do.
If you are asking a question about an economic theory, or an economic school of thought, you need to say so.  It clears up your question.
If you google economic school, about 80% of the hits are of physical economic schools.  From Russia, to U of Chicago.  The others are economic school of thought.  You need to be at least a bit clear.



> As for your fairy tale about teaching an economics class? You can always tell when someone's story starts to come apart because their explanation always turns out to be something that can't be verified. I point out that undergrads don't teach college courses to other undergrads and you scramble to come up with a plausible explanation...which is that you didn't really teach the class.


First, the class was made up of over 100 students every quarter.  I taught between 25 and 45. If that means "teaching the class", believe what you want.  Second, as I said, the class was that of Clair Lillard.  His class plan.  His tests, His control.  You know, me boy, what you are trying to say when you say that I claimed to have taught the class.  



> What I find most amusing is that you now claim that exceptional students were chosen by Professor Lillard to teach his class for him and that YOU were one of those exceptional students. Funny how such a bright bulb back then doesn't know basic Keynesian economics now nor what schools of economics is in reference to.


I never said, me boy, that I was an exceptional student.  But I did have good grades.  As did the others teaching other parts of Lillard's class.   And, I do know Keynesian economics.  Which version would you like to discuss.  What I disagreed with was your contention that any pres must have a SINGLE economic theory that he follows.  And that if he varies from any specific economic theory, then that is an inconsistent thing  and made no rational sense to you.



> You're an internet poseur, Rshermr...the kind of person who's so insecure about themselves that they have to embellish their "resume".


Sorry, me boy.  I do not pose.  I do not lie.  And at my age, believe me, I need not embellish my resue.  Just another personal attack by you, me boy.  Your opinion.  And you know how much I value your opinion.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 16, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I'm not taking it to it the extreme in the least. This is what they say in the literature. In point of fact, they are quite empathic about it. We're not talking about legalizing pussy or pot. With these guys, you know what I'm talking about, it's about dismantling the nation-state. This simply cannot work, bro. Yes, I was taking their goals to the ultimate philosophical end so to speak.  Obviously, ultimately, I was trying to make a point if that makes sense.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



In addition, it is my humble but correct opinion that the folks pushing libertarianism do so not so much with the hope of getting to that goal {though they would be ecstatic iif they could, as they intend to run the country if they could actually get there).  I think it is the journey that is their more possible goal.  Because on this journey, they can make lots of money.  Lowering taxes, killing unions and lowering workers wages, and so on.  All of the things that help them line their pockets.  
Just kidding about the humble but correct thing.  Hell, you have to have a little fun.
If a person is at all rational, they  know that the fact that no Libertarian economy has ever worked pretty much tells them that libertarianism is not going to happen.
So, they push Ayn Rand books and movies, get the irrational all fired up, all so that they can vote in far right nut cases.  Not a great long term plan for them.  But it makes some headway for their intent to see the income and wealth continue to increase for the wealthy segment.  
Hell, 50 years ago, I was briefly enamored with Objective.  But then I hit puberty, and rationality won out.  But I did come to the conclusion that Libertarians were simlpy republicans that wanted to smoke pot and get laid.  So, it had some good points.  But then, most libertarians do drop the theory by the time they hit puberty.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Right. Here's what disturbs me: thanks to retards like Rand and Ron Paul this shit gets peddled on campuses all over the US. You really aren't doing these kids any favors in point of fact. You're creating a nation of parrots so to speak. I run into these kids all the time since we hire interns and shit. Dude, it's so bad, the brainwashing, these kids don't even understand monetary operations. I'm a bond trader. Once I explain to them how reality works, I simultaneously kill their dreams and enlighten them.   Basic shit. For example, I have interns that don't understand that the FED sets interest rates all along the term structure. The don't understand we have a central bank that literally determines interest rates. It like a fucking epiphany for these people.


----------



## Ha3mme8tt (Jun 16, 2013)

Here is an article out of the UK that is very representative of what is being said:


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Dude, you know as well as I do that most libertarians do not want to "dismantle" the nation-state.  That's such an exaggeration of most libertarian's real goals that it's not even funny but as usual...every time someone suggests that the government should be smaller and less intrusive in our lives...progressives immediately react by saying that it's a call to get rid of every social program out there.  That is NOT what the average libertarian is looking to accomplish.  They simply want some *sanity* returned to the country.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 16, 2013)

And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash.  Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital.  Libertarian economies succeed all the time.  You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



So it's fine with you when liberals "peddle" nonsense like profits are bad and corporations are evil...but it disturbs you that college students are exposed to just a DOLLOP of another viewpoint?  Really?  I would be willing to bet that the average libertarian "parrot" coming out of college is actually so much more savvy about how our economy works than their progressive counterparts it's not even funny.  Did you listen to what the Occupy Wall Street people were demanding?  THOSE are the people that are clueless about how an economy works.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 16, 2013)

From Oldstyle:


> So it's fine with you when liberals "peddle" nonsense like profits are bad and corporations are evil..


That would be straight out of the bat shit crazy con web sites.  Perhaps you can show me where liberals are saying that corporations are evil, or profits are bad. I would be classified by you as a liberal.  I think profits are good and necessary.  And I think corporations are necessary. 



> .but it disturbs you that college students are exposed to just a DOLLOP of another viewpoint?


Most do not think that hundreds of web sites, thousands of paid writers, and hundreds of million spent on pushing those viewpoints is a dollop.


> Really? I would be willing to bet that the average libertarian "parrot" coming out of college is actually so much more savvy about how our economy works than their progressive counterparts it's not even funny. Did you listen to what the Occupy Wall Street people were demanding? THOSE are the people that are clueless about how an economy works.


All opinion.  No proof.  Just lines up perfectly with the dogma coming from the bat shit crazy con web sites.  Must be a coincidence.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Here is something;
> 
> United States:- Global economy is improving but Europe lags behind, says OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development


Yes.  It was an interesting example of what those studying economic conditions think, and of what they suggest is needed.  

This quote, from the article that you link, is typical of what those who are paid to suggest what is needed are saying:
The employment situation continues to deteriorate in many countries, making it all the more urgent to implement the labour and product market reforms that can stimulate growth and create jobs, Mr Padoan said.

You do not stimulate growth and create jobs with austerity.  You simply do the opposite.

Thanks for the link.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 17, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash.  Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital.  Libertarian economies succeed all the time.  You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.



To abstract and generalized.

What  ibertarian economies?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 17, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Here is something;
> ...



Oh, don't thank me. *Thank PC for bringing up the topic. I learn new things everytime using her post as the null hypothesis.  Failure to prove with an alpha of .05 is good enough for me.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 17, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I consider libertarianism - or the contemporary strains of libertarianism - the descendants of Rothbard and Nozick. You should go on over to Mises.org and Lewrockwell for shits and giggles. There's whole groups of these people writing ahistorical nonsense. And yeah, they really want to dismantle the nation-state. 

I haven't even mentioned social programs or what size the government should be (whatever the means).


----------



## Kimura (Jun 17, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Yeah, it's annoying. Obviously, all corporations aren't evil, nor are profits. However, with that being said, there's been massive, massive control fraud on Wall Street over the last twenty years or so. You could make a case that CEOs of the five or six large investment banks should be charged under RICO. A good portion of the demands of OWS were foolish, but they raise some valid points, such as the culture of criminality that permeates Wall Street. I see it everyday, day in and day out.

Trust me, libertarian parrots don't even understand monetary operations, let alone anything resembling basic macroeconomics. There's more to economics than the parable of the broken window.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 17, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash.  Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital.  Libertarian economies succeed all the time.  You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.



How is money being siphoned away from the economy? The government is simply a sector of the economy, just like the foreign sector or domestic private sector.

Oh, and another thing, these cuts you talk about are the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase. From a fiscal point of view, a spending cut is the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase. They both remove income from economy, but they affect different income groups.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 17, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash.  Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital.  Libertarian economies succeed all the time.  You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.



Now that is a surprise. Oldstyle starts out with a personal attack.
Great, Oldstyle  This will be new information to a whole lot of libertarians who have been looking for a successful Libertarian economy.  My bet, after having gone on your little con tool tirade is that you can not name and justify the assertion that there are successful libertarian economies.  Put up, or .....

You say libertarian economies succeed all the time, but have neglected to name even one.  There is, of course, a difference between never and all the time, Oldstyle.
But then, since libertarian millionaires and billionaires themselves (Unlike you, Oldstyle) can not find a successful libertarian economy, a number have decided to make their own.  That is REAL desperation.  Must be because they did not like the successful libertarian economies of your fantasies, Oldstyle.  But then Libertarian islands ARE funny.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 18, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash.  Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital.  Libertarian economies succeed all the time.  You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.
> ...



Where does the government get it's capital *from*, Kimura?  They are either creating it by printing money...which devalues the money that is out in the Private Sector...or they are seizing it from the Private Sector in the form of taxes.  Too much of either is bad for an economy.

As for your second comment?  A spending cut is indeed the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase.  But when the government is bloated and inefficient...which I think any reasonable person would admit our is...spending cuts combined with tax cuts have been shown historically to stimulate economic growth.  Why would anyone argue against spending cuts when our public sector spending is so incredibly wasteful...and why in the world would anyone argue for increased spending coupled with tax increases in a slow economy as the Obama Administration repeatedly has done?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 18, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash.  Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital.  Libertarian economies succeed all the time.  You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.
> ...



The greatest example of a libertarian economy is the United States of America.  You can't see the forest for the BIG HUGE TREES!  The reason this country boomed was because it was founded on libertarian principles.  People flocked to this country *because* of those principles...something that you progressives can't seem to grasp as you work diligently to toss them into the waste bin of history.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



All money creation is "printing money" under our fiat system. In point of fact, money creation is ex-nihilo under our system. The government basically spends by crediting private bank accounts. We're no longer on a fixed exchange rate as of 1971. 

Secondly, money creation isn't inflationary. As long as there is a tandem increase in the supply of real goods and services, there will not be any inflation. If we were at full employment and the economy was at full capacity, then I'd be worried about inflation. Given all this excess capacity and our output gap, that should be the last thing on our minds. 

The government doesn't need our tax dollars to fund expenditures. Under our fiat system, spending precedes taxation or any "borrowing" that occurs. Any tax payments occur with money that is already spent so to speak. All our taxes do is regulate aggregate demand and drive money. 

No, spending cuts don't stimulate growth, since a deficit reduction removes income from the economy. Deficit spending adds net financial assets to the economy. If you cut the government sector, then the domestic private sector will go into deficit, it's basic double-entry bookkeeping. One sector's deficit is another sector's surplus.  Deficits can indeed be too big or too small, depending on various factors. The goal of the federal government should be run deficits that are sufficiently maintained to utilize all our productive capacity.

So we have a 16 trillion dollar debt? So what? All that debt represents is the total savings of the US economy. It's private wealth and all interest income is effectively private interest payments. All it really means is that the US government spent 16 trillion more than it collected in taxes. US Treasuries are nothing more than glorified savings' accounts where the private sector can park its wealth for some interest.

Obama bailed out Wall Street, and Congress made a decision to sacrifice Main Street for Wall Street. We should be spending money on infrastructure, R&D, nuclear power, transportation, health care, education, etc.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Now, lets see.  You said "* Libertarian economies succeed all the time.*"
So, I was SO excited.  Finally, a list of successful Libertarian economies.  But, instead, just a statement that it was the United States.  Now, problem with that is, the US was never libertarian, except in the minds of a few who spend their time in the bat shit crazy con web sites.  But had it been, it simply proved my point.  Because it went from more Laissez Fare to less so, over time.  It never existed as a libertarian state.  Ever.  So you have failed again to support a hypotheses.  By the way the sentence stated libertarian economies succeed *ALL THE TIME* which generally suggests that there are a lot of them.  So, you misspoke.  We are all waiting with baited breath for your admission of having misspoke.
What I said, by the way, is that libertarian economies start and fail.  And that none become successful ongoing economies.  Libertarian economies fail, and either turn into economic cesspools, or become more and more regulated.  Always.  Some have gone back to more libertarian forms, and failed.  
Which is why, me boy, you have failed to support your hypotheses.  You see, people do not like the result.  Ever.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 18, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



The US became an economic powerhouse through mercantilism. It has never been a libertarian paradise during any point in its history.  Quite the contrary....


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 18, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


So here is a good history of corporations in this country through the late 1800's.
"The Declaration of Independence, in 1776, freed Americans not only from Britain but also from the tyranny of British corporations, and for a hundred years after the document's signing, Americans remained deeply suspicious of corporate power. They were careful about the way they granted corporate charters, and about the powers granted therein.

Early American charters were created literally by the people, for the people as a legal convenience. Corporations were "artificial, invisible, intangible," mere financial tools. They were chartered by individual states, not the federal government, which meant they could be kept under close local scrutiny. They were automatically dissolved if they engaged in activities that violated their charter. Limits were placed on how big and powerful companies could become. Even railroad magnate J. P. Morgan, the consummate capitalist, understood that corporations must never become so big that they "inhibit freedom to the point where efficiency [is] endangered."

The two hundred or so corporations operating in the US by the year 1800 were each kept on fairly short leashes. They weren't allowed to participate in the political process. They couldn't buy stock in other corporations. And if one of them acted improperly, the consequences were severe. In 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a motion to extend the charter of the corrupt and tyrannical Second Bank of the United States, and was widely applauded for doing so. That same year the state of Pennsylvania revoked the charters of ten banks for operating contrary to the public interest. Even the enormous industry trusts, formed to protect member corporations from external competitors and provide barriers to entry, eventually proved no match for the state. By the mid-1800s, antitrust legislation was widely in place.

In the early history of America,  the corporation played an important but subordinate role. The people -- not the corporations -- were in control." 
The Uncooling of America The History of Corporations in the United States

So, that whole libertarian thing is bs.  People in this country were not simply worried about big government, but also about big businesses.  For obvious reasons.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 18, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Right.  Commercialism.  Which develops after feudalism.  Only way it has ever happened.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 18, 2013)

"The government doesn't need our tax dollars to fund expenditures. Under our fiat system, spending precedes taxation or any "borrowing" that occurs. Any tax payments occur with money that is already spent so to speak. All our taxes do is regulate aggregate demand and drive money.

No, spending cuts don't stimulate growth, since a deficit reduction removes income from the economy. Deficit spending adds net financial assets to the economy. If you cut the government sector, then the domestic private sector will go into deficit, it's basic double-entry bookkeeping. One sector's deficit is another sector's surplus. Deficits can indeed be too big or too small, depending on various factors. The goal of the federal government should be run deficits that are sufficiently maintained to utilize all our productive capacity."

Are you kidding?  The government doesn't "need" taxes to fund expenditures?  Did you really just say that with a straight face?  Yes, the government *can* print money to fund expenditures under a fiat system but they do so with the understanding that taxes will be coming in to fund those expenditures.  When they do what we've been doing for the past five years...printing cash at an unprecedented rate at some point the value of the dollar is effected.  Your notion that a 16 trillion dollar debt has no effect on the economy is only valid if our ability to repay that debt remains strong.  The Fed has just announced that it will be cutting back it's quantitative easing and I fully expect the stock market to react to that with a sharp decline.  Under your voodoo economics I assume you think they should simply continue printing more money and continue adding to the debt?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 18, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I beg to differ...part of the reason for the US's break from Great Britain was the latter's infatuation with mercantilism.  The founding father's were quite obviously influenced by Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and his position that there was no fixed amount of wealth.  Quite frankly I don't see mercantilism being used by the US at all.  At the point of the formation of the United States, mercantilism was losing favor throughout the world and would continue to do so simply because it's underlying principles were economically unsound.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 18, 2013)

> Are you kidding?  The government doesn't "need" taxes to fund expenditures?  Did you really just say that with a straight face?  Yes, the government *can* print money to fund expenditures under a fiat system but they do so with the understanding that taxes will be coming in to fund those expenditures.



If we look at things operationally, I'm absolutely correct. All bond purchases and tax payments are made with money that is already spent. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any dollars to buy  US Treasuries to begin with or any way to extinguish tax obligations.

We'll use our federal taxes as a prime example, because I stated that spending precedes taxation. If we extend this logic  to include loans from the FED, then I'm absolutely, 100% correct. The settlement of any bond auctions and taxes paid directly to the US Treasury can only be facilitated by banks reserve accounts. The actual source of balances in banks reserve accounts are from previous or past government deficits - these are credits to reserve accounts or direct loans from the FED. These Federal Reserve loans are facilitated by the purchase of private securities, repos, loans or even overdrafts. So, in order for Treasury sales to get settled or to for taxes to be paid, there must be previous government spending. 



> When they do what we've been doing for the past five years...printing cash at an unprecedented rate at some point the value of the dollar is effected.  Your notion that a 16 trillion dollar debt has no effect on the economy is only valid if our ability to repay that debt remains strong.  The Fed has just announced that it will be cutting back it's quantitative easing and I fully expect the stock market to react to that with a sharp decline.  Under your voodoo economics I assume you think they should simply continue printing more money and continue adding to the debt?



The 27 trillion - the total amount - was basically kicked across the floor to Wall Street. They sat on it, it wasn't used to stimulate aggregate demand in any real sense. This whole thing was based on Bernake's wealth effect. It was total bullshit in my estimation.

The US government will always be able to pay its debts, so longs as US debts continued to be denominated in the national money of account - the US dollar. If we had debt that was denominated in Pounds or Euros, that would be a problem. You have to realize "borrowing" for the federal government is virtually costless. It even sets the interest rate at which it acquires its debt. This is the benefit of being monetarily sovereign and a currency issuer.

And QE isn't "printing money"; it's nothing more than an asset swap. All the Federal Reserve does through quantitative easing is change the composition of the financial assets being held by the public at large. I can get into detail if need be.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 18, 2013)

Kimura said:


> > Are you kidding?  The government doesn't "need" taxes to fund expenditures?  Did you really just say that with a straight face?  Yes, the government *can* print money to fund expenditures under a fiat system but they do so with the understanding that taxes will be coming in to fund those expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"The US government will always be able to pay its debts, so longs as US debts continued to be denominated in the national money of account - the US dollar."  

Ah but there's the rub, Kimura!  You're making the assumption that we WILL always be able to pay our debts in the US dollar.  So what happens if because of our out of control spending the confidence in the dollar lessens?  The Weimar Republic's currency became essentially worthless because they printed so much of it to "pay" their debts.  Granted we have a ways to go before we reach that extreme but we're well on our way with what we've been doing lately.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > > Are you kidding?  The government doesn't "need" taxes to fund expenditures?  Did you really just say that with a straight face?  Yes, the government *can* print money to fund expenditures under a fiat system but they do so with the understanding that taxes will be coming in to fund those expenditures.
> ...



Yes, the US will always be able to pay its debts. As the monopoly issuer of the dollar, this isn't a problem, not could it ever become one.

Weimar is not a good example, neither is Zimbabwe. Weimar Germany had their industrial capacity destroyed by war and its debts were denominated in Sterling. Every instance of hyperinflation in the 20th century was caused by war, corruption and debts being denominated in a currency other than the country's own currency.

I'm not saying the US should spend endlessly, it's only constraint is that of inflation. Again, with all this excess capacity and output gap, where is this inflation going to come from? The "public debt" simply represents is the private sector's desire to save. The 16 trillion dollars in _federal liabilities_ are _assets to the public_, which we have utilized to purchase real goods and services. This helped create the very capital and income required to increase real goods and services, thus increasing the overall  wealth of the country.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 18, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



That's the most ludicrous concept I've ever heard, Kimura.  You're asserting that public debt has made overall wealth in this country increase?  I guess if you don't take into account every Americans SHARE of that debt you could make that argument.  Somehow you turn debt into an asset...that public debt is the private sector's desire to save?  Do you really believe this nonsense?


----------



## Kimura (Jun 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Of course it has. For every liability, there is a corresponding asset. US public debt is nothing more than private wealth and any interest payments are essentially private income.  US public debt is really just an expression of the total net budget deficits which we have run in the past. These budget deficits have added net financial assets to the private sector in general, helping to facilitate the demand for real goods and services that have allowed Americans to sustain their income growth. This very income growth has enabled Americans to save and accrue financial assets at a much faster rate than would be possible without deficits.  This debt provides individuals, firms and others in the private sector a place to put their accumulated wealth at zero risk. 

In actual real terms, contrary to your statement about Americans share of debt, no such burden or share of debt exists for individual Americans, our children or grandchildren. Our children and grandchildren, just like you and I, will be able to go to work and produce and consume their real output of real goods and services, which is totally independent of how many bonds need to be rolled over. In economics, this concept simply doesn&#8217;t exist, whereby we sacrifice today's output to some date in the past, and then rolling it over to generations before us. Our children and grandchildren can't and will not pay us back a thing we&#8217;ve left to them. And even if they wanted to, it&#8217;s simply not in the cards.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 18, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...


Yup.  But cons are all sure that some day they are going to have to pay the national debt back to someone.  They are not sure whom, but in general think it is China or some such.  Or that their children are on their way to debtors prison.  That is what one BELIEVES if they live in the con world.  Because, the simple minds think that US debt is the same as personal debt.  Funny.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 18, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



You continue to amuse me with this concept that the national debt is a good thing.  If that's the case then why don't we bump that debt up to something REALLY impressive like 30 trillion and we'll all be filthy rich!  Heck, let's make it a hundred trillion and we'll all be living in mansions and driving Porsches.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 18, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Because someone has to build the mansions and*Porsches. So if they are made in the year 2020, then they will be purchases and driven in the year 2020.

Come on, really? You know money isn't economic wealth. It's little numbers.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 18, 2013)

It is bookkeeping  And bookkeeping has certain immutable rules to it.  They aren't rules like the law of gravity, but when it comes to a functional economy and money supply.  The single immutable fact is that there is some point where the intersest on the debt on the debt is equal to tax receipts.  That's a bit of a problem, should it ever reach that point, because there won't sufficient funds from receipts to pay the IRS and Treasury Department personnel to collect the taxes and pay interest.


----------



## jasonnfree (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



When this country really boomed there were also things  like slavery, indentured servitude, and child labor  which really increased productiviy.  A modern libertarian country wouldn't have that advantage.  Then there are regulations and environmental laws that the country didn't have to deal with back then.  Also, this was before America was trying to be an empire like now, so they didn't have a huge military expense sucking the lifeblood out of the economy.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 19, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Slavery, indentured servitude and child labor is NOT conducive to productivity, Jason.  Some rather intelligent people figured out that the most productive labor force is one that is working to better itself...not because you chain them to a machine.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 19, 2013)

And I would make the argument that America had aspirations to be an "empire" right from it's conception.  Look no further than the lands that we took from Mexico and from the American Indians.  Then there are the various protectorates that we have collected over the years...Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa.  We don't expand our "empire" these days...instead we've become the world's policeman...protecting others from bullies like North Korea, Iraq and Iran.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I think you have a BS and MS in commie propaganda.

OK, asshole, tell us what feudalism is.  Especially explain how it differs from capitalism.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Please do.  I'm sure the results will be hilarious.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



You may be right about libertarians wanting to reduce the sphere of government to the smallest size possible.  However, that doesn't equate to Feudalism.  There is plenty of government under Feudalism.  In fact, there is virtually no such thing as the "private sphere."  There is no private property or private businesses.  Your term "feudal private governance" is an oxymoron.

Your theories about the results of libertarian policies is even more wrong.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Oldstyle understands feudalism far better than the drones in this thread.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> So you think the protection of rights should be based on peoples ability to pay?  Individual rights don't function the same way as property rights.  Our rights are fundamental, meaning they can't be traded against non-rights. I'm sure you would agree they're also inalienable. For example, I can't give up my rights or contractually send them away.



Property rights are individual rights, so your argument is automatically balogna.  Whether they can be protected by private firms is a subject for debate.



Kimura said:


> When libertarians talk about "rights," they're talking about treating basic rights as property rights. In such a scenario, our basic rights receive no more protection than property rights. You can rescind or bargain them away in such a system, and property rights can never be regulated and are fundamental.



ROFL!  That's because property rights are "basic rights."  Why would you treat them any different than any other right?  The only debatable issue is whether they can be protected without government.  The main reason libertarians are have an interest in doing that is the fact that "limited government" has proven to be an oxymoron.  Government can't be limited.  It always grows to the point where society can no longer support it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I cringe when I see someone who supposedly has an economics education claim that libertarian economics are the same as feudalism.  That's the kind of claim only an utter ignoramus would make.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



That's three wrong ideas in two sentences.  Dismantling the state does not equate to "commoditizing individual rights."  Inf act, I have no idea what the late concept is supposed to mean.  Where is this market where you are supposed to sell your rights?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Whether it can work is a legitimate subject for debate.   However, equating it to feudalism is the sign of an ignoramus who doesn't know what feudalism is.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



You have to be a fool to believe that the fed has that much control over interest rates.  In the short run, it can nudge interest rates in one direction or another.  In the long run, interest rates are set by the consumers time preference for money.  

You believe the fed determines interest rates because you've been brainwashed with statist propaganda.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > That's the most ludicrous concept I've ever heard, Kimura.  You're asserting that public debt has made overall wealth in this country increase?  I guess if you don't take into account every Americans SHARE of that debt you could make that argument.  Somehow you turn debt into an asset...that public debt is the private sector's desire to save?  Do you really believe this nonsense?
> ...



Oh really?  So where is the "corresponding asset" for all the money the Social Security administration owes future retirees?



Kimura said:


> US public debt is nothing more than private wealth and any interest payments are essentially private income.



U.S. public debt is an I.O.U drawn on the income of future taxpayers.  There is no "wealth" there at all.



Kimura said:


> US public debt is really just an expression of the total net budget deficits which we have run in the past. These budget deficits have added net financial assets to the private sector in general, helping to facilitate the demand for real goods and services that have allowed Americans to sustain their income growth.



They have added nothing but worthless scraps of paper to the private sector.  Yeah, the certainly increased "demand" for goods and services, because the government distributed the money it received to all it's various classes of parasites and job-holders.  However, the government has no way to repay this consumption other than by shaking down future taxpayers for it.   So there is nothing of value to the taxpayers resulting from the exchange.  Only a liability.



Kimura said:


> This very income growth has enabled Americans to save and accrue financial assets at a much faster rate than would be possible without deficits.  This debt provides individuals, firms and others in the private sector a place to put their accumulated wealth at zero risk.



Government borrowing and spending does not cause the GDP of the country to grow.  There is no conceivable mechanism for such a thing to occur.



Kimura said:


> In actual real terms, contrary to your statement about Americans share of debt, no such burden or share of debt exists for individual Americans, our children or grandchildren. Our children and grandchildren, just like you and I, will be able to go to work and produce and consume their real output of real goods and services, which is totally independent of how many bonds need to be rolled over. In economics, this concept simply doesnt exist, whereby we sacrifice today's output to some date in the past, and then rolling it over to generations before us. Our children and grandchildren can't and will not pay us back a thing weve left to them. And even if they wanted to, its simply not in the cards.



I wont waste my time with further deconstruction of your economic lunacy.


----------



## editec (Jun 19, 2013)

The similarity between feudalism and libertarianism is merely that BOTH systems vest  POWER based entirely _on  PROPERTY._

But certainly feudalism is closer to the libertarian ideal that what we have now.

Remember that theoretically the KING owned the land._.ALL of it.
_

And his power (and that of his vassels) was nominated based on the property  he and his vassels controlled.

His serfs were PROPERTY themselves.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Let me understand this, Oldstyle.  Are you actually saying that the south fought a war over slavery because it did not increase their productivity.  Perhaps if you would just think before you made a statement.  Jesus.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


No on can help it that you are stupid.  There is this invention, called the internet, wherein you may find answers to you questions.  Stop wasting people's time with stupid questions.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


It will be, to  you.  Because you are a congenital idiot.  They always find things hilarious.  It is a function of a lack of intelligence.  You are, in other words, stupid.  No one can help you with that.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Between the two of you, you you have what, an IQ of 100??   That would be your opinion.  Dipshit.  And you know how much we all respect your opinion.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > So you think the protection of rights should be based on peoples ability to pay?  Individual rights don't function the same way as property rights.  Our rights are fundamental, meaning they can't be traded against non-rights. I'm sure you would agree they're also inalienable. For example, I can't give up my rights or contractually send them away.
> ...


And libertarianism, me boy, does not exist.  So, you are describing your wet dream.  As soon as you can name a successful libertarian state, maybe someone could take you seriously.  Until then, you are just are obviously delusional tool.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


it's ok dipshit.  You can not help being stupid.  But please, do not expect anyone to help you.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You are delusional.  But, what the hell.  You believe what you want to believe.   Proof is not necessary that way.  Dipshit.  You deconstructed nothing.  You simply made a series of really stupid statements, and you liked what you said.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



I'm a history major, Tommy....and unlike you I actually *learned* something about the subject when I was in college.  The South didn't fight a war simply because slavery was such a boon to their economy...they fought that war because they felt they had the right to make that determination.  It's why you'll often hear the Civil War referred to in the South as the War of State's Rights.  By the 1800's slavery in the South was centered primarily around large plantations and the growing of cotton.  For the average Southerner who did not even own slaves the reasons for secession were based upon State's rights not economic productivity.  The average Southerner didn't own slaves so what reason would they have to wage a war over keeping them?  One of the common misconceptions about the South at that point was that everyone owned slaves.  The truth is slaves were owned by about 20% of Southerners and that ownership was centered in areas that grew tobacco and cotton.  For the rest of the South slavery* wasn't* crucial to their survival.

Think?  Coming from you that's amusing...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Gee, was someone here whining about personal attacks?    As usual, Tommy...your mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


But then, me boy, I did not say that the south fought a war simply because of slavery.  But slavery was one of the issues that they fought the war over.  And, you said that slavery was "is NOT conducive to productivity".  I said that in the minds of those in power in the south, it was indeed believed that slavery was helpful to their productivity.  Yes, I do understand that not everyone had slaves.  And that slaves were most prominent in agricultural efforts in the south.  You do not have to know much about history to understand that.  
You need to understand productivity in the economic sence.  Productivity, based on output per dollar of cost, was much higher with slaves than without.  Productivity in those agricultural areas, which were particularly important to the economic well being of the south, was indeed increased by slavery.  Even more so in the minds of the slave owners than in reality.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Just returning fire, me boy.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



The FED controls the interest rates up and down the entire term structure. I can get into detail if need be.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 19, 2013)

Still waiting for Kimura to explain why if debt isn't an issue we shouldn't just pile it on and make everything peaches and cream.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I was referring to the deficit. The 16 trillion are liabilities of the federal government and assets of the public. If you don't think this is true, I will gladly relieve you of your burden in your checking or savings account. 

There isn't a SS problem. It's simply a faux problem. Just like Medicare, Congress can fund it into perpetuity. It's simply a political decision, not a financial one. The only problem would be if we didn&#8217;t have the real resources seniors need to retire, such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc.



> U.S. public debt is an I.O.U drawn on the income of future taxpayers.  There is no "wealth" there at all.





> They have added nothing but worthless scraps of paper to the private sector.  Yeah, the certainly increased "demand" for goods and services, because the government distributed the money it received to all it's various classes of parasites and job-holders.  However, the government has no way to repay this consumption other than by shaking down future taxpayers for it.   So there is nothing of value to the taxpayers resulting from the exchange.  Only a liability.



How is it an IOU? Under our fiat monetary system, all spending precedes taxation and &#8220;borrowing&#8221; from an operational standpoint. The government doesn&#8217;t need to tax in order to obtain that which it freely issues. The government essentially uses taxes to regulate aggregate demand and create demand dollars so to speak.

US public debt represents the total savings of the US economy. It consists of private wealth and all interest payments are private income. All it represents is the accumulated budget deficits run in the past. 

If you want to increase the savings of Americans, it simply cannot occur through deficit reductions, especially in the current economic environment.

By the way, the 'US deficit' adds to our savings right down the last penny. This is an accounting fact not open to debate. This is basic national income accounting. For example, let's say the government runs a three trillion dollar deficit. This means there would be a total net increase in savings in the form of financial assets of three trillion dollars down to the last penny. Remember, financial assets are held as member bank deposits at the Federal Reserve, cash or Treasuries. In other words, the deficit is equal to the total increase in the holdings of US financial assets held by you and I, firms and households, which we commonly referred to as the non-government sector. 



> I wont waste my time with further deconstruction of your economic lunacy.



Please, I beg you, enlighten me. 

Here's something you need to understand and I will gladly get into detail:_* Total net private financial wealth is equal to public debt down to the last penny from a sectoral standpoint.*_


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Still waiting for Kimura to explain why if debt isn't an issue we shouldn't just pile it on and make everything peaches and cream.


Simplistic question.  Easy answer.  For the same reason the doc does not suggest taking a 50 gallon barrel full of pain pills for your head ache.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Still waiting for Kimura to explain why if debt isn't an issue we shouldn't just pile it on and make everything peaches and cream.



The reality of the situation is that national governments very rarely run down their stock of debt from a macroeconomic standpoint. 

In terms of the overall macroeconomic point of view, all tax and spending decisions by the federal government should be done in such a fashion that total net spending in our economy is good enough to produce a level of real output in which firms would be able to employ any and all available labor. The goal of government should be to make sure the level of spending is sufficient enough to employ any and all available productive capacity. Period. Done deal.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for Kimura to explain why if debt isn't an issue we shouldn't just pile it on and make everything peaches and cream.
> ...



Well since we are obviously NOT employing any and all available labor then why don't we spend trillions more to make that happen, Kimura?  According to your version of economic voodoo there isn't a downside to that because things all "even out" on a balance sheet...so why AREN'T we?  The "reality of the situation" is that there ARE negative repercussions to carrying huge amounts of debt.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for Kimura to explain why if debt isn't an issue we shouldn't just pile it on and make everything peaches and cream.
> ...



And the real kicker that'll just get panties in a bunch is that taxes don't effect purchasing power in the long run. *Once the economy has reached a steady state condition on the change to rates, pending power is affected by relative net income differential and aggregate production. **


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for Kimura to explain why if debt isn't an issue we shouldn't just pile it on and make everything peaches and cream.
> ...



So you admit that too much debt is a fiscal recipe for a trip to the ER?  Ok...Mr. Easy Answer...at what point does your "remedy" become the cause of pain rather than the cure for it?  Kimura feels that because he can make assets and liabilities balance on a sheet that more debt isn't an issue.  Even you seem to realize that's ridiculous...

Better get your story straight, progressives...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> ...
> **The "reality of the situation" is that there ARE negative repercussions to carrying huge amounts of debt.



Excellent.

Specifically, in terms of the flow of funds, goods, and labor, what are the "negative repercussions to carrying huge amounts of debt"?

So far, there is the clear effect that funds flow from taxes to "investment". Households provide labor, businesses provide goods. Taxes are levied on income and EBT. *Part of those funds flow to interest payments on bonds. *That monies presumably becomes M2, or anything not M1. *(I can't find any proxy measure to determine whatay be considered as flow from bond interest back to M1.)

Interest is then not flowing to government expenditures on services which is flow back to M1. And if the bond interest were high enough, potentially all tax revenue could become bond interest.

The resultnis the government is restricted from further borrowing.

What else?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 19, 2013)

The primary negative repercussion to carrying large amounts of debt is the interest you pay on that debt.

Anyone with a limited budget and credit cards understands that concept.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Well, at the end of the day, all money creation is nothing more than a balance sheet operation.

What are the negative repercussion to these 'huge amounts of debt'? The whole debt-to-GDP ratio arguments are pure fantasy. Many of us realized this even before the Rogoff and Reinhart debacle.

As I've stated, and perhaps I need to get into more detail, budget deficits have added net financial assets to the private sector. This has helped to provide demand for real goods and services which have enables us to have income growth. This increase in income growth has also enabled us to save and accrue financial assets at a much greater pace than would be possible without deficits. 

The only issues you should have with public debt should be about equity considerations and who owns these assets and how the private wealth emanating from these deficits is provisioned so to speak. This is a reasonable debate, but there's no other logical reason to obsess over the level of US public debt. The federal government can always honor its debt, it cannot operationally go bankrupt. There is zero risk. Again, this debt gives firms, households and the rest of the private sector a place to stash their wealth risk-free.  

The only possible risk is that of inflation, not insolvency. However, with that being said, we need to realize that inflation is a risk from any type of overspending. It could emanate from consumption, exports, government spending or even investments. Any part of aggregate demand could tip the economy towards inflation, not just spending by the federal government. 

Here's my point: Budget deficits can be too small or too large. The goal of government should be to make sure they're just right so we can employ any and all available productive capacity. 

We can get into the Job Guarantee and Employer of Last Resort as a means to achieve full employment, but that's a completely different animal. I personally have a problem with NAIRU and the current arrangement.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



The Fed's control over interest rates is illusory.  Jimmy Carter believed the Fed's could control interest rates.  They went up to 21% during his administration.   Was that what he or the fed wanted?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



He's just presenting MMT. *That's not progressive, it's simple MMT accounting. *Accounting is 1+3 = 2 + 2.

He is is a bit vague, but tracable back to detailed descriptions under MMT.

You have no story at all. *At best, I can infer it to fit with the home economics model. *But that's a ridiculous analogy because the national economy *is a closed system while the household economy is an open system. *

Households must go externally to provide labor, get income, borrow, and pay debt. *

The national economy contains all the labor, productivity, debt and assets internally. *

The way to examine the national economy, which consists of households, businesses, the government, and a banking sector, is to find boundary conditions. *Money simply facilitates the flow of goods in an efficicient manner. There are accounting rules that set boundary conditions.

**The production of goods, the flow of goods, and the provision of labor exists *entirely seperate from the flow of funds except that we tie them together with the bookkeeping. The economy could function entirely on bartering, using a different accounting system that tracked only goods. *This would be somewhat like the Walmart model of moving stock from store to store. *It would be inefficient on a large scale. *But, it still would function. *The boundary condition is that of full production, the full utilization of resources, particularly labor. *Another boundary condition is maximum efficiency. *

When the efficiency of money is added to the economy, less effort is wasted figuring out how to distribute goods and labor. *Ther isn't the need to match up one goat, ten bushels of apples, and a new window.

We shouldn't, though, confuse the flow of funds with the flow of goods. The connection is tenuous and illusory. *Any rules that might be infered from observation is nothing more than convention. *They are rules of convenience, not immutable laws of physics. *

The only physical law of money is MV=PQ. Even then, the connection is still commingled with accounting practice. *

Saying "Better get your story straight, progressives." isn't a story. *It's an internalized emotional feedback, self reinforcent. By definition, internal self reinforcement is not external feedback. *External feedback is reality. Not external feedback is not reality. *Not reality is 

The looney bin is full of people running around calling each other cuckoo. *(Personally, I prefer to not be either of the two looneys.)

The not cuckoo here is an objective, accurate, precise, and specific description of the flow funds, labor, and goods in the closed loop system of a national economy. *

It's a physics/accounting question. *Physics and accounting isn't progressive or*conservative. *It is the personal perception that spirals off into some subjective implication that leads to a progressive/conservative conclusion. *

So the questiom remains, what are the negative effects of national debt and deficit in terms of the flow of funds, goods, and labor?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Those "assets" are in reality worthless scraps of paper.  They are claims on the earnings of future taxpayers.  They are of no benefit to the taxpayers since the taxpayers have to pay them.



Kimura said:


> There isn't a SS problem. It's simply a faux problem. Just like Medicare, Congress can fund it into perpetuity. It's simply a political decision, not a financial one. The only problem would be if we didn&#8217;t have the real resources seniors need to retire, such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc.



Yeah, Congress could pass a law saying anyone over the age of 70 should report to an extermination center.  Problem solved.



Kimura said:


> > They have added nothing but worthless scraps of paper to the private sector.  Yeah, the certainly increased "demand" for goods and services, because the government distributed the money it received to all it's various classes of parasites and job-holders.  However, the government has no way to repay this consumption other than by shaking down future taxpayers for it.   So there is nothing of value to the taxpayers resulting from the exchange.  Only a liability.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it an IOU?



Simple.  There are no real assets backing them.  They are nothing more than the government's promise to pay.



Kimura said:


> Under our fiat monetary system, all spending precedes taxation and &#8220;borrowing&#8221; from an operational standpoint. The government doesn&#8217;t need to tax in order to obtain that which it freely issues. The government essentially uses taxes to regulate aggregate demand and create demand dollars so to speak.



How does that change the legal nature of treasury bills?



Kimura said:


> US public debt represents the total savings of the US economy.



It represents no such thing.  According to that theory, I have no savings in my bank account.



Kimura said:


> It consists of private wealth and all interest payments are private income. All it represents is the accumulated budget deficits run in the past.



You're devolving into mumbo jumbo.  The fact the private individuals and institutions buy treasury bonds doesn't indicate they are wealth of any kind.  They are the government's promise to pay the bearer a given amount some time in the future.  There is no "tangible" wealth backing a treasury bond.



Kimura said:


> If you want to increase the savings of Americans, it simply cannot occur through deficit reductions, especially in the current economic environment.



Decreasing government borrowing doesn't increase the amount Americans save,  but it does increase the portion of the existing savings that are available for private investment.



Kimura said:


> By the way, the 'US deficit' adds to our savings right down the last penny. This is an accounting fact not open to debate. This is basic national income accounting.



ROFL!  That's only if you have a really twisted definition of the word "savings" where it really means borrowing.



Kimura said:


> For example, let's say the government runs a three trillion dollar deficit. This means there would be a total net increase in savings in the form of financial assets of three trillion dollars down to the last penny.



It is exactly compensated by a three trillion increase in the obligations of the federal government.  Unfortunately the government spends all the "savings" by dispensing it to parasites.



Kimura said:


> Remember, financial assets are held as member bank deposits at the Federal Reserve, cash or Treasuries. In other words, the deficit is equal to the total increase in the holdings of US financial assets held by you and I, firms and households, which we commonly referred to as the non-government sector.



I'm not going to bother wasting my time further deconstructing your nonsense.




Kimura said:


> > I wont waste my time with further deconstruction of your economic lunacy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Horseshit.  The money in my 401K is savings, and it's not part of "public debt."


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It was part of Volcker's attempt to control the money supply. In other words, it was part of the FED's policy to increase interest rates. This policy was an utter failure.

The FED cannot control the money supply, nor have any central banks since the 1980s attempted monetary targeting. They all came to the realization that central banks simply cannot control the money supply. All they can directly control are interest rates.  Monetary policy is now accomplished by setting a short-term interest rate through liquidity management in the overnight cash markets.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> The primary negative repercussion to carrying large amounts of debt is the interest you pay on that debt.
> 
> Anyone with a limited budget and credit cards understands that concept.



Which is all grand if the national economy were a household.   It's not nor is the gov't a household.  Analogies are an excellent tool, until they no longer map, part to part, process to process.

Seeing as the flow of tax receipts and expenditures, gov't debt and interest, don't map exactly to household income and expence, credit and interest, the home economics analogy doesn't function.

The mapping of elements is complete nonsense.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



The South fought a war because the North invaded them.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



In other words, you don't have the slightest clue what Feudalism is.  "Go look it up" is the refrain of someone who has been exposed as a moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



"You're stupid" isn't an argument or an explanation of Feudalism.

Why don't you just admit you don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about?

Who do you think you're fooling?


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



It's an overview of Modern Monetary Theory. I wasn't being obtuse, my goal was to avoid delving into accounting identities so to speak.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So where is that post where you explained what Feudalism is and proved that Oldstyle is wrong?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for Kimura to explain why if debt isn't an issue we shouldn't just pile it on and make everything peaches and cream.
> ...



That's the Keynesian mumbo-jumbo.  Too bad it's totally bogus.  The empirical evidence has disproven Keynesianism multiple times.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > The primary negative repercussion to carrying large amounts of debt is the interest you pay on that debt.
> ...



Exactly. The Federal Government doesn't operate like household or business. Households can't issue their own currency and require that the public use said currency to pay taxes. A household has to operate on a limited supply of dollars while the federal government's supply is limited by a matter of policy. I wish people understood the difference between currency issuer and currency user. I'd like to take a moment to thank reactionaries in the US media for turning people into frothing-at-the-mouth ignoramuses.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



LOL, okay. 

First of all, I'm not a Keynesian, so there goes that theory. What's this empirical evidence you speak of?

Also, from whom does the US borrow? You have stop thinking like we're still on the gold standard and a fixed-exchange rate. When we were on the gold standard, the government did indeed have to tax and borrow. This is no longer the case. And yes, if need be, I can get into detail. I was trying to avoid being wonkish.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



In other words, the government's attempt to control interest rates was an utter failure since it led to hyper-inflation.



Kimura said:


> The FED cannot control the money supply, nor have any central banks since the 1980s attempted monetary targeting.



ROFL!  you are truly ignorant.  About the only thing the Fed does have control over is the money supply.  The Fed has been attempting to do that ever since it was created.



Kimura said:


> They all came to the realization that central banks simply cannot control the money supply. All they can directly control are interest rates.  Monetary policy is now accomplished by setting a short-term interest rate through liquidity management in the overnight cash markets.



It's exactly the opposite of what you claim.  They all came to realize that they can control the money supply.  Interest rates are what the Fed can't control.  However, Bernanke seems to have forgotten that lesson.  He's keeping interest rates low by debasing the currency.  It's only a matter of time until those chickens come home to roost.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



You obviously are a Keynesian.  You believe government borrowing creates jobs.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It was stagflation. Actually, it was cost-push inflation which resulted from oil suppliers manipulating the market.

By the way, it was the FED's policy to raise interest rates when Volker came on board. 



Kimura said:


> The FED cannot control the money supply, nor have any central banks since the 1980s attempted monetary targeting.
> 
> ROFL!  you are truly ignorant.  About the only thing the Fed does have control over is the money supply.  The Fed has been attempting to do that ever since it was created.



I'll explain to you how the real world works below.



Kimura said:


> They all came to the realization that central banks simply cannot control the money supply. All they can directly control are interest rates.  Monetary policy is now accomplished by setting a short-term interest rate through liquidity management in the overnight cash markets.
> 
> It's exactly the opposite of what you claim.  They all came to realize that they can control the money supply.  Interest rates are what the Fed can't control.  However, Bernanke seems to have forgotten that lesson.  He's keeping interest rates low by debasing the currency.  It's only a matter of time until those chickens come home to roost.



Really, why are interest rates at historic lows? Why has Japan had interest rates at historic lows for two decades? 

The FED operates under what could be defined as a funnel system. The FED will only take action during certain time periods so to speak. In other words, the Federal Reserve sets the actual rates along the entire term structure, but will allow for some permutations within a certain metric between the IOR rate and discount rate.

Here's how it's done: the Federal Reserve sets interest rates by controlling the liquidity in the system-wide reserves. If the FED think that banks have excessive reserves for any given day, it will drain these reserves by offering bonds. The role of government bonds is to provide the Federal Reserve with the ability make sure there isn't any competitive pressure on the target interest rate. This is why when you say the government 'borrows' I want to jump out of a window.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



If you think that's what JM Keynes wrote about in the General Theory, you have bigger problems than debating some random dude on a message board. It would help if you understood what he actually wrote about, how some of his policies were implemented, etc. Seriously.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I'm well aware that households and governments that can print their own currencies don't operate in the same manner but THAT doesn't alter the fact that too much debt is bad for both.  Can you imagine the result if households WERE able to do what government can do...simply print money to pay their debts?  Anyone care to wager how long it would be before all currency would be essentially worthless?  Just because a nation CAN print limitless amounts of money doesn't mean it's sound fiscal policy.  The truth of the matter is that we've spent ourselves into a mountain of debt that is staggering in size.  That isn't me being a "frothing at the mouth ignoramus"...that's me stating the situation that we currently face.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

The fundamental error in the government is like a household analogy.

For an analogy to function, there must be a one to one to one correspondance between the elements of each and the processes or functionalities of each. *There also cannot be any extranious elements or processes that cause the two to diverge significaltly *umder the purpose of the analogy.

The gov't is like a household maps the following.

a) Credit card debt is mapped to the sale of bonds.
** a1) Bond interest is mapped to CC interest.
** a2) Bond repayment is mapped to CC repayment.
b) Taxes are mapped to income.
c) Gov't service is mapped to provision of HH labor.
d) Wages are mapped to tax rates.
e) Decrease in future consumption by the public due to government debt is mapped to future reduction of the household due to credit card debt.

This last item is where the analogy fails, even being disingenuous. *It maps the internal household consumption to the government external source of income. *It manages to do so, in a slight of hand trick, because the analogies overlap in using the household as an element but the functionalities of the elements are different for each.

In the HH/CC model, the source of income is the business sector. In the Gov't/Bond model, the source of income is the HH/business.

In the HH/CC model, the consumption is goods from the business sector. *In the Gov/Bond model, the consumption is HH labor and business goods.

The analogy then switches up saying that the effect of govt borrowing is to decrease HH consumption just as HH borrowing decreases HH borrowing.

The effect of govt debt would be to decrease govt consumption of HH labor and business goods, thereby reducing the govt provision of service and labor. *

The effect of HH borrowing is to reduce HH consumption of business goods with no reduction of labor provision.

Its a bad analogy because it is a dissingenuous analogy.  It relies on using the HH in two seperate manners for each model, the relies on the listeners error in not distinguishing between the two.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I wasn't referring to you, dude.  Seriously.

My point is, that this debt argument is illogical, given all of our excess capacity, lagging aggregate demand and employment numbers. It's a trivial non-issue. It's not a mountain of debt, it simply  represents the private sector's desire to save. These payments get made the same way as you or I would shift funds between our checking account and savings account. For example, China has a checking account (reserve account) over at the FED. It purchases US securities and money is shifted into a savings account (Treasuries). These payments are merely the shifting of funds back and forth between reserve accounts and Treasuries.  In other words, purchasing US debt is nothing more than shifting dollars from a checking account (reserve account) to savings (Treasuries), paying off US debt entails nothing more than shifting dollars from savings (Treasuries)  to checking (reserve accounts).  

Also, there's more to inflation than increasing the supply of money. If we listened to actual ignoramuses like Peter Schiff or Kyle Bass, we should have all committed ritualistic suicide back in 2008. 

We should ultimately get rid of bonds since they're no longer operationally necessary under a fiat system. This whole thing has been hijacked by politicians and we're seeing it played out with all this austerity talk by the moron in the White House. Conservatives should support this, it would render the 'public debt' issue a moot point. The Chinese, Saudis, Japanese and whoever could park their money into reserve accounts and that would be that. Obviously, it would require more tweaking, such as permanent overdrafts, etc., but I think you get the point.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Sorry it took so long.  My response is in the lone post.  I needed to think through the models in the analogy.  The fault has nothing to do with whether the gov't can print money. Indeed, that's just compounding the problem with the analogy. 

The govt doesn't print money to spend any more than a HH does. Banks create money.  When the govt sells bonds, say to a bank, it is exactly like a HH borrowing on a CC.  The bank buying the bond is "creating" the money exactly as a bank providing CC funds is "creating" money. 

Now, I know, there is this whole thing floating around where the Fed is take as effectively the Gov't printing money by buying bonds on the secondary markets which allows more bonds to be purchased.  And banks also repackage CC debt into CC backed securities which doesnthe same thing.  And people that live in HHs work for banks and on it goes.  There is a huge problem with doing analogies in econ because they are relying on either rotating the economy and remapping elements, then screwing one up.  Using the economy as an analogy for itself, which is like using Mazda engine as an analogy for a Toyota engine.  Or using some badly constructed analogy like a swimming pool.

They sound all great, until subjected to detailed analysis.

Though, at least a bad analogy that reaches the right conclusion is effectively better than a bad analogy that reaches the wrong conclusion.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



A country can't invade itself.  That's like saying Syria has invaded Syria.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



The Federal government invaded the South.  That is indisputable historical fact.  In those days, before Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution, the states were considered to be sovereign nations.  Furthermore, the Southern states seceded from the union.  They were no longer part of the United States.

The Federal government sent troops into sovereign territory.  It invaded the Confederate States.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> It's any overview of Modern Monetary Theory. I wasn't being obtuse, my goal was to avoid delving into accounting identities so to speak.



I know. *

**I was really specifically refering to exactly what I refered to. *Like ten year olds saying, "You're gay." *"No, you're gay." "You're gay times ten." *"You're dad's gay". .... *"You're " What's the next move? *"You're  times two."?

**I just keep pushing towards accuracy and precision. *

At some point, when presenting some fundamental boundary condition like "All consumption in the future will be produced in the future" there isn't anything more to explain. *It's like saying that massive objects fall under gravitational pull. *Its not even contestable as an axiom. It just is. What else can you say? Someone says A leads to B leads to C, and you point out that C obviously doesn't exist, what can you say? What ever the reasoning was that yielded C, it needs rethinking. *I don't read minds.

I haven't found any errors on your part. *All I get is either "I don't know" or like that one, just not the best analogy.

That's really the reason I have little response to your posts. *They are either right, I don't know, some bad analogy with the right conclusion, or a "You're gay times two." *I dream of a forum where posts are a build up of fact and reason that hits an unresolved question. *

One time, in all the time I've read and replied, I was right, he was right, then I had that Ah Ha moment of it's "AND". *That's when I get just a teeny bit smarter, at the margin, one little neuron connects.

I generally respond because there is something I need to see in print. There is just something extra about the process of having to spell it out.  And I am ever appreciative that others have spent the time to spell stuff out.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I'm going to have to reread the Constitution of the United States where it says that states are sovereign nations. *


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Try finding the part that says states take orders from the federal government.  Then read the 9th and 10th Amendments.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Holly crap, there's a Nobel Prize in there then. *Someone is gonna go down in history along with John Nash, even Einstien. *The Albert Einstien of Economics... Who are these guys. *The text book publishers are going to make bank on all the rewrites of micro and macro economics, from into on up. *Down goes MPC... Down goes MMP... Down goes the fiscal multilpier... Down goes the CBO projection models.... Someone inform them and the IMF.

Shit.... Now I am really excited. *Do you have some links to the published papers?*

I search on*fiscal multiplier military spending - Google Search

or*

fiscal multiplier - Google Search

And I'm overwhelmed with crap papers.

In do*fiscal multiplier overthrown debunked - Google Search

and all I get are a few blogs and something called "mises.org".


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Dammed Supreme Court with their*power to interpret the Constitution. *How did that happen?

For that matter, if states are sovreign nations, why do we even have a Constitution? *Seems awefully useless. *


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> ...
> We should ultimately get rid of bonds since they're no longer operationally necessary under a fiat system.*
> ...
> .


Damn you, man... You can't blurt thing like that out and just walk away. *It leaves this big "I don't know" that causes a little permanent trickle of anxiety.

Now I'm gonna wake up tommorrow and realize I had been dreaming about that little Constitution cartoon guy, on Saturday morning along with "conjunction junction", standing on capitol hill and shooting little cartoon bond characters. *Then the little bond cartoon characters fall over, with big holes in their middle, gasping for breath before expiring and blowing away in a gust of wind. *I wake up with this uneazy feeling, like something is missing.

Damn you man....


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I found something

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

and

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Apparently some people think this has something to do with it.

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't you just hate it when someone else interprets thing different then you want to? *Annoys the shit out of me. 

No one asked me if I wanted to be born or in what country.  You don't see my signature on the Constitution, do ya?


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Haha  I apologize about the hit and run. I'll try to articulate my points a little more.

If we look at this from the federal government's point of view, there really isn't a functional difference between electronic credits, cash, bonds or treasury bills. 

The US could could stop issuing bonds today if it desired to. When people froth-at-the-mouth about US public debt, they don't understand the underlying mechanics of certain operational realities of our fiat monetary system.  The primary function of the US Treasury is to subtract or add net reserves in the banking system, which helps the Federal Reserve meet its target Fed Funds rate. The secondary function is give holders of US paper an ROI. Bank reserves really aren't really a great place to earn interest. I view bonds as a vestigial leftover from the dark days of the gold standard.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I thought the Federal Reserve had that whole "subtract or add net reserves in the banking system" thing cover.

**The Treasury does accounting for the govt. They print species, coins and bills, but that goes directly under Fed control. *They sell bonds to cover gov't expenditures in lue of sufficient receipts. *

The Fed increases reserve bank reserves and adjusts the discount rate. *The Fed has the whole open market thing which works on the private bank reserve portfolio.

The Fed does the electronic switching from savings to checking accounts.

Now we've got the Treasury adjusting private bank reserves too? *Seems a bit of a cludge. *But if it works....


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



You're really making the point that our national debt is a "trivial non-issue"?  I'm sorry, Kimura but to be quite frank with you...I think you've lost your mind.  This notion of yours that debt isn't an issue amazes me.  Somehow someone has convinced you that "creative accounting" can nullify common sense.  Not only is *it *a mountain of debt...*it* is a Mt. Everest of debt...a sum that is so vast that it's hard to comprehend.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No, me poor stupid con.  What I said is that you should assume that the patient is not stupid enough to take the whole barrel.  I suppose you would?
Jesus, you are ignorant.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Right.  Jesus, what can I say to you.  You must know better than that, me boy.  Uh, maybe not.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Fooling?  No one.  You never ask someone to define anything on the internet, dipshit.  If they know the answer, they tell you.  If they do not, they look it up and tell you. 
So, dipshit, go look it up.  It is simple enough that even you may be able to understand it.  And I have no reason to educate you.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



We're no longer on a gold standard or fixed-exchange rate for the umpteenth time. This whole debt issue is really nothing more than propaganda. There isn't some vault with a finite amount of money in it.

The federal government is obligated to pay all US debts as they come due. Our national debt isn't a burden for anyone, including the US government. The US has an unlimited credit card to obtain 'debt' at whatever interest rates it so chooses. It can create all the money it needs to pay off any and all debt without creating new debt if it so chooses. The only time we'd run into trouble is if the government taxed more than it spent (running budget surpluses) . Again, no matter anyway you cut it, spending is virtually costless for the federal government. 

Here's the reality: the US Government has no limits on its ability to create/spend money other than one that's arbitrarily self-imposed. The level of public debt or debt-to-GDP ratios cannot affect the government's ability to spend. It all boils down to appropriations by Congress.  A fiscal policy should be measured by policy outcomes, not by something as trivial as the size of the deficit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Well, but......you mean states are not nations.  What, then, are nation states???  For christ sake, we have all these folks in the south, particularly texas and la wanting to succeed, and you intimate that states are not nations???  
Sorry, but your post got me laughing.  Funny.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Fools are always laughing at stuff they don't understand.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Translation:  You don't have a fucking clue about what Feudalism is.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Only a fool thinks he knows better than the simple truth.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> You're really making the point that our national debt is a "trivial non-issue"? *I'm sorry, Kimura but to be quite frank with you...I think you've lost your mind. *This notion of yours that debt isn't an issue amazes me. *Somehow someone has convinced you that "creative accounting" can nullify common sense. *Not only is *it *a mountain of debt...*it* is a Mt. Everest of debt...a sum that is so vast that it's hard to comprehend.



You should read up about it. It's not fancy, it's a basic accounting identity. Sorry, I don't have a link, I'm still looking. *But at a micro level, obviously savings equals loans. The bank needs savings to loan. *I know, it's a weak example, but that's the idea. In macro, it's much tighter. It says nothing about who has the savings.

So far, on the mountain of debt, I'm not finding your arguments convincing. *A *mountain of debt* is a bit subjective.. Mountains are nice. *You can go hiking, ski, etc. The fishing for trout is great.

So far, except that at some point interest equals tax receipts, it's a non issue.. And seeing as taxes have zero effect, that's a non issue.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The simple truth is you're a fool.

Bada.. brump... brump....

Ya walked right into it, man...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



And everyone laughs at fools.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It doesn't really matter because Libertarianism is futile. *It's Feutilism.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The Treasury spends  base money into existence while the FED loans base money into existence. 

The government spends by writing Treasury checks or crediting commercial bank accounts. It can spend it on hammers, entitlements, drones or whatever.

When the government credits accounts or spends, this is the actual process of money creation, which then finds it way into reserves in the banking system. The mechanism of selling bonds has the effect of draining these excess reserves from the banking system which are then swapped for Treasuries. This reserve drain leaves us with a positive interest rate to reach the targeted Fed funds rate. 

These explanations are for the viewing audience, not for you.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You're really making the point that our national debt is a "trivial non-issue"? *I'm sorry, Kimura but to be quite frank with you...I think you've lost your mind. *This notion of yours that debt isn't an issue amazes me. *Somehow someone has convinced you that "creative accounting" can nullify common sense. *Not only is *it *a mountain of debt...*it* is a Mt. Everest of debt...a sum that is so vast that it's hard to comprehend.
> ...



On a side note, loans actually create deposits. 

For example, when a bank makes loan to a customer, a bank deposit is created, which is a liability for the bank, since the customer can draw upon the deposit. And for our bank customer, this new bank deposit is a claim on base money, which is effectively an asset.  The whole point of this loan/deposit arrangement is so that banks can let customers make claims on base money which can be liquidated instantaneously.

Banks also don't lend reserves to customers. They're utilized by banks as a clearing mechanism of sorts. Banks can use their reserves to purchase bonds, convert them into cash or lend them out to other banks (interbank lending market).  Any reserve shortages will not prevent a bank from loaning money to customers. Any reserve shortfalls are dealt with after the loan is made, mostly through the interbank lending market or using the FED as the lender of last resort.

Must.not.get.into.the.money.multiplier.myth.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, at some point, it may be useful take some of the analytics that the two of you (the other being itfitzme, of course) and apply it to Europe.  So, my contention is that austerity in europe is a failure, that it has been a failure from the start, and that it was easy enough to predict that it would be so, also from the inception of the idea.  Unfortunately, between politicians, political operatives,  pundits, and the press,  folks have come to believe that there was some potential, at least, that it was a good idea.  
The reasoning for those that believe austerity is a good plan is generally similar to the reasoning, if you would like to call it that, that relates to your discussion over the past three or so days as it was introduced from others.  
By the way, impressive discussion.  Thanks for the recap.  It has been a few years since I have thought about the subject in the depth that you just presented.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

Kimura said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Ah, thanks..*

All you had to say was "On a side note, loans actually create deposits. "

I knew it was there, I was standing in the wrong spot to see it.

It's like the supply AND demand thing. *Sometimes I see the supply, sometimes the demand. I have to spin the game board around to see the other.*

Thanks for the detailed description. The more different ways it is described, the better it is understood.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You're really making the point that our national debt is a "trivial non-issue"? *I'm sorry, Kimura but to be quite frank with you...I think you've lost your mind. *This notion of yours that debt isn't an issue amazes me. *Somehow someone has convinced you that "creative accounting" can nullify common sense. *Not only is *it *a mountain of debt...*it* is a Mt. Everest of debt...a sum that is so vast that it's hard to comprehend.
> ...



Mountains can also kill your ass if you don't treat them with respect and your cavalier attitude to the mountain of debt that we've piled up does just that.  This mumbo-jumbo that you and Kimura keep spouting about it all balancing out on your little accounting sheets is ridiculous.  Banks do need capital to loan but when they make those loans they expect the loan to be paid back with interest.  The problem with your little scenario is that we're rapidly approaching the point where the interest on the money we owe is going to be more than our entire Federal budget.  What happens THEN to your "balance sheet"?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yeah, Europe is a bit difficult for me because of the whole Euro thing. *

What to do with Europe is an issue.**It's awkward.* * They are more like US states, to the best of my knowledge. There are no trade restrictions across US state lines. *In the Euro zone, they are sovreign nation-states. *So I've got no real knowledge as to how this works out. *The flow of goods and services is a huge deal and with money so intimately connected, I would be remiss to reach conclusions to quickly. Then there is the thing about US taxes and how the funds are spread out back to states. I can only imagine how odd it would be if US states were to be structured more like a sovreign nation, there were no federal taxes or grants, yet the money supply was still national. Interstate commerce, federal taxes and grant, and a national money supply equalizes variability.*

For these reasons, we want to be careful to distinguish between the Eurozone and the UK. *

I was comparing the US employment, unemployment, and labor participation rates to the UK. It's curious because the US looks more like a control system that is poorly tuned. *It was better before the recession, overshot on the recession effects, then has stabilized to near the UK. *What I see for the UK is that nothing has changes since the recession ended. *It's not the absolute levels that are important, not the rates, but the change in the rate. *Still, I need to look at them again.

I haven't looked at Greece, Germany, or any others.

It seems to me that Europe is unique and we have to be careful, like with that household analogy, to not be overly reliant on analogizing to the US.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 19, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I'm open to examining any real issue with the debt. But all I've read is based on the false analogy of a household budget.

The thing that is important is production and efficiency. *If everyone is working, then the production of goods is at it's maximum. *That means consumption can be at it's maximum as long as we get it distributed. *

The monies are just tickets to the show.

The only thing that matters in consumption is net income differential, relative net real income. *Then, in the most democratic of processes, prices adjust according to everyones vote by what they are willing to pay for one good relative to others. *Companies vote on labor and skill based of what they are willing to pay for one skill relative to others. *

It is relative net income that determines relative consumption between households.

The only issue with the money supply is that it is appropriately balanced. *The fundamental constraint to it is that we count it and have rules for that counting, called accounting.

The tie between money and goods is the time it takes for changes to propogate through the supply chains.

Everything else is secondary.*And most of it simply illusory because prices adjust.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> **
> The problem with your little scenario is that we're rapidly approaching the point where the interest on the money we owe is going to be more than our entire Federal budget. *What happens THEN to your "balance sheet"?



When that happens, when interest equals tax receipt, then the government won't be able to*borrow more. *The deficit will end.

But isn't that austerity? *So the worse case scenario is austerity and smaller gov't. *Which is the conservative manrta.

So the conservatives are upset about the eventual occurance of what they want to do to avoid it.

The worse case scenario is the solution to the worse case scenario.

Nobody is saying that the budget shouldn't be balanced.  But it should be done the right way, at the right time, for the right reason, with an understanding of what it is going to do.  Paying down the debt reduces savings and depresses the economy.  To much, to fast, at the wrong time causes the opposite effect.

It's like counter steering on a motorcycle.  To turn a motorcycle, you push on the handlebar on the side you want to turn.  It's completely counter intuitive.  The handlebar literally pushes back harder and the bike just leans right over.  The machine drops like a rock.  It's the oddest thing. It has to do with precession, the way the angular momentum of the wheel is conserved.  It's a feedback system.

Reduce government spending and tax reciepts fall off, by more than the reductionnin spending.  It's a feedback system.  That is if it's done at the wrong time, by the wrong amount.  The next thing we know, Congess has jacked up spending somewhere else and we are right back where we started. It has happened every time.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Banks do need capital to loan but when they make those loans they expect the loan to be paid back with interest. *The problem with your little scenario is that we're rapidly approaching the point where the interest on the money we owe is going to be more than our entire Federal budget. *What happens THEN to your "balance sheet"?



That's nothing compared to how money even exists in the economy. *I'm suprised that one isn't freaking you out completely.

Basically, there is no money except that it is borrowed. *In order for there to be one penny in circulation, it has to be borrowed. *But, then interest is due on that. So where does the interest come from? *Someone else has to borrow even more, with even more interest due.

Here is a video that explains it.

YouTube

Of course, it's not explaining it completely either. It's only half the story. There are details about how and what circulates.*I'm not entirely convinced it always works, but as long as we have growth, it works. *Wait, didn't we just have a balance sheet recession that began as the collapse of an asset bubble?

I'm a pessimist. I don't think anything works. *My sense is that the balance sheet recession is inevitable. *My sense is that it just keeps getting put off. *But the thing is, everytime I think I've found something, it turns out to be a non issue.*

So I've learned to temper my freakouts.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

Kimura said:


> The federal government is obligated to pay all US debts as they come due. Our national debt isn't a burden for anyone, including the US government. The US has an unlimited credit card to obtain 'debt' at whatever interest rates it so chooses. It can create all the money it needs to pay off any and all debt without creating new debt if it so chooses. The only time we'd run into trouble is if the government taxed more than it spent (running budget surpluses) . Again, no matter anyway you cut it, spending is virtually costless for the federal government.
> 
> Here's the reality: the US Government has no limits on its ability to create/spend money other than one that's arbitrarily self-imposed. The level of public debt or debt-to-GDP ratios cannot affect the government's ability to spend. It all boils down to appropriations by Congress.  A fiscal policy should be measured by policy outcomes, not by something as trivial as the size of the deficit.



You two are seriously scary!  I'm getting the impression that both of you actually attended college somewhere and may have taken some economics classes (unlike Rshermr...who's absolutely clueless about the subject) but at some point you bought into this fantasy that because the Federal Government can create money that it has a "magic credit card" that it can keep running up debt on.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > **
> ...



When we reach the point when we can't borrow anymore the deficit won't magically "end".  That's like saying when you can't make the balloon payment on your house mortgage that the title magically becomes yours.  It doesn't work that way.  We'll *still* have the deficit.  What's worse is that as our credit rating gets downgraded...and that IS what will happen if we continue on the way we are now...the interest on our debt will only get larger.

As for your notion that fiscal conservatives should be happy because austerity will occur when we reach that point?  That's so blind to the reality of how bad a situation we'll be in at that point.  When the well dries up that's going to mean draconian cuts to everything...and I'm not talking about the miniscule cuts that progressives portray as draconian every time a conservative tries to rein in the growth of government...I'm talking about the REAL thing.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The government cannot spend what it does not take in. *Outlays equals receipts plus bond sales. *Thats simple math. *And to the best of my knowledge, that's all there is to it. *So on the eventuality that the interest should ever equal receipts...*

You know what, your right. *Bond sales could simply be increased to cover interest plus the deficit.

Of course, if the credit rating gets downgraded, the amount of bond sales willmbe greater.

Except it being a really big number, so? *Are you expecting the financial markets to collapse because the US credit rating is down graded to AA-?

You haven't talked about a REAL thing yet.

All you've said is it's a really big number. *I agree, it's a big number. *It's still just a number.

What counts is real production. *That, of course, is dependent on money being loaned by private banks to businesses. *So how is REAL production affected by this really big number that is in a computer?

What's the REAL connection? *


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I haven't bought into anything. *You're mistaking that I don't buy this "household consumer credit" nonsense as meaning I've somehow bought into something else. *I simply don't trade one nonsense off for some other nonsense. *It simply doesn't matter what I believe, so I can afford to not believe anything. *I can afford to just deal with what I have knowledge of.

And people simply get use to things. *Today they are a bit concerned about a $16 T debt and $1.6 deficit. *If five years from now, the debt and deficit are $32 T and $3.2 T, people will be no more and no less concerned. *When the economy is booming, less people are concerned. *When the economy sucks, more people are concerned.

In 1945, the debt was 113% of GDP. Now it's 75%.

And the only people that really matter, as far as concern goes, is the private lenders, and the business and consumer borrowers.*As long as people are willing to borrow and lend, there is no problem.

So far, no one has presented any reason as to what the deterious effect is except, "It's really big and that is scary." *It's not even 113% yet.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



That must be your conception of wit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Translation:  You don't have a fucking clue either.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > The federal government is obligated to pay all US debts as they come due. Our national debt isn't a burden for anyone, including the US government. The US has an unlimited credit card to obtain 'debt' at whatever interest rates it so chooses. It can create all the money it needs to pay off any and all debt without creating new debt if it so chooses. The only time we'd run into trouble is if the government taxed more than it spent (running budget surpluses) . Again, no matter anyway you cut it, spending is virtually costless for the federal government.
> ...



That's exactly what they believe.  I've been hearing this brand of abracadabra for 40 years.  It was just as stupid 40 years ago as it is now.

Notice that neither of them has responded to the initial question:  What is Feudalism?  Instead they are wallowing in the details of this FED Three Card Monty that no one is interested in.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > The federal government is obligated to pay all US debts as they come due. Our national debt isn't a burden for anyone, including the US government. The US has an unlimited credit card to obtain 'debt' at whatever interest rates it so chooses. It can create all the money it needs to pay off any and all debt without creating new debt if it so chooses. The only time we'd run into trouble is if the government taxed more than it spent (running budget surpluses) . Again, no matter anyway you cut it, spending is virtually costless for the federal government.
> ...



I've taken more than some classes. I have both undergraduate and graduate degrees in economics.

I was trying to avoid some more wonkish posts for the sake of brevity. I won't be home until this evening, but I will elaborate on sectoral balances.

Here's what I will cover:

1)Deficits actually create wealth and net financial assets.

2) One sector's deficit is another sector's surplus.

3) The spending habits of people are determined by income.

4) Aggregate income is directly correlated with aggregate spending.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

You can get as "wonky" as you want, Kimura and it still won't change reality.  Your claim that one sector's deficit is another sector's surplus is another way of saying "robbing Peter to pay Paul".  The problem with your notion that deficits create wealth is that deficits create more than just wealth...they create debt and they create interest payments on that debt.  You see no problem with this of course because you think your "magic credit card"...the fiat...is going to allow you to just create more money to pay for it all.  My question for you is what happens when our currency becomes weaker and weaker?  You take it for granted that the dollar will always be viewed as being worthy of value.  There ARE other currencies out there.  People choose to buy dollars or base their economies on the dollar because we're viewed as the world's most stable currency.  What happens when our mounting debt brings about another credit downgrade?  Do you not recognize that we're reaching the point where we're getting by more on our past reputation for stability than our future prospects for it?  That people invest in the dollar not because of it's actual stability but because of it's reputation for stability?  What happens if that reputation begins to be exposed as lacking?  What happens to the US if the rest of the world chooses to buy yuan's instead of dollars?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> You can get as "wonky" as you want, Kimura and it still won't change reality.  Your claim that one sector's deficit is another sector's surplus is another way of saying "robbing Peter to pay Paul".  The problem with your notion that deficits create wealth is that deficits create more than just wealth...they create debt and they create interest payments on that debt.  You see no problem with this of course because you think your "magic credit card"...the fiat...is going to allow you to just create more money to pay for it all.  My question for you is what happens when our currency becomes weaker and weaker?  You take it for granted that the dollar will always be viewed as being worthy of value.  There ARE other currencies out there.  People choose to buy dollars or base their economies on the dollar because we're viewed as the world's most stable currency.  What happens when our mounting debt brings about another credit downgrade?  Do you not recognize that we're reaching the point where we're getting by more on our past reputation for stability than our future prospects for it?  That people invest in the dollar not because of it's actual stability but because of it's reputation for stability?  What happens if that reputation begins to be exposed as lacking?  What happens to the US if the rest of the world chooses to buy yuan's instead of dollars?


Jesus, Oldstyle.  Try understanding what is being said, instead of what you can say to make it wrong.  You are looking like a conservative tool.  You have claimed to be rational.  If you have a real problem with the statements being made, ask for CLARIFICATION instead of always simply dropping in the conservative political statement.  Regarding what Kimura said, if you would re-read it, he stated he would expand on four points.  When he got home.  Does that seem too unreasonable to you.  Hell, not everyone can drop what they are doing and spend a half hour explaining things to you (which, in my opinion, will be a near Herculean effort).  Some actually have commitments during the day.  
And by the way, if you still want to question my degree, accept my bet.  If I do not, then YOU MAKE SOME MONEY.  You see, me boy, personal attacks simply make you look like what you are.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

I like this question

What happens to the US if the rest of the world chooses to buy yuan's instead of dollars?

Do people buy dollars? *With what, not dollar? *Yuan? Euros? *So what happens when people buy dollars, except that one person then has dollarsnand the other person has Euros or Renminbi?

If a substantial percentage of foreign businesses buy Renminbi instead of US dollars, what is the effect?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You can get as "wonky" as you want, Kimura and it still won't change reality.  Your claim that one sector's deficit is another sector's surplus is another way of saying "robbing Peter to pay Paul".  The problem with your notion that deficits create wealth is that deficits create more than just wealth...they create debt and they create interest payments on that debt.  You see no problem with this of course because you think your "magic credit card"...the fiat...is going to allow you to just create more money to pay for it all.  My question for you is what happens when our currency becomes weaker and weaker?  You take it for granted that the dollar will always be viewed as being worthy of value.  There ARE other currencies out there.  People choose to buy dollars or base their economies on the dollar because we're viewed as the world's most stable currency.  What happens when our mounting debt brings about another credit downgrade?  Do you not recognize that we're reaching the point where we're getting by more on our past reputation for stability than our future prospects for it?  That people invest in the dollar not because of it's actual stability but because of it's reputation for stability?  What happens if that reputation begins to be exposed as lacking?  What happens to the US if the rest of the world chooses to buy yuan's instead of dollars?
> ...



"Try understanding what is being said, instead of what you can say to make it wrong."

That's the essence of a debate, Tommy...saying what you think makes another person's argument invalid.  Duh?

*If* I still want to question your degree?  Gee, was that in doubt?  Let me see if I can clear this up.  I think you're an internet poser with almost no knowledge of economics at all.  Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I like this question
> 
> What happens to the US if the rest of the world chooses to buy yuan's instead of dollars?
> 
> ...



When China buys our debt, they do so in large part to keep the value of their currency, the yuan, lower than the dollar so that the price of their goods remains attractive.  If however China chose not to do so, the resulting devaluation of the dollar would be catastrophic for both the US economy and most of the rest of the world's economies that are tied to the dollar.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I like this question
> 
> What happens to the US if the rest of the world chooses to buy yuan's instead of dollars?
> 
> ...



Your question only shows profound ignorance of the way the world economy works, especially the way currencies work.


----------



## oldfart (Jun 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I like this question
> 
> What happens to the US if the rest of the world chooses to buy yuan's instead of dollars?
> 
> ...



All central banks try to hold stocks of foreign exchange sufficient to meet the needs of trade with their main trading partners.  In addition, most central banks hold additional reserves in either gold, "Special Drawing Rights" (SDR's), or "reserve currencies" (US dollar, British pound, Japanese yen, and to a minor extent French & Swiss francs and German marks).  The Renminbi is not a reserve currency because the Chinese keep it at an artificial price.  I think what you are asking is the effect of the US dollar being used less as a reserve currency.  

A move away from the US dollar would cause the demand for dollars to be reduced and the price (foreign exchange rate) in open markets to fall.  A dollar would buy fewer of other currencies.  Imports from the US would appear cheaper to other countries and foreign goods more expensive in the US.  Imports would fall and exports rise, increasing employment and perhaps stimulating a bit higher inflation.  The problem is that everyone else in the world is currently trying to do the same thing (currency devaluation) for the same reason (to stimulate demand).  The last thing in the world other central banks want is a run on the dollar.  On top of everything else, it would make the dollars they hold as a reserve currency and dollar-denominated assets held by their citizens such as Treasury bonds less valuable.  

So in short, ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Oldstyle, here is the thing.  Usually, it is a really good idea to understand the other person's statement, BEFORE you make disparaging remarks.  He gave you a really basic outline of what he was going to explain WHEN he got back home.  Later.  You immediately jumped in with your remarks.  I simply stated it is a good idea to hear the argument before you dispute it.  Sorry that it seems beyond you.
Relative to your comments about my knowledge of economics, please bring forward an economic argument that you have ever won, me boy.  Because I know of none.  I simply see attack after attack after attack.  Relative to your questioning of my degree, I can show you several times when you said I lied about having a degree in econ. But then, I am tired of wasting time with you.  Personal attacks are your bag.  And lying is one of the tools you tend to use often.

The thing is, you always seem to think you are winning economic arguments.  As I am sure you believe now.  Keep at it.  And we can all make our own judgement.  Looks at this time that you at least have a supporter in Bripat.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I like this question
> ...



So a strong Yuan would mean China would then purchase US goods, thus bringing manufacturing to the US and increasing employment, right?

That's a good thing, isn't it?

I am not clear how we get from the US households buying Walmart goods from China and China purchasing US bonds to China buying US dollars, but if were going to skip over that and go directly to the US dollar becoming weak, we have a huge trade imbalance which has been a complaint by some.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I like this question
> ...



What would happen if the US ceased to be the world&#8217;s reserve currency?_* Nothing would happen.*_ Who cares if the Chinese stop purchasing US securities? They simply desire to save in US financial assets to obtain interest. They're also dependent on US credit creation, but that's another story. 

In order to proceed, it&#8217;s critical for you to understand that in order for Chinese or the rest of the world to shed their respective dollar holdings they would have to exchange them for real goods and services produced by Americans. This means every foreigner that has US dollars would have to send us back their dollars for real goods and services which are produced by Americans. This is the only way for the Chinese, Japanese, Saudis or any portion of the foreign sector to shed their dollar holdings.  For example, if a Japanese person exchanged their dollars with an Australian, this wouldn't work, since the world would still have said dollars in circulation. Basically, the roughly 5 trillion held by the foreign sector would result in the biggest shopping spree in human history. Our 500 billion dollar trade deficit would disappear and the US would have a surplus of 5 trillion dollars.

On the other side of the equation, China, Japan and the OPEC countries, which historically run enormous surpluses with the United States, would run deficits of a similar size.  These countries would simply run deficits while we enter surplus.  We would receive dollars and the foreign sector, including China, would receive the real goods and services produced by Americans, such as technology, software, automobiles, boats, planes, cloths, shoes, etc.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> If however China chose not to do so, the resulting devaluation of the dollar would be catastrophic for both the US economy and most of the rest of the world's economies that are tied to the dollar.



If China let the yuan float upwards in a free capitalist Republican market American goods would be a lot more competitive, world markets more efficient, and our standards of living would go up. 

The idea that Chinese manipulation of the market is saving us from a catastrophe is insane.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

oldfart said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I like this question
> ...



The questions Oldstyle posed are ;



> My question for you is what happens when our currency becomes weaker and weaker?
> 
> What happens when our mounting debt brings about another credit downgrade? *
> 
> ...



It seemed that they needed to be boiled down to something more fundamental. The concept of "buying US dollars" seemed the fuzziest. *That is generally what I go after, my fuzziest comcept.

Certainly, the China central bank has stocked up on US currency and US bonds by a) buying US currency from Chinese businesses and b) using some of that to buy US bonds. *

That is all fine. *The world seems satisfied with the Federal Reserves methods, to the extent that Argentina simply pegged their peso to the US dollar for a decade.

And so it makes sense that countries would have adopted the US dollar as a world currency, stocking it as reserve.

Somehow, it managed to get to two conclusions;

a) the US dollar is the baseline standard upon which all other denominations are referenced. *I might infer that the real value of other denominations is its value relative to the US dollar, just as the US dollar real value is in termsmof CPI, relative to some baseline year basket of goods.

b) *And China's currency gaining in value relative to the rest of the world, and thereby being relatively closer in value to the US dollar, will result in a decline in the trade imbalance between the US and China, increasing US production and lowering US unemployment.

Those bonds are saving. *Money flows, it's not static. *So for savings to reverse, flow must reverse. *I am working on seeing what this means besides that US exports increase.

The problem I have is the colloquial misconception of what taxes really do. *The typical concept comes from the belief that a lower tax rate means more
purchasing power. A secretary looks at her paystub, sees $50 going out in taxes and figures that if she didn't have to pay that $50, then she could buy more stuff. *

And that would be true if only her taxes were $50 lower. *

What makes for spending power is relative net income. *

If her taxes go down, so does everyone elses taxes. *Everyone has $50 more dollars. *For a short while, that $50 bucks will buy more. *But, especially today with electronic pricing, prices rise. *Once the information propogates up the supply chain, prices adjust upward. *Spending power returns to it's previous level based on net relative income.

Now, there is one caveat, that resourses are fully utilized. A short term increase in money supply first increases output before prices adjust, if ouput can increase. Timing is everything.

So, let's suppose that the deficit is reduced, bond sales fall, and the flow of funds reverses from the US gov't out to bond holders. *What happens. *Well it depends on the flow of funds into the govt as taxes, the flow of funds out of the govt as expenditures, and what the bond holders do with their newly aquired US dollars.*

The last one is the most significant. *If it's just being stockpiled elsewhere, in foreign reserves, we might as well just print money. *

If it is being used to purchase US goods, then we want a balance that maximizes US employment and sustains US consumption.

This is more like a thermodynamics problem.

What we want is those funds flowing around to pay the bonds. It comes into the US as sales on exports, circulates in the US, to the gov't, then back to the bond holders as they cash them in. *All we are doing is paying them with the money they give us.

The key is in the balance of flow that maximizes US productivity and standard of living.

So what do we sell? *Isn't that the real issue, what does the US sell on a global market? *Does anyone think we are going to be selling pots and electric motors?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 20, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > If however China chose not to do so, the resulting devaluation of the dollar would be catastrophic for both the US economy and most of the rest of the world's economies that are tied to the dollar.
> ...



The idea that China is doing something with its currency that every advanced industrial economy in the world isn't doing is what is insane.  If the currency trades on the world market, then there is only so much the government can do.   The United States does all the same things.  There's nothing special about the Yaun.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 20, 2013)

WHen is one of the turds who said libertarianism and feudalism are the same going to tell us what the definition of feudalism is?

All this blather about currency markets is just so much Keynesian abracadabra and of no interest to anyone who understands economics.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> "Try understanding what is being said, instead of what you can say to make it wrong."
> 
> That's the essence of a debate, Tommy...saying what you think makes another person's argument invalid. *Duh?



No.

Nobody else is debating.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 20, 2013)

Europe needs to pump more money into technology and infrastructure. LESS Into welfare and BULL SHIT!


----------



## Kimura (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> You can get as "wonky" as you want, Kimura and it still won't change reality.  Your claim that one sector's deficit is another sector's surplus is another way of saying "robbing Peter to pay Paul".  The problem with your notion that deficits create wealth is that deficits create more than just wealth...they create debt and they create interest payments on that debt.  You see no problem with this of course because you think your "magic credit card"...the fiat...is going to allow you to just create more money to pay for it all.  My question for you is what happens when our currency becomes weaker and weaker?  You take it for granted that the dollar will always be viewed as being worthy of value.  There ARE other currencies out there.  People choose to buy dollars or base their economies on the dollar because we're viewed as the world's most stable currency.  What happens when our mounting debt brings about another credit downgrade?  Do you not recognize that we're reaching the point where we're getting by more on our past reputation for stability than our future prospects for it?  That people invest in the dollar not because of it's actual stability but because of it's reputation for stability?  What happens if that reputation begins to be exposed as lacking?  What happens to the US if the rest of the world chooses to buy yuan's instead of dollars?



Okay, let get cracking with some sectoral balance basics. I answered the reserve currency non-issue in another post.

Like I said previously, the total net private financial wealth is equal to public debt down to the last penny. We're talking about how spending/income accrues to stocks. When the private sector accrues net financial assets over the time period of a year, for example, it's only possible because the private sector's spending is less then its income over the same time period so to speak. Basically, the private sector has been saving, which has allowed it accrue a stock of wealth as net financial assets.  If we use the public sector and private sector as our examples, these financial assets are in the form of liabilities for the government sector - both as bonds and currency. These government bonds (IOUs) can only be accrued when the government sector spends more than it takes back in the form of tax revenue. We refer to this as a "deficit" over a period of a year. This government deficit accrues to a stock of government sector debt which is equal to the private sector's accrued wealth over the time period of a year. 

Here's what's critical for your understand: the total net financial assets held by the private sector are equal to the net federal liabilities issued the by the federal government. In the event the government sector run a balanced budget, whereby spending is exactly the same or equal to its tax revenue, the private sector would no financial wealth. It would literally be zero. If we take this even further, and let the government sector run budget surpluses year after year, the private sector's net financial wealth would tip into the negative. The private sector would essentially be in debt to the government sector.

Here's a chart of some FRED data:






I'm working on a douchy example, lol.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

Okay, now we're having fun.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

These are, of course, net numbers. It isn't to say that the private sector isn't itself
split up into smaller sectors, stock, bonds, consumer credit, savings accounts, mortgages, whatever.  That is what bothers me. But, I guess we have to go through this first.

Excellent graph.  You can see the 100% correlation.


----------



## oldfart (Jun 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> All this blather about currency markets is just so much Keynesian abracadabra and of no interest to anyone who understands economics.



Economics began as a study of international trade and finance.  Ever hear of "Wealth of Nations"?  By my math Adam Smith predated Keynes by a century and a half.  But then I don't claim to "understand economics" like you do.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> These are, of course, net numbers. It isn't to say that the private sector isn't itself
> split up into smaller sectors, stock, bonds, consumer credit, savings accounts, mortgages, whatever.  That is what bothers me. But, I guess we have to go through this first.
> 
> Excellent graph.  You can see the 100% correlation.



Right. We're talking basic stock and flow, that's about it, in terms of sectoral macro-accounting.

We can divide this up into the domestic private sector, domestic government sector and the foreign sector (the rest of the world, including firms, households and national governments). 

Domestic private sector + Domestic government sector + Foreign Sector = 0

For example, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the foreign sector is running a balanced budget. The identity I used has a foreign sector balance of zero.  Let's also say that the domestic private sector's income is $500 billion and it's spending is $400 billion - a total net budget surplus of $100 billion for the year. By the identity alone, the domestic government sector will have a budget deficit of $100 billion over the course of the year. The domestic private sector will accrue $100 billion of net financial wealth, which consists of $100 billion in liabilities of the government sector over the course of the year. 

If we use a second example, let's say that the foreign sector is spending less than its net income, with a total budget surplus of $300 billion. Simultaneously, during the same year, the domestic government sector also runs a budget surplus of $200 billion. When we get back to our identity, we know that the domestic private sector must have a budget deficit equal to $500 billion ($300 billion + $200 billion). During the same time period, its net financial wealth will have decreased by $500 billion as it must issue debt and sell off financial assets. The domestic government sector will increase its net financial wealth by $200 billion, decreasing its debt load and increasing its claims on the other sectors.

The bottom line is, if one sector runs a budget surplus, another sector must run a budget deficit. We're talking stock variables at the end of the day: one sector accrues net financial wealth, another must increase its debt load down to the last penny. It's impossible for every sector to simultaneously accrue financial wealth through budget surpluses.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > "Try understanding what is being said, instead of what you can say to make it wrong."
> ...



Hate to point out the obvious here, Itfitz...but this entire discussion is in essence a debate.  You are arguing a view point...so am I.  You argue why my view point is flawed...I do the same with yours.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No.
Others are providing information.  YOU are debating.
And, there is a difference between economic statements of fact.  And what you put out.  Which is, of course, a point of view.  Or, in other words, YOUR OPINION.  I am sure you will be unable to understand the difference.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

You know what's really amusing here, Rshermr?  There are people who are actually discussing economics at an advanced level but YOU are not one of them!  Why is that, little buddy?  I get the feeling that this entire subject is Greek to you...but if I'm wrong then jump in with some astute comments.  I won't hold my breath of course because I don't think you know the first thing about economics.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

Kimura said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > These are, of course, net numbers. It isn't to say that the private sector isn't itself
> ...



I do remember the concept from Macro Econ, Kimura.  So which sector is it that's accruing financial wealth at the moment?  It's obvious that the domestic public sector isn't.  So is the domestic private sector accumulating that wealth or is it the foreign sector?  I'm seeing it as the foreign sector that's accruing financial wealth and if that IS the case how is that good for America?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 20, 2013)

And there is more of your opinion, me boy.  It is definitely Greek to you.  Easy to tell from your responses.  
You are looking at basic economics, and your responses prove you to be lost.  But, it does not stop your one actual skill:  Attack, oldstyle.  Insults and attacks are what you are all about.  Nothing new.  Just boring.
And aligning yourself perfectly with the dogma coming from the far, far right.  What a surprise.
So, you just posted that you had these concepts in your macro economics class.  You had exactly one of those, or so you have said.  Now, here, you suggest that the discussion is at an advanced level.  You seem confused.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I agree, you are arguing a point of view. *I can't, for the life of me, say why it's flawed. *You'll have to figure that out yourself.

I suppose you may argue with the bank teller about your account balance. *I'm pretty sure they will gladly explain it's not a point of view.

I do know that there is no "point of view" when it comes to counting things. *No matter where one stands, when two people exchange a good for some quantity of money, both agree what P is, both agree what Q is, and anyone watching will agree on the same. It doesn't matter if your viewing it from the left, from the right, or from a seat in the balcony.*

It's just a matter if everything is accounted for.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Ah, but does that change according to what accounting method you use, Ifitz?  I know in my business that I can make numbers move up or down according to how I use them...the numbers themselves haven't changed but the way I've counted them has.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

To give you a simple example, if the accounting method we're utilizing is the cost of the last item purchased and assigning that value to all items previously purchased I might have purchased 5 cases of Absolute vodka for $120 two weeks ago but if my pour costs are too high and I want to bring them down to make the accountants happy then I purchase a single bottle of Absolute at the cost of $15 and that changes the inventory value of my remaining Absolute from $12 a bottle to $15 a bottle.  There is ALWAYS a point of view when it comes to counting things.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 20, 2013)

Uh, jesus, Oldstyle.  Now you are comparing a restaurant with the us gov?????  And in particular, you are comparing how you are "counting" with how the us gov numbers are counted.  You need to get a grip.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> And there is more of your opinion, me boy.  It is definitely Greek to you.  Easy to tell from your responses.
> You are looking at basic economics, and your responses prove you to be lost.  But, it does not stop your one actual skill:  Attack, oldstyle.  Insults and attacks are what you are all about.  Nothing new.  Just boring.
> And aligning yourself perfectly with the dogma coming from the far, far right.  What a surprise.
> So, you just posted that you had these concepts in your macro economics class.  You had exactly one of those, or so you have said.  Now, here, you suggest that the discussion is at an advanced level.  You seem confused.



Nah, I'm pretty comfortable with the discussion, Tommy...you on the other hand should probably come up with a good excuse why you can't take part.  Gotta go rearrange your sock drawer...or something like that.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Uh, jesus, Oldstyle.  Now you are comparing a restaurant with the us gov?????  And in particular, you are comparing how you are "counting" with how the us gov numbers are counted.  You need to get a grip.



I'm discussing accounting, Tommy...now run along before somebody asks you something that an economics major should know...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

And if you don't think that the US government uses different accounting methods to arrive at different numbers to make others happy then you're as clueless about THAT as you are about economics.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > And there is more of your opinion, me boy.  It is definitely Greek to you.  Easy to tell from your responses.
> ...


No, me boy.  Because I have not dealt with the numbers for over 45 years.  And these folks have very recent and quite in depth dealings with the subject.  So, I am listening.  You should try it some time.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



We have to look at the correlation between deficits (flows) and (debts) stocks. The government sector is running a deficit, so the the domestic private sector is running a surplus. The foreign sector is also running a surplus against our trade deficit. The US benefits from the trade deficit in many ways, especially with a country like China, for example.

If we look at the CBO projections, which are determined by law, it's pretty schizophrenic. They don't utilize a stock-flow sectoral approach. It drives me insane. I've found that overall growth rates and CBO deficit projections imply highly improbable balances in the foreign sector and domestic private sector. Oh yeah, there's also private debt ratios.


I posted this graph of FRED data:







_*Notice when the government sector goes into surplus during the Clinton Goldilocks time period. This government sector surplus caused the domestic private sector to increase its debt load to finance consumption. This contributed to private sector instability which ultimately resulted in the first recession of the 21st century._

Some more FRED data:






Government red ink is our black ink.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



You side stepped my question, Kimura.  Who's really been piling up financial assets...the domestic private sector or the foreign sector...and if it's the latter...then is that good for the economic health of the US?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Uh, jesus, Oldstyle.  Now you are comparing a restaurant with the us gov?????  And in particular, you are comparing how you are "counting" with how the us gov numbers are counted.  You need to get a grip.
> ...


You are discussing your inventory valuation.  Hardly a big deal, me boy.  And, from my understanding, you just admitted to committing fraud.  That whole gaap thing, you know.

What is the name of the restaurant you claim you are managing???


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



LOL...you're about as clueless about my business as you are about economics.  The accounting method utilized wasn't chosen by me...I simply worked within it's parameters something that is in no way "fraud".  It's what you do as a professional manager to maintain consistent numbers.  That accounting method was what Planet Hollywood used when I was a manager for them.  (Gee, Tommy...I thought your story was that I was a dishwasher?  Now you want to know where I worked as a manager?  Too funny...)


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

Kimura said:


>



In this figure, is the govt balance in terms of total public debt or debt held by the public?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



If you're talking sectors then public and private are separate...government goes into public.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 21, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The domestic private sector and the foreign sector are in surplus - both have accumulated financial wealth.  Currently, the rest of the world (foreign sector) desires to net save in dollars so it's impossible for the US to run a trade surplus under the current arrangement.

Yes, it's fine for the economic health of the US to run a trade a deficit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 21, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What you just described was changing the cogs, thereby falsely stating profits.  Sorry, me boy, though I am not familiar with the restaurant bus, I am familiar with what happens when you misstate cogs to increase or decrease profits.  And regardless of what business you are in, the IRS does not much like it.  

No, not really.  Just wanted to see your response.  And, of course, it was as expected.  If i put what you just did in writing, I would not want anyone to know where I worked either.  Funny.


You just showed another dif between the gov and private bus.  The gov is open.  Anyone can see their books.  And they are audited.  On the other hand, business is less so.  Yes, there are 10Q's and 10K's,  and fiscal year ending fin. stmts.  But still, much stays hidden.  But if you are a restaurant, and privately owned, there is little that can be seen.  No public statements required.  Except, of course, that the IRS can look to their heart's content.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 21, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Please, the IRS could care less about the accounting methods we used to determine our pour costs because THAT would have nothing to do with what profit or loss we were reporting to them.  Why do you even bother trying to discuss something that you obviously know nothing about?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 21, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Accounting methods are not what you are talking about.  You are simply talking about modifying the cogs.  Which changes profits.  
So, you do not make money of the liquor you sell???  If so, you would change profit by doing what you described.  Go check gaap.  Or, ask your accountant if it is ok with him if you tell the world how you modify the true cogs.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Some more FRED data:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, good.. I was looking at*

FRED® Gross Private Saving

And trying to decide if it is the "private savings" I am looking for. *

That is an issue I've run into, the wealth of data sets an no consistent way to determine where they fit. *The set of everything can be divided up into numerous ways. *I couldn't find a description of GPSAVE and I don't like infering from the short description.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Accounting methods are not what you are talking about. *You are simply talking about modifying the cogs. *Which changes profits. *
> So, you do not make money of the liquor you sell??? *If so, you would change profit by doing what you described. *Go check gaap. *Or, ask your accountant if it is ok with him if you tell the world how you modify the true cogs
> 
> .



There are endless ways to create an arguement. *Once I find that they are creating arguement, they go on the ignore list. *They are basically just jerking off in public. It's a form of self-gratification.  Mental masturbation. *My time is better spent learning something than listening to the jerk off.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Accounting methods are not what you are talking about. *You are simply talking about modifying the cogs. *Which changes profits. *
> ...


Yup.  Some times it is just kind of fun to watch a guy who makes a stupid statement back peddle as fast as possible.  And bragging about changing costs was just too stupid.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 21, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You don't change profits by one red cent doing what I was discussing, you buffoon.  God but you're clueless...


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 21, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Right.  Sure, me boy. Not one red cent.  Just what you report.  And what you pay taxes on.   Funny, look at you back up.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 21, 2013)

So, getting back to the topic of the thread, what seemed obvious was that austerity was not going to be successful in turning the recession in Europe around.  That is, it was analogous to what happens when you decrease gov spending in the US during a downturn.

What we have seen in Europe is decreasing spending by governments in a number of countries.  The effort being to decrease the deficit by starving it.  What actually happened is that we saw a decrease in gov spending, a shut down of gov programs, resultant unemployment increases, and decreasing gov receipts.  Those natural occurrences of decreasing gov spending on employment and the economy caused not just decreases in demand from employees laid off from gov jobs, but resultant losses of jobs in the private sector.  And so it goes on.  
Seems to me it was predictable.  Increasing unemployment and decreasing consumer demand is just never a good idea in a recession.  What are your thoughts.

By the way, I am in no way trying to change the subject being discussed in the thread now.  Just trying to add to it.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 21, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, getting back to the topic of the thread, what seemed obvious was that austerity was not going to be successful in turning the recession in Europe around.  That is, it was analogous to what happens when you decrease gov spending in the US during a downturn.
> 
> What we have seen in Europe is decreasing spending by governments in a number of countries.  The effort being to decrease the deficit by starving it.  What actually happened is that we saw a decrease in gov spending, a shut down of gov programs, resultant unemployment increases, and decreasing gov receipts.  Those natural occurrences of decreasing gov spending on employment and the economy caused not just decreases in demand from employees laid off from gov jobs, but resultant losses of jobs in the private sector.  And so it goes on.
> Seems to me it was predictable.  Increasing unemployment and decreasing consumer demand is just never a good idea in a recession.  What are your thoughts.
> ...



It was sort of my fault for the thread taking a different direction.  

Yeah, austerity has never worked, it simply cannot work, especially if we follow the sectoral balances approach. Ultimately, the end result is a massive contraction of GDP, which has the concordant effect of causing labor and capital to atrophy and wither away. We need to look no further than Greece and Spain. 

I've come to the conclusion austerity was never about "deficit reduction". It's just another way to suppress wages and reduce the economic rights and benefits of workers in these countries. We're dealing with counties that historically have had a much higher standard of living than the US in the post-WWII space. The goal is a race to the bottom with emerging markets in the third world. In order to accomplish this agenda, you must decimate worker protections, wages, and benefits.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

Well, ive heard  alot about it but haven't looked at it.  This is greece UE men


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

I can pretty much predict what I will find. I've discovered, in the past few years, this character on the net. *They all espouse a perticular position and everytime I research it, I find that the data says otherwise. *It started back in '09 when I started reading about global warming. *They are loud, rant on endlessly, and are repeatedly wrong. *It is the oddest thing. They are working against themselves. *I learn a lot from it, but it seems like a wierd way to go about it.

The Farm Bill was defeated yesterday. *I know some people on food stamps. *One is a 53 year old female who was in a head on collision when she was 29. *In a few moments, her physical age went from 29 to 69. *She's in chronic pain. She suffered; a concusion w brain damage; jaw broken in three places; her front teeth were knocked out; subsequent surgury to align her jaw resulted in slow bone loss so she eventually lost all her teeth; lacerated liver; ruptured spleen; snapped femur; multiple bones in her feet were broken; cartilige in all of her joints were damaged so her ankle collapsed and was fused multiple times; the miniscus in her knee and hip eventually developed tears, a litte flap in the center that would get jammed up; the disks in the lower back vertibrate were compressed causing contant leg pain; the snapped femur shortened her leg so her hips are cocked when she walks, which causes stress on everything else and more pain; The lymphatic system was cut up from the accident so fluid doesn't drain well causing extreme swelling if she stands for more than 15 minutes; the loss of the spleen and bone marrow in her femur devistated her*immune system so she is sick with a sinus infection 30% of the time. *That is the tip of the iceburg, the direct affects. It doesn't cover the indirect effects.

She was an accountant, a hard worker. Being young, her contribution to OASDI was minimal so her disability income is minimum. *After expenses housing, utilities, food, Medicare Part C and D insurance premium she is left with very little. If not for food stamps, she wouldn't have enough to eat. *So she would be one of these "takers", the ones that the defeated Farm Bill was meant to address by reducing the SNAP program.

This is part of what I see, personally, in austerity. *


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 21, 2013)

Thanks for all of your efforts in that "different direction".  It is, at any time, great to see actual economic thought expressed from folk who have a strong background in the subject.
What I have learned, over the years of reading a lot about the neo-cons is that they are a relatively small (15 - 20)% of the population, who have similar charactoristics.  I have had friends over time to help me understand them.  And a brother who also helps me understand them.  Basically, these are folks who want to be told what to do, and where and when to do it.  They are looking for someone to hate.  And they NEVER, EVER question what they are told by their chosen leaders.  They are generally not the brightest bulbs on the tree, but they believe themselves to have the answers.  And I mean strenuously believe that they have the answers.  They are not into education.  
They follow the talking points of the very far right republicans, who are the beneficiaries of a lot of money to pump out dogma.  Funny.  And the neo-con will be those spouting that dogma, as though it is the undisputed truth, and can not be questioned.  
They will spout the talking points and when questioned about the factuality of that dogma, will quickly drop into personal attacks and insults.  They have no real ability of conversation.  There is only one answer to any question in their mind.  And to them, it is the truth. 
So, the rational person tries to find truth through research.   The neo-con BELIEVES WHAT HE WANTS TO BELIEVE.  Odd, but true.  
Who runs the neo-con mind??  A relatively few very wealthy conservative minded folks.  These individuals want more wealth and power.  They are the one's out there pushing the libertarian ideals.  They are the ones funding and running the tea party organizations.  And these folks want control and more wealth.  
So, sorry for the wordiness of this post.   But I have spend tons of time over the past 30+ years trying to understand the mental disease that  the neo con possesses.  
So, I always apply what I call the Koch test, where Koch is either of the Koch brothers who are among the most well known of the leadership of this group of people, the neo-cons.  If it is good for him, these con's will support it, whatever it happens to be.  Things like:
destroying unions to lower workers wages - more profit for them
eliminate any regulations on business - eliminates their need to consider costs to others 
eliminate global warming concerns - cuts costs of their activities and lets them do as they please
they want to cut taxes, always - increases their profits 

And many, many other issues.  
So, if it passes the Koch test, the neo-con will support it.  And the neo-cons on this site are many and obvious.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I can pretty much predict what I will find. I've discovered, in the past few years, this character on the net. *They all espouse a perticular position and everytime I research it, I find that the data says otherwise. *It started back in '09 when I started reading about global warming. *They are loud, rant on endlessly, and are repeatedly wrong. *It is the oddest thing. They are working against themselves. *I learn a lot from it, but it seems like a wierd way to go about it.
> 
> The Farm Bill was defeated yesterday. *I know some people on food stamps. *One is a 53 year old female who was in a head on collision when she was 29. *In a few moments, her physical age went from 29 to 69. *She's in chronic pain. She suffered; a concusion w brain damage; jaw broken in three places; her front teeth were knocked out; subsequent surgury to align her jaw resulted in slow bone loss so she eventually lost all her teeth; lacerated liver; ruptured spleen; snapped femur; multiple bones in her feet were broken; cartilige in all of her joints were damaged so her ankle collapsed and was fused multiple times; the miniscus in her knee and hip eventually developed tears, a litte flap in the center that would get jammed up; the disks in the lower back vertibrate were compressed causing contant leg pain; the snapped femur shortened her leg so her hips are cocked when she walks, which causes stress on everything else and more pain; The lymphatic system was cut up from the accident so fluid doesn't drain well causing extreme swelling if she stands for more than 15 minutes; the loss of the spleen and bone marrow in her femur devistated her*immune system so she is sick with a sinus infection 30% of the time. *That is the tip of the iceburg, the direct affects. It doesn't cover the indirect effects.
> 
> ...



My heart goes out to your friend, it really does. When I hear stories like this, I can't believe this type of suffering occurs in the wealthiest country in the world.

I have a ninety-year-old grandfather, so I deal with Medicare, supplemental insurance, and caregivers all the time. Luckily, I have the financial means, along with my brother, to pay for a full-time caregiver. My mother is from Italy, I have family there, and I attended university in Milan. When I tell my family members in Italy how the elderly and disabled are treated in this country, they simply refuse to believe me. 

 If we were a rational country, we'd double SSI payments and make Medicare available to everyone. Food stamps in the US only cover a pittance, it truly is subsistence living.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 21, 2013)

Kimura said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I can pretty much predict what I will find. I've discovered, in the past few years, this character on the net. *They all espouse a perticular position and everytime I research it, I find that the data says otherwise. *It started back in '09 when I started reading about global warming. *They are loud, rant on endlessly, and are repeatedly wrong. *It is the oddest thing. They are working against themselves. *I learn a lot from it, but it seems like a wierd way to go about it.
> ...


Yes.  I agree completely.  The funny thing is that the World Health Organization produced analysis, country by country, of health care outcomes and cost.  Last I saw was around 2001, I believe.  And year in and year out, from the time I first started following their reports, the US led the world in health care costs per citizen, and was about mid way among all countries in health care outcome.  Among what they considered the 35 industrialized nations, we were about twice as expensive, as the average country, more expensive than any other among those nations, and in the bottom third in terms of outcome.
Now, oddly enough, a major attack was made on those reports by those supporting the health care industry (read insurance companies).  And the reports stopped.  It is now harder to get comparative numbers, as they wanted.  But when you dig deep, nothing has changed for the better.
All the best to your friend, ifitzme.  And  yes, to others that I talk to from around the world, our health care is really hard to believe.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

Thanks.

Your note that "It is now harder to get comparative numbers, as they wanted. But when you dig deep, nothing has changed for the better." brings up the consideration of objective measures. *

To answer the question of "How is austerity doing in Europe?", we need to decide how we are going to measure it. *

When I set about looking at the effect of the recession, it became apparent that it sits on top of a trend that began in the 1998 to 2000 time frame. *The world economy has become more interdependent. *(It was still quite interdependent in the 1700s). *As I am to understand it, the housing bubble of the US wasn't unique to the US. *

While measures are relative, they aren't simply a matter of opinion or dependent on one's point of view. *3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3 and 12+12+12 count a large number of small groups and small number of large groups. *That is a point of view, but they still all add up to 36. *Accounting doesn't depend on point of view, there are best practices. *

I'm still at these views of employment between Britian and the US

Employment Rate





(note-fred data ends 1-1-2012 for uk)

Employmemt to Pop Ratio




(note-fred data ends 1-1-2011 for uk)

Labor Force Participation Rate, 2007 on




(note-fred data ends 1-1-2012 for uk)

Labor Force Participation Rate, 2000 on





(how long do those graphs stay on the Fed server?)

Then there is the real output per employed person, which is a good proxy for efficiency.






And I don't have the UK.

And we have real output per population, which is a proxy for standard of living.






The last isn't good enough though.**Obviously, it doesn't include imports, just real business income. *And, for instance, health care costs are different between the two.**But the trend is there. It seems to suggest better improvement in the US per person.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

GINI for all HH US.






I'm not familiar with how gini is determined. *It is curious that it began falling beforenthe recession.

The forum question is missing "compared to...", the compared
to what is necessary.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

This article is from last month, out of Australia

EU shifts from austerity to growth | smh.com.au

"After three years of deep spending cuts, the European Union has confirmed a shift in policy, telling countries they must focus on structural economic reforms to boost growth, while not abandoning budget discipline.
In a long-flagged move reflecting growing frustration among euro zone governments and voters over the hardships of austerity, the European Commission announced that several countries would have more time to meet deficit targets.
The change of emphasis comes as the eurozone struggles to escape a second consecutive year of recession and record high unemployment that has provoked concerns about social unrest."


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

A comparison of IMF fiscal data and growth is provided by Krugman.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/austerity-europe-2/?_r=0






Of course, Krugman being a screaming liberal means that IMF and all GDP data is automatically wrong.

But, if you actually believe that underlying data is correct, then the effect is apparent.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

These are easy google searches. *

IMF Confirms Automatic Austerity Is Wrecking U.S. Economic Growth

The IMF chimes in on the US.

"One week after conceding that it underestimated the negative impact of austerity measures in Greece, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is condemning American lawmakers rapid turn to spending cuts. The funds analysts say that an excessively rapid pace of fiscal deficit reduction will cost the country between 1.25 and 1.75 percent points of GDP growth this year, and it now projects just 1.9 percent total growth for 2013."

Of course, you know that IMF.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

This one is interesting;

IMF praises Romanian austerity success: INTERVIEW ? EU - European Union business news - EUbusiness.com


"(BUCHAREST) - The Romanian economy has improved markedly after three years of a painful austerity cure and authorities should now focus on sustainable growth, a top IMF official told AFP in an interview."

""In terms of macroeconomic stability the results (of austerity) are striking: the current account deficit has gone from 15 to four percent, the public deficit from near eight percent to two percent,"

"Romania's economy grew by 2.5 percent in 2011 after two years of severe recession and is expected to go up by 1.5 percent this year.

"That is still better than the EU average but what Romania needs is four or five percent growth on a sustainable basis," in order to catch up with the more developed countries."

So by "The Romanian economy has improved markedly" it either means; the deficit improved markedly along side "two years of severe recession" or ; the "economy grew by 2.5 percent" after "two years of severe recession", maybe both.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

I'm searching for random articles under "austerity success"

austerity success in europe - Google Search

I am not finding much of a lean towards success as in GDP or employment.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I'm searching for random articles under "austerity success"
> 
> austerity success in europe - Google Search
> 
> I am not finding much of a lean towards success as in GDP or employment.



Like I asked previously

*What Austerity?*


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

Here is an odd one.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2013/5/cj33n2-5.pdf

It favors tax increases over spending cuts in reducing deficits. *It presents itself as a review of literature on the subject. *But it gets very mushy when read thoroughly, before springing back tona firm conclusion.

This one

EU austerity hawks shrug off criticism of flawed academic paper - CSMonitor.com

discusses the lack of reaction to the blown excel based paper. *It's review of actual European results doesn't shed good light on it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

I really like seeing

"This message is hidden because bripat9643 is on your ignore list."

If only I could mute people in real life, like on click.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 21, 2013)

Depends on what it is spent on.
1. Technology, science and infrastructure=good! This makes the society richer and better off.
2. welfare for all and bail-outs=Idiocy.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Depends on what it is spent on.
> 1. Technology, science and infrastructure=good! This makes the society richer and better off.
> 2. welfare for all and bail-outs=Idiocy.



Not specific enough.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> This one is interesting;
> 
> IMF praises Romanian austerity success: INTERVIEW ? EU - European Union business news - EUbusiness.com
> 
> ...


Yes, Romania was the poster child used by those supporting austerity.  Emphasis on was.  Note the date was 2012, and looking at earlier results - 2011 through q1 of 2012.  Problem was, the people of the country disagreed.  And the numbers took a nose dive mid 2012 on.  The result has been a complete replacement of the gov leadership, with the new leadership promising to end austerity.  
So, not so much...


----------



## oldfart (Jun 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> GINI for all HH US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html#

When you get to the link, click on "References--Guide to Country Comparisons"

Then expand "Economy" and click on the sixth link ("Household Gini coefficients", just below "Unemployment")


Also see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

oldfart said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > GINI for all HH US.
> ...



Yeah, got the wiki one, wasn't what I was thinking, though still useful.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 21, 2013)

To me, the number one factor that needs to be considered is employment.  Nothing ever gets better until unemployment is low.  True in this countries as well as any others I have seen.  When you see food employment trends, you can expect to see enough increase in demand to get an economy moving.
GNP is great, except it needs to be coupled with a good distribution of the revenue.  You could, if you wanted, imagine a nation with gnp in great shape, but where 200 very wealthy have 99+ % of the revenue.  Not many would consider it successful.  Though those 200 would!!
My reading, over the years, says that a high distribution of wealth and income to the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class, is a pretty sure sign that your economy is in serious decline.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

My "survey" of articles gave me the impression of 

a) solid data that pointed to poor results for austerity or

b) really reaching to find something to support it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 21, 2013)

Yup.  Same for me.  And the later the articles, the more likely that the results reported for countries implementing austerity is bad.  
Which is what one would expect. A couple years ago, i listened to a presentation via radio of an economist from Australia.  He had written an award winning book explaining why austerity would not work, and he was quite well organized as far as his reasoning.  
Problem is, I did not record his name and can not find the book.  Maddening.  I keep looking for help.  Sound at all familiar???


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> These are easy google searches. *
> 
> IMF Confirms Automatic Austerity Is Wrecking U.S. Economic Growth
> 
> ...


Yup.  I know of no time in history when cutting spending during a bad economy has had a good impact on that economy.  During times of a good economy, no problem.   But in never works in a bad economy, as far as I have been able to determine.  
In my readings, it is the exact time to do the opposite.  Stimulus spending has worked in our history, and should do so again.  But then, that does not pass the koch test.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 21, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > These are easy google searches. *
> ...



YEP!

We should be building infrastructure that=jobs
We should be expanding our tech sector=jobs
We should be giving more jobs to our future scientist

This is how we stay number one. Do you people that want to destroy these area's even care about that anymore?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 21, 2013)

I see that the conservative stronghold are the sparcly populated, rural counties. I also notice that as proffession becomes more of a group activity or deals more with the larger public, the tendency is towards a more democratic lean. There also seems to be a bit of an educational correlation. *Also, I believe that there are regional distinctions in income levels. *I wonder if there is also some distinction in terms of the flow and availability of goods to outlying population areas. *I am a firm believer that the differences between individuals are based primarily on a few early childhood experiences and immediate personal localized environment combined with long term adult professional influences.

The distinctiveness of voting patterns based on county poulation density surely supports the local environment. *Population dispersion is the only obvious thing. *Obviously, that is a gross measure and is a driver of whatever the factors are that affect attitudes. *I have always gotten this "John Wayne, rugged individualism" sense of it for conservatives. And it is interesting that Alaska, with its rugged individualism, frontier, gun toting, moose hunting Republican lean has the most socialist free paycheck from state oil royalties thing going on. *Clearly that isn't the effect on attitude.

My sense with Democrats is that it is the greater social contact and involvement. *Hollywood is known as democratic and everytime I watch the credits roll at the end of a movie, I am amazed at how many people and companies are involved.*


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 22, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Yup. *I know of no time in history when cutting spending during a bad economy has had a good impact on that economy. *During times of a good economy, no problem. * But in never works in a bad economy, as far as I have been able to determine. *
> ...



I agree on the governmemt directly spending on infrastructure improvment, even just to maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure. The first stimulus package did fund infrastructure projects. *Shovel ready, they called it. *And I've seen some of the signs. They do that around here, "This project funded by ...."

Technology can be invested in by the government, at least in terms of making money available to borrow at low rates. *I should look up the details on govt business loans. *They do fund research and there is every reason to have them fund the long shots. *But, in general, tech investment is a pervue of the private sector.



Matthew said:


> *Do you people that want to destroy these area's even care about that anymore?



No idea who you mean. *You gotta be more specific.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 22, 2013)

European Union Unemployment







From the EU Central Bank

Euro area 17 (fixed composition) - Standardised unemployment, Rate, Total (all ages), Total (male & female); unspecified; Eurostat; Seasonally adjusted, not working day adjusted, percentage of civilian workforce - Quick View - ECB Statistical Data Wa

It strikes me that, though I hadn't previously given it but a couple of thoughts, the performance of the EU may be critical to the US recovery. *The US will certainly recover on its own but I suspect that the world will recover faster in unison than any singlen county will alone. *The interdependency on foriegn trade makes this so.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I see that the conservative stronghold are the sparcly populated, rural counties. I also notice that as proffession becomes more of a group activity or deals more with the larger public, the tendency is towards a more democratic lean. There also seems to be a bit of an educational correlation. *Also, I believe that there are regional distinctions in income levels. *I wonder if there is also some distinction in terms of the flow and availability of goods to outlying population areas. *I am a firm believer that the differences between individuals are based primarily on a few early childhood experiences and immediate personal localized environment combined with long term adult professional influences.
> 
> The distinctiveness of voting patterns based on county poulation density surely supports the local environment. *Population dispersion is the only obvious thing. *Obviously, that is a gross measure and is a driver of whatever the factors are that affect attitudes. *I have always gotten this "John Wayne, rugged individualism" sense of it for conservatives. And it is interesting that Alaska, with its rugged individualism, frontier, gun toting, moose hunting Republican lean has the most socialist free paycheck from state oil royalties thing going on. *Clearly that isn't the effect on attitude.
> 
> My sense with Democrats is that it is the greater social contact and involvement. *Hollywood is known as democratic and everytime I watch the credits roll at the end of a movie, I am amazed at how many people and companies are involved.*


Pretty much agree.  Alaska is particularly funny.  They have over years shaken down the oil companies, in particular, who pay the resident population of the state to live there.  As a result, there is far more of a free lunch for alaska residents than for residents of any other state.

And it is not just money.  Free netting of salmon, and other benefits are unique to alaska.  Then you get politicians like palin, who rail against socialist tendencies.  Funny.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 25, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Yup.  I know of no time in history when cutting spending during a bad economy has had a good impact on that economy.



it can only have  a good impact because the government does not invent new products and improve the economy. That's done by the private sector so the more they spend the better and the less the gvernment spends the better.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Yup.  I know of no time in history when cutting spending during a bad economy has had a good impact on that economy.
> ...


So, you were about to name the time when cutting spending during a bad economy had a good effect on that economy???  Or is it just ed, being the resident troll.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I'll add it to the list. He also owes us;

What is a Carnout ologopoly of m firms?

When capitalism first began to be undermined?

A historic example of a nation that was predominately seperate capitalism and gov't.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2013)

Poor guy is just mentally ill.  Not his fault.  Just plain bad luck.  And, you know, those Camout oligopolies are the worst.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Poor guy is just mentally ill.  Not his fault.  Just plain bad luck.  And, you know, those Camout oligopolies are the worst.



C - o -u - r - n - o - t

Opps, gotta fix that. Damn French

Not fair, makes it hard for him to google.

nah, I'm going with c-o-r-n-n-u-t.

From here forth, it is officially the cornnut oligopoly.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Poor guy is just mentally ill.  Not his fault.  Just plain bad luck.  And, you know, those Camout oligopolies are the worst.



I get durned excited about his theories. I keep hoping they will be right.  Just one will get a Nobel Prize in economics, if it's right.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 26, 2013)

You don't just cut government spending...you cut government spending while at the same time you cut taxes...*that's* what stimulates the economy.  It was the course of action employed by JFK to counteract a slowed economy back in the 60's.

As for spending more money on infrastructure?  You might want to ask your elected officials what they've done with all the tax money that we've given them in the form of gas taxes over the years.  It's obvious that they HAVEN'T been spending that money on the upkeep of roads and bridges.  We get hit with an average tax of 27.4 cents on every gallon of gasoline (and higher taxes if you're buying diesel) that we purchase at the pump...money that is SUPPOSED to be going towards maintaining "infrastructure" but as usual much of that money has been *diverted* to pay for an ever increasing government structure.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 26, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Poor guy is just mentally ill.  Not his fault.  Just plain bad luck.  And, you know, those Camout oligopolies are the worst.



Gee, more "personal attacks" from the poster who always whines about personal attacks?  Life goes on as usual in "Tommy Land"!


----------



## Kimura (Jun 26, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> You don't just cut government spending...you cut government spending while at the same time you cut taxes...*that's* what stimulates the economy.  It was the course of action employed by JFK to counteract a slowed economy back in the 60's.



That&#8217;s not entirely correct; JFK was the first POTUS who supported the idea of planned deficits in a non-wartime time setting. His goal was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand and kick start the economy from the bottom up. He favored tax cuts and increased spending to stimulate aggregate demand. This makes complete sense, of course.  He pushed for tax cuts because spending increases weren&#8217;t politically an option at the time.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You don't just cut government spending...you cut government spending while at the same time you cut taxes...*that's* what stimulates the economy. *It was the course of action employed by JFK to counteract a slowed economy back in the 60's.
> ...



*The cuts were implememted by Johnson. *And government outlays were also increased.

I prefer outlays per capita, but in the case of increases, it doesn't matter. *I've graphed the two, outlays and reciepts. Problem is that outlays have always been increased with tax decreases, except for Clinton. *Clinton had a booming economy and they didn't know what to do with all the capital gains taxes. *And the unfortunate thing is that the decrease in the deficit was followed by a recession.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

The ARRA returned one job for every $125k spent.

In total, the paper estimates 2.0 million jobs for 2010q1 to 3.4 million for 2011q1. (total non-farm sector)

The additional tax cuts increase the jobs added.

The results are robust and significant. The circumastances were unique.


http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/working-papers/2010/wp10-17bk.pdf


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The ARRA returned one job for every $125k spent.
> 
> In total, the paper estimates 2.0 million jobs for 2010q1 to 3.4 million for 2011q1. (total non-farm sector)
> 
> ...



So for every $125,000 that the ARRA spent...we got 1 job?  What's scary to me is that you seem to view that as a success.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 26, 2013)

Kimura said:


> His goal was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand and kick start the economy from the bottom up.



He cut tax rates for supply-side reasons, but used Keynesian arguments to sell them.

if supply side tax cuts are bottom then you are right, but then you are never right as I recall.

Supply side cuts:The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:[2]

reduced top marginal rate from 91% to 70% 
reduced corporate tax rate from 52% to 48% 
phased-in acceleration of corporate estimated tax payments (through 1970) 
created minimum standard deduction of $300 + $100/exemption (total $1,000 max)


----------



## Kimura (Jun 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > His goal was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand and kick start the economy from the bottom up.
> ...



No, it wasn't. His chief economic advisers were Arthur Okun and Walter Heller, so I suggest you adjust your talking points.



> if supply side tax cuts are bottom then you are right, but then you are never right as I recall.



The Revenue Act of 1964 was demand-side. JFK also advocated increased spending, but it was politically untenable at the time. 



> Supply side cuts:The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:[2]
> 
> reduced top marginal rate from 91% to 70%
> reduced corporate tax rate from 52% to 48%
> ...



And, what's your point? Taxes regulate aggregate demand (total net spending). If the economy is sluggish, tax cuts will help to warm it up.


----------



## Kimura (Jun 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Yup.  I know of no time in history when cutting spending during a bad economy has had a good impact on that economy.
> ...



I want you to answer a question:

What's the economy?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2013)

The thing is, many of the cons are stuck on hatred of the concept of tax increases.  Kennedy/Johnson achieved a tax decrease at a time of pretty good unemployment numbers.  The ue rate when the tax cut went into effect was 5.4%, and the rate fell to 5% by years end. 
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

So, the whole issue for the cons is a simple one factor argument.  Raising taxes is bad, according to them.  I would suggest that it is hard to find a time when the ue rate was high, and lowering tax rates made any substantial difference.  And I continue to believe that raising taxes to provide revenue for increased gov stimulus spending is a good deal.  There is no way, with the current political situation, that you can realistically raise taxes, so we have seen the current recovery slowly move us toward a better economy, with insufficient stimulus spending.  Too much of the this administrations stimulus was in the form of tax decreases, which had, according to the CBO, little effect on the ue rate.  And, again, according to the cbo, unemployment was the least affected by tax cuts that went to the wealthy.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

I'm still looking for the presentation that explain why the economy should remain at a higher level after the effect has dampened out. *

We already know that the tax multiplier is typically less than the spending multiplier. *We know that they are both transient responces. *We know that the multuplier values depend on the condition of other factors. *That's all fine and there is plenty of empirical evidence that supports the theory. *There are a number of published papers that can be found at the Federal Reserve, IMF, and World Bank. *(Mine got lost on a now defunct hard drive) And, depending on tbe state of the economy, they go from negative to positive.

It doesn't take much consideration to get that the steady state response to taxes is nothing. *It is net income that affects prices.*

Then only hole in my understanding is why the economy should stay up, once the stimulus is removed. Suppose GDP is 100k and a spending stimulus of 1k is applied. *With the spending multiplier at 1.5, GDP goes up to 101.5k. *Now, the spending is stopped. *The GDP should return to 100k.

There are two ways around this. *The first is to remove the spending at a rate slower than the transient response. *The second is to not remove it at all, just let the economy grow into that spendimg level. *That is let real outlays per capita return to the previous level by leaving nominal spending the same and let poulation and CPI catch up.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

I'd like to see all economic data published in real dollars per capita. *Depending on the
purpose, per capita can be per employment level or per total population. *Even government outlays and reciepts only make sense in real dollars per capita. 

I have to question why real dollar outlays per capita shows a steady increase. *There can be a rational reason, but nothing I've seen even get's last the "We must end taxation" thing.

Outlays and taxes also should be viewed by splitting out the self funded programs. OASDI, Medicare Part A, B, C, and D, along with DI are not comingled with other revenues and outlays. They can and should be examined seperately.

I found FYONET in the Federal Reserve data for graphing. *I remain unclear as to exactly what it is. *It is, though, the one online data that can be presented in terms of real dollar per capita federal expenditures.

Never the less, lacking anything better, real dollar net fiscal outlays per capita looks like this.







Look at the early trend, project it, and compare that to where it ended up.

What concerns me is that the reason it goes up is because it must, given everything else, AND no*one in Congress has a clue. *Everytime that a Congress and President lower the tax rate to improve the economy, they shortly follow it with increasing outlays. *Reagan did it. Bush II did it. *

Bush I and Clinton were the only ones that didn't. And then Bush II *came in after and had to return it to the long turn trend line. *

For all the whining, promises, and attempt, the thing goes in one long run direction. *In my experience, people often *think* they are doing one thing while they are [b[really[/b] doing something else.

It reminds me of tuning older carburetors. *They have an air screw, a fuel screw, and a throttle set point. By the time some people get done, the air and fuel screws end up cranked all the way out with the throttle screw all the way in. *Good job!!

So sixty years of fiscal and monetary policy has taxes way down, spending way up, and the M2 money supply at four to five times that of M1 while the average worker has little savings and the median income is half the average.

Something just feels like a really bad job of balancing the fuel mixture.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2013)

If you look at the economy that we are living with, and did not pay attention to anything but gnp and growth in general, we would look like we are in a really great situation.  And, if you are among the top earners, that would be true.  The problem that we have is one of income distribution.  The middle class in particular, is decreasing as a percentage, while the percentage below poverty are increasing.  The increases in income growth has been great over the past 20 years or so,  but that growth is going to the upper 1% of income earners:

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

So, by decreasing tax rates for the wealthy, and continuing to see that demographic get larger and larger pieces of the pie, you have an end game, all else being kept the same, that makes for ONE very wealthy person, and a lot of very poor.  So, in this hypothetical situation, if GNP is just a little better than it is today, the conservative view seems to say "good for the guy who got it all, and let the rest live as a subsistence level".  

So, to me, I have to key in on the ue level.  It is the only way we can see things improve, under the current political situation.  And that, in my estimation, requires stimulus spending.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

Well, this is GINI

1 is maximum inequality and zero is perfect equality.






My contension is there is a sweet spot between zero and one that allows for the best growth.

I have no idea how to quantify it.  I have no real quantification sense of Gini.  That generally has required being forced to under threat of a test grade.  That college education process is pretty incredible. I've seldom been able to replicate it alone. Never for a sustained period of time.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Well, this is GINI
> 
> 1 is maximum inequality and zero is perfect equality.
> 
> ...


I'd put money on that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

So here is a 2012 IMF study of fiscal multipliers vs various countries and varying economic conditions. *Not surprisingly, multipliers are larger during recessions than expansions.

Spending multipliers range from 0 to 2.1, with a mean of 0.8. *Revenue multipliers range from -1.5 to 1.4 with a mean of 0.3.

The spending multiplier near 2 is a typical estimate for recessions.

The authors express surprise that few studies focus on distinguishing between downturns and expansions for multipliers. *I agree. It seems obvious and an issue that would easily result in no findings if expansions cancel downturns.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12286.pdf


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Here is a paper on Gini and growth.

http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/...n&client=safari#search="gini economic growth"

It explores state by state growth under Gini and other measures. *The paper presents findings of examination of political control vs growth.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> My contension is there is a sweet spot between zero and one that allows for the best growth.



but as a liberal you will lack the IQ to have a contention?? China has many new billionaires, and many millions working for high wages  in the major cities, and  still many many millions still living at substance back on the farms. This diversity is a sign of growth. When everyone was still on the farms they had communist equality and no growth. So much for your Gini liberal BS.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Here is a paper on Gini and growth.
> 
> http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/...n&client=safari#search="gini economic growth"
> 
> It explores state by state growth under Gini and other measures. *The paper presents findings of examination of political control vs growth.


Perhaps, in order for some of the mentally challenged reading this thread, we should not use actual concepts backed by studies.  Understanding the concepts of Gini, for instance, requires at least a fourth grade education, or equivalent.  Those with the mental capacity of a toad will have difficulties.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > My contension is there is a sweet spot between zero and one that allows for the best growth.
> ...




So how you doing on;

Cournot ologopolies of m firms?

when capitalism first began to be undermined?

A historic example of a nation that was predominately seperate capitalism and gov't.

Name the time when cutting spending during a bad economy had a good effect on that economy?

We're all still waiting. Last I checked, China is still a socialist government and a predominantly socialist economy.  So there goes your pure capitalism theory down the tubes.

Got a better example of pure capitalism, or are you still all about strawman arguements?

BTW, what exactly is you IQ and how's that econ 101 class coming?  Surely you've completed it by now.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Last I checked, China is still a socialist government and a predominantly socialist economy.



so you're now saying the the vast inequality is caused by socialism, or don't you know, as a liberal, what you are saying??




itfitzme said:


> So there goes your pure capitalism theory down the tubes.



if I had a pure capitalism theory I'll pay you 10,000. Bet or run away with you liberal strawman between your legs.?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Name the time when cutting spending during a bad economy had a good effect on that economy?



dear, 

1) why not name the times when we cut spending meaningfully while  spending at all levels of government has always been increasing?? Slow??

2) of course government spending cuts help an economy because government does not invent new products. We got from the stone age to here thanks to private sector growth. The last thing you want to do in bad times is cripple the engine of growth. 

3) A similar jeremiad was heard in 1943 when economist Paul Samuelson, whose Keynesian assumptions have trickled down to Obama, said postwar cuts in government would mean &#8220;the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.&#8221;

Federal spending did indeed shrink an enormous 40 percent in one year. And the economy boomed.

No need to feel slow, you're a liberal and its natural.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Same thing, different day.  IQ, liberal.... Econ 101, Cornnut ologopoly.. Blah blah blah .zzzzz

And all I gotta see is "This message is hidden because EdwardBaiamonte is on your ignore list." because it's the same old same old.  Boring


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Same thing, different day.  IQ, liberal.... Econ 101, Cornnut ologopoly.. Blah blah blah .zzzzz
> 
> And all I gotta see is "This message is hidden because EdwardBaiamonte is on your ignore list." because it's the same old same old.  Boring


Ed is paid to post.  He has no other job.  Just a drain on the economy.  He simply posts his dogma, bores the hell out of people, and kills threads he does not like.  Con Troll,  And he still can not name a time when cutting income taxes across the board and cutting spending ever helped a bad economy.  Totally beyond him.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

This paper presents the case that declining middle income levels are associated with top income earner gains.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2012/201276/201276pap.pdf

This paper makes the case that income inequality and Republican control are associated with lower economic growth.

http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/...n&client=safari#search="gini economic growth"

Put them together and what have you got, bipity bopity boo.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Same thing, different day.  IQ, liberal.... Econ 101, Cornnut ologopoly.. Blah blah blah .zzzzz
> ...



I'll happily post bs for a buck.  How do I sign up?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


You have to be a con tool.  Then, get on the good side of ed, and a few others.  No one out there paying for rational posts.  
Got to be con dogma.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



On Ed's good side?  Well, that'll never happen.  The first time I posted, looking for some clarification on MV=PQ, I apparently became a liberal.  I'll never figure that out.  But for some reason, MV=PQ is a liberal concept.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Thing is, it looked like science or math, or, or, or, well, something that he is not supposed to believe in.  And, if you can not understand it, it must be liberal.  Because no con believes in that whole science thing.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

This is a paper examining fiscal multipliers. The abstract, below, makes an interesting observation. *It suggests that the multipliers are deflated at the effect goes into increasing demand for imports. *The *history of employment and imports, in the US, show a connection between employment ratio and imports. This is an interesting issue that dampens the effectiveness of fiscal policy. Globalization, without international coordination, can make national attempts at managing economies mute.


"The multipliers of taxes, and government consumption and investment expenditure for the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union (ECCU) are estimated using vector autoregression models with panel data. The impact and long-run multipliers are below unity, *suggesting that a great extent of the intended impulse ends up expanding imported demand.* The long-run multipliers of taxes and consumption expenditure are non-different from zero statistically, while public investment has a long-run multiplier of 0.6. The results suggest that countercyclical policies to stimulate growth should focus on public investment."

Fiscal Multipliers in the ECCU

I see that the author uses the term "impulse", rather matter-of-factly. This suggests, to me, that my intuition of fiscal changes as being transitory is taken as established, without question, in macro.  What I have yet to findnis anything that defines the level at steady state after the impulse has died out.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> This is a paper examining fiscal multipliers. The abstract, below, makes an interesting observation. *It suggests that the multipliers are deflated at the effect goes into increasing demand for imports. *The *history of employment and imports, in the US, show a connection between employment ratio and imports. This is an interesting issue that dampens the effectiveness of fiscal policy. Globalization, without international coordination, can make national attempts at managing economies mute.
> 
> 
> "The multipliers of taxes, and government consumption and investment expenditure for the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union (ECCU) are estimated using vector autoregression models with panel data. The impact and long-run multipliers are below unity, *suggesting that a great extent of the intended impulse ends up expanding imported demand.* The long-run multipliers of taxes and consumption expenditure are non-different from zero statistically, while public investment has a long-run multiplier of 0.6. The results suggest that countercyclical policies to stimulate growth should focus on public investment."
> ...


Yup.   The issue today is much different than it was 50 years ago.  The changes in corporate structure and marketing targeting is quite different today, after decades of rampant mergers and acquisitions and the globalization of corporations.  Adam Smith had no reason to predict the changes in corporate monopoly power as a result of mergers, nor the impact of global corporations on the market system.  Which is why, to many economists (perhaps most) the concept that we have a market system is quaint.  And it is why, from an employment and labor situation,  the labor component of our economy is short changed.
It is also interesting that we are not able to look at other countries economic policies, and continue to want to believe that only US policies make sense.  Germany, and most other countries, do not believe that unfettered imports are a good plan.  And why, in fact, most all place duties on imports to protect their markets and their workers.  Consider that concept with us monopolistic corporations like, say, Exxon Mobile.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > This is a paper examining fiscal multipliers. The abstract, below, makes an interesting observation. *It suggests that the multipliers are deflated at the effect goes into increasing demand for imports. *The *history of employment and imports, in the US, show a connection between employment ratio and imports. This is an interesting issue that dampens the effectiveness of fiscal policy. Globalization, without international coordination, can make national attempts at managing economies mute.
> ...



"Which is why, to many economists (perhaps most) the concept that we have a market system is quaint."

So did Smith. *It's an idealized model. *Smith knew it (that or we are claiming him to be an idiot), every econ prof knows it, every student knows it.*

Every intro econ prof I've watched, rolled his eyes repeatedly, while the class murmered... "Yeah, sure... 'perfectly competative'..."

It is exactly like thermo class when some student would say, "Yeah, I'll take two of those ideal piston and cylinders you've got there."

Did you know that, if you have a perfectly reflective glass, you can capture light in a Thermous bottle and open it up in a dark room for a flash of illumination."

The trick to science was summed up by two statements that Einstien made. *

a)*The key is to make it as simple as possible, without making it too simple.

b)*When solving a problem, it helps to know the answer ahead of time.

That's how Newton did it, that's how Smith did it, that's how Einstien did it.*

The rest is just friction. ("just friction"...yeah, right...)


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Even good old adam knew, and wrote, that monopoly power made the concept of competition, or a market system, impossible.  Even he advocated that the gov needed to regulate monoplistic companies.  And, if anyone cared to think about it, the revolution was largely about monopoly power.  The East India Company WAS a monopoly.  
Over the beginning years of the nation, corporations were highly regulated.  They were regulated in terms of how they could do business, and in what cases where they overstepped their charters, they would be shut down.  Over time, corporations bought enough politicians to change all that, of course, and it has been a continuing battle  between corporate power and the people who live in the country in which they exist.  A loosing battle, for the most part.  Anti-trust regulation that once governed them has been ignored over the past 40 years or so.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

I am waiting for the day that the courts accept statistical evidence of behavioral collusion in acting as an ologopoly.

Not holding my breath.  But I refuse to die, just out of morbid curiosity.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 29, 2013)

During the time that this thread has been going on, and when the actual subject of this thread has been discussed, there has been an ongoing refrain from some conservative quarters that there HAS BEEN NO REAL AUSTERITY IN EUROPE.  Funny, the populations of those countries believe that there has been austerity.  Economists seem in agreement that austerity has been going on there.  But, the conservative refrain was always the same.  So, in looking at the argument against there being austerity in europe, it became obvious that there was a push to that concept from conservative sources, most notably Heritage.  And specifically by Salim Furth, an economist with Heritage.  
So, recently, Furth put forward his argument in detail, and this article discusses the analysis of Furth's "findings".  It would seem obvious that Furth did not put forward an honest argument, but rather used numbers from other sources, most notably OECD numbers, which OECD completely disavow.  
Yes, Europe really is in the throes of austerity


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 1, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> During the time that this thread has been going on, and when the actual subject of this thread has been discussed, there has been an ongoing refrain from some conservative quarters that there HAS BEEN NO REAL AUSTERITY IN EUROPE.  Funny, the populations of those countries believe that there has been austerity.  Economists seem in agreement that austerity has been going on there.  But, the conservative refrain was always the same.  So, in looking at the argument against there being austerity in europe, it became obvious that there was a push to that concept from conservative sources, most notably Heritage.  And specifically by Salim Furth, an economist with Heritage.
> So, recently, Furth put forward his argument in detail, and this article discusses the analysis of Furth's "findings".  It would seem obvious that Furth did not put forward an honest argument, but rather used numbers from other sources, most notably OECD numbers, which OECD completely disavow.
> Yes, Europe really is in the throes of austerity



Rushermer has a low IQ. He thinks every economic situation is a scientific experiment that demonstrates how well socialism works. Scientists like to hold all variables constant save one, Riushemer likes to hold all variables constant save 1,278.


Whatever Europe has its doesn't have much capitalism and therein lies the problem. We see how well America has done thanks to the most capitalism and we see that China instantly eliminated 40% of world poverty by merely changing to capitalism. 

WSJ: if borrowing money for the government to spend on growth helped Europe would not be in this mess. The Continent finds itself in a never ending slump because it has mostly failed to reform its sclerotic labor market, cut job-killing regulations, reduce the rolls of the civil service, improve its tax competitiveness, and rein in public unions. When government accounts  for 50% of GDP- as it does in Italy, Portugal, France, and Greece-that's a fair indication that's what ever else is ailing Europe its not austerity.


Europe is trying to steal money from Germany that Germany has thanks to austerity!!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

IQ, liberal, free market, Republican capitalism. *Same thing, different day.*

And all I gotta see is "This message is hidden because EdwardBaiamonte is on your ignore list." because it's the same old same old. Boring

I could write a script, in Visual Basic, to make his posts. *Computers are now smarter than him.

Polly want a conservative freedom cracker?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IQ, liberal, free market, Republican capitalism. *Same thing, different day.*
> 
> And all I gotta see is "This message is hidden because EdwardBaiamonte is on your ignore list." because it's the same old same old. Boring
> 
> ...



Whatever Europe has its doesn't have much capitalism and therein lies the problem. We see how well America has done thanks to the most capitalism and we see that China instantly eliminated 40% of world poverty by merely changing to capitalism. 

WSJ: if borrowing money for the government to spend on growth helped Europe would not be in this mess. The Continent finds itself in a never ending slump because it has mostly failed to reform its sclerotic labor market, cut job-killing regulations, reduce the rolls of the civil service, improve its tax competitiveness, and rein in public unions. When government accounts for 50% of GDP- as it does in Italy, Portugal, France, and Greece-that's a fair indication that's what ever else is ailing Europe its not austerity.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IQ, liberal, free market, Republican capitalism. *Same thing, different day.*
> 
> And all I gotta see is "This message is hidden because EdwardBaiamonte is on your ignore list." because it's the same old same old. Boring
> 
> ...


And the beat goes on.  Ed has been trying to kill this thread for months.  Hates the subject.  It really has to bother him that this thread has now topped all others in terms of replies.  For the history of the board.    People are really interested in what is happening in the world, and why austerity seems to be producing bad results.  And the con trolls want to see the discussion go away because it shows their concept of lowering gov spending and taxes does not work when the economy is bad, and unemployment is high.  EVER.

Here is the latest news, from today:


> Unemployment across the 17 European Union countries that use the euro has hit a record of 12.1 percent in May.


A glance at Europe's unemployment rates

That would *be 12.1% unemployment!!!!!!*   Higher than the US has experienced at any time except during the great Republican depression of 1929.  All among us except the conservative trolls can see the problem.  Austerity does not work.  A general statement, but generally TRUE.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 2, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IQ, liberal, free market, Republican capitalism. *Same thing, different day.*
> ...




There is no "austerity" dipstick.  I posted the evidence earlier in this thread.  No European country has actually reduced spending.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 2, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Wow.  What a surprise.  Another con posting personal insults and a lie.  Perfect.
Problem is, there is austerity in europe.  And no, there are NUMEROUS countries that have implemented it.  
Here is the post, again, explaining why you are, technically speaking:
1.  Full of shit.
2.  Incapable of reading and the use of cognitive processes.

Yes, Europe really is in the throes of austerity

Just continuing to post conservative lies does not change reality.  Except, of course, in your tiny little mind.  Now, try actually considering something.  Thought, you see, can be really useful.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 2, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Tax hikes are not "austerity."  No conservative has every endorsed tax hikes or ever called it "austerity."

Your article is just left-wing propaganda.  "Austerity," according to the way libturds like you use the term, means actual cuts in government spending.    No European government has done such a thing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/05/26/austerity-to-blame-but-wheres-the-austerity/



> The official Keynesian story is that the PIIGS of Europe (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) have been devastated by cutbacks in public spending. Austerity has made things worse rather than better &#8211; clear proof that Keynesian stimulus is the answer. Keynesians claim the lack of stimulus (of course paid for by someone else) has spawned costly recessions which threaten to spread.  In other words, watch out Germany and Scandinavia: If you don&#8217;t pony up, you&#8217;ll be next.
> 
> Erber finds fault with this Keynesian narrative. The official figures show that PIIGS governments embarked on massive spending sprees between 2000 and 2008. During this period, their combined general government expenditures rose from 775 billion Euros to 1.3 trillion &#8211; a 75 percent increase. Ireland had the largest percentage increase (130 percent), and Italy the smallest (40 percent). These spending binges gave public sector workers generous salaries and benefits, paid for bridges to nowhere, and financed a gold-plated transfer state. What the state gave has proven hard to take away as the riots in Southern Europe show.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 2, 2013)

Rshermr is STILL here pretending to know something about economics?  Gotta hand it to the little guy...he's not very believable...but he is persistent.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 2, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> yes-europe-really-is-in-the-throes-of-austerity/]




actually the article argues that there is some austerity in some countries and little in others. On balance there is little if any austerity to speak of, not to mention it is not a well defined term anyway. 

Far more importantly, conservatives don't claim austerity is capitalism  or that a little austerity, if there was some , is enough capitalism to stimulate an economy.

Rushermer love the austerity debate becuase he thinks every situation presents a scientific experiment that proves liberalism works. The man is a 100% fool.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 9, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr is STILL here pretending to know something about economics?  Gotta hand it to the little guy...he's not very believable...but he is persistent.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ


And oldstyle, as usual, is incapable of arguing economics.  He just makes personal attacks.  That it the best poor oldstyle can do.  Which is why he is so easy to ignore.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Uh, thanks for proving my point.  You quote an opinion piece from Forbes, written by a far, far, far right wing nut case by the name of Paul Roderick Gregory.  
So, you are unable to find a single impartial source that believes the nut case statement that austerity in europe does not exist.  As I said.  What a surprise.

Relative to your statement that tax increases "are not austerity":
Technically, you are again full of shit.  Again.
The economic definition of austerity follows:
In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. These policies may include spending cuts, *tax increases*, or a mixture of the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

I know it is difficult for you, but if you would simply take your head out of your ass and research just a little tiny bit, you would not need to look like such an idiot.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



In the first place, "austerity" isn't an economic term.  It's a propaganda term coined by pinkos to paint policies they oppose negatively.  Pinkos have never called tax increases "austerity."  Pinkos favor tax increases.  The only thing they oppose is cuts in government spending.  No pinko Democrat ever called a single tax increase ever proposed in Washington "austerity."  Only when someone proposed actually cutting government spending did they call it "austerity."


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr is STILL here pretending to know something about economics?  Gotta hand it to the little guy...he's not very believable...but he is persistent.
> ...



You claim "austerity" is an economic term but you accuse oldstyle of not knowing anything about economics?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Uh, economists would disagree.  Lets see, I could believe you, or a large group of economists studying the effects of austerity.  
Uh, I will take the economists.  They understand economics.  You, on the other hand, are an economic idiot.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Coming from the economics major that didn't understand the meaning of "school of economics"?  There *is* an "economic idiot" posting in this thread, Tommy...and he's looking you in the mirror every morning when you roll out of bed.  You always have been...and you will continue to be...the George Costanza of this board.  
george costanza architect video - AVG Yahoo! Search Results


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


I thought that since you admitted to committing fraud by falsifying costs of goods sold at the restaurant for which you work that you were done.  Funny.
And as I predicted, you would just continue to try personal attacks as soon as your economic "argument" died a death of ignorance, (which it did, of course).  Back to ignore for you, me boy.  You are a waste of time.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



God, but you're an idiot!  I didn't admit to committing fraud...I simply pointed out that different accounting methods lets you arrive at different numbers when you figure costs.  Somehow that's news to you...which obviously means that you learned as much about accounting as you did about economics while you were "supposedly" in college.  At this point it begs the question of what you DID learn while you were in college?  You've already admitted to needing a secretary to proof what you write and that you were an economics major but that you don't remember much about what you took.  I think you might have a strong case to sue said college for "failure to perform".

Run along, Tommy...the waste of time here is you with your rants about "Con dogma" and "personal attacks".  The majority of what you post is liberal talking points and personal attacks.  If all of that was deleted, you'd have little left.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Right.  You lie too much, me boy.  Perhaps you can show me, or an auditor, how revaluing your inventory based on the purchase of a single bottle of expensive liquor is legal.  Dipshit.  You call someone an idiot, but unable to tell anyone why changing the value of your cost of goods sold in such a way as to decrease profits is not illegal.  Nice try, me boy.  Bring that proof forward, will you, old accounting expert.  
You do not get to change "accounting methods" at the drop of a hat, just to make your profits look better for your particular purpose.  You have to work within the GAAP rules, me boy.  And what you were refering to was NOT within GAAP rules.  Far from it.  If not, show me the ruling.  By the way, you were not talking about accounting methods, but about inventory valuation.  Not much room for creative valuation there.  But then, you do lie a lot.  Almost sounds good, until you are cornered.  And as usual, all you have left at that point is bluster.  Attacks.  Funny.  Watch the clown perform.
You are at least entertaining.  Watching you turn yourself in knots over that little mistake has been fun to watch.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Sure, if you are commiting fraud, tax evasion, or your name is Bernie Madoff, then I suppose it is "a matter of opinion".

How about you loan me $1000 and next week, I'll give you my opinion of how much I owe you.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


I suspect it is just Oldstyle trying to sound important.  He said he made his bosses happy by buyiing an expensive bottle of booze.  The obvious thing was, he was able to help his restaurant reduce taxes by decreasing profits on paper, by increasing cogs as it was reported.  Only a complete fool of an accountant would put his signature on that one.  And only a fool would propose it.  But, then, there is Oldstyle.  Denying he ever said it.  Trying to say it was a different accounting methodology.  Apparently he spends his time with really stupid people.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2013)

How does changing the valuation of inventory for internal cost controls have ANYTHING to do with taxes?  You actually think that a decision to assign the value of the last item purchased to all items in inventory is some devious scheme to defraud the government?  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkoPq5AOCOA]Animal House - Fat, drunk and stupid - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz.  He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight.  Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes?  Yeah, me neither!  But amazingly...Rshermr taught economics while an undergrad at HIS college!  That should tell you everything you need to know about the George Costanza of the US Message Board.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I really couldn't care less who taught what where, or who graduated with what degree.  I know enough to know the difference between a well supported idea and bs.  All I'm interested in are well supported ideas, because, unfortunately, my grad work got screwded when the economy tanked.  I at least got far enough to know bullshit when I read it.

And accounting has two different methods, but you pick or the other.  And when it comes to the IRS, they don't care what your "opinion" is.  If they audit you, and you can't prove, they will tell you what your "opinion" is, as they slap you with a fine.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



With all due respect, Fitz?  Why would the IRS give a rat's ass about whether a company used the price of the last item purchased to set a value for all items of the same kind in inventory...or the used the price for which each individually bought for?  How does THAT alter the tax that you pay as long as you're consistent in how you apply value?  They aren't going to audit you for doing that...and they certainly aren't going to fine you for it!  I take it that your graduate studies didn't include any accounting?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2013)

And as for knowing "bs" when you hear it?  When someone tells you that they taught college level economics classes as an undergrad but don't have the faintest idea what a "school of economics" refers to...THAT person is shoveling some Grade A bull shit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> How does changing the valuation of inventory for internal cost controls have ANYTHING to do with taxes?  You actually think that a decision to assign the value of the last item purchased to all items in inventory is some devious scheme to defraud the government?
> 
> Animal House - Fat, drunk and stupid - YouTube


No.  But that is not what you were saying.  Nice try.  No integrity at all.  No ability to support what you actually said.  Just change the statement.
Perhaps a little math is in order.  Try to understand what happens when you change the cost of all the goods sold over a period of time to a higher unit price.  Which is what you were saying.  
But then, you do lie a lot.  Seems not to bother you at all.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Look at Oldstyle squirm trying to change what he said.  Rather entertaining.  But getting really boring.  All the IRS wants is a consistent and honest accounting of what occurred.  What you ACTUALLY paid would be the actual numbers they would want to see.  Because, me boy, if you INCREASE the cost of inventory on paper, and report it that way in your financial statements which back up your tax documents, you have, in fact, decreased the profit that you are required to pay taxes on.  Which is, of course, FRAUD.  When your willingly provide wrongful numbers to the IRS in order to decrease your tax liability, you have, obviously, committed fraud.  And, me boy, no amount of distortion of the facts will change that.  
But then, even you know that.  Which is why you are trying so diligently to restate what you said.  And hell, lies or truth, all the same to you.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Which goes to show that you know as little about accounting practices as you do about economics.
What I'm talking about has zero to do with what is reported to the IRS as profit.  It's done to simplify figuring costs.  Rather than have to keep track of the cost of each single type of item which may have been purchased dozens of separate times, a decision is made to assign the value of the latest purchase to all inventory held.  That isn't "FRAUD", you ignorant buffoon...it's a simple common sense accounting practice.  It doesn't change what you paid for goods, hence it doesn't change your profits and the IRS could care less.  Duh?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2013)

And Oldstyle, again on the attack, says:


> Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz. He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight. Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes?



And you lie again, Oldstyle.  What I said was *not* that I taught economics classes, as you well know.  I worked for an econ professor.   It was his class, not mine.  But then, you know that.  You just keep on making that statement.  Lying does not bother you in the least, me boy.  You just keep on lying.
The problem you have, Oldstyle, is that I never, ever lie in my posts.  That is your purview.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Gee wiz, I just can't imagine why the IRS would expect a company to report the actual revenue instead of a fabricated number.

You're so right. *I was just reading the IRS tax form and it says, "*In your opinion* how much earnings do you *believe* you made last year?"

Doh!!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


And he keeps on twisting and turning.  You can not change the value of the product you sell.  That has to do with the cost of goods sold.  Which has to do with the profits you show in your accounting statements.  You know, me boy, income statements, source and application of funds, and balance sheets.  Which you are now trying to say were done for only internal reasons.  But, problem is, you are not allowed to under report, or over report for that matter, your income.  Nice try.  
Funny thing is, you actually accuse others of not understanding accounting.  But it is funny, at any rate, to see you trying to explain what you said.  
Apparently you think that the IRS and SEC just want you to produce statements that say whatever you would like them to say.  You are a riot, me boy.  
A true ignorant, but rather funny, riot.  Those 10Q's are just for the fun of it, in Oldstyle's opinion.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Ah.  That explains it.  
Apparently Oldstyle has produced his own IRS guidelines.  And as such, he is not subject to those pesky gaap rules.  
Perfect.  I am sure Oldstyle did that.  His boss would be quite interested in him having told us this, I am sure.  After all, as a "food services professional" (which Oldstyle states that he is) he would be an expert on such things.  And gives him, in his own mind, the authority to make accounting rules that make gaap immaterial.  
THATS THE TICKET!!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Your ignorance is amusing.  Changing the value of inventory in order to make it easier to figure costs does not change the profit that you claim.  My cost to buy goods hasn't changed...I've still sold the product or service for the same amount...the profit has not changed in any way.  If you two idiots can't understand a concept as simple as this one I shudder to think about you trying to grasp depreciation.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> And Oldstyle, again on the attack, says:
> 
> 
> > Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz. He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight. Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes?
> ...



The liar is you.  You did in fact state that you taught economics at the college level.  When I pointed out that undergraduates don't teach college classes...you then tried desperately to walk that lie back...claiming that you didn't teach the WHOLE class...you just taught part of it.

Now you're claiming not to have taught at all...now you're claiming to simply have "worked" for an econ professor?  Worked doing what, Tommy...sweeping floors after class?  Washing his car?  Mowing his lawn?  Just what did your "work" for the professor consist of now that you claim that it wasn't teaching?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > And Oldstyle, again on the attack, says:
> ...


So, Oldstyle.  Lets see what you actually said in post 771 above:


> Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz. He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight. *Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes?* Yeah, me neither! But amazingly...Rshermr taught economics while an undergrad at HIS college! That should tell you everything you need to know about the George Costanza of the US Message Board.



Your implication is obvious, me boy.  You said TAUGHT ECONOMICS which without further explanhation would indicate that I taught and was responsible for economics classes.  You were trying to get someone to believe that I said I taught economics classes, which would mean that I was the instructor for that class.  Not the first time that you have tried that.  
I did not retract what I said.  I did teach a part of the class that the professor for whom I worked was responsible.  PART.  Others taught the other parts.  Under the Professor's tutelage.  I was NOT responsible for teaching a college class.  That was the prof's responsibility.  Clair Lillard, to be exact.  As you well know.  
Again, you are trying sooo hard to say that I lied.  I did not.  I have explained this to you over and over.  And still you try to prove that I have lied.  Over and over I have explained what I did.  Totally consistently.  And you have the guts to say I lied about it.  Jesus, you are a clown.  

You know better, me boy.  You simply lack any semblance of integrity.  And you are completely unable to discuss economics.  You simply post dogma, which you can not support.  And attack anyone who proves you to be dishonest.  Tacky.  Really, really tacky.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2013)

You know what's amusing, Tommy?  You accuse me of not being able to discuss economics but when we WERE discussing economics...I asked you what school of economics you were basing your argument on...you thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar college and not a school of economic thought.  The person here who can't discuss economics is *you* which is amazing because you claim to not only have MAJORED in the subject but to have taught it at the college level!

So now your constantly "evolving" story is that you didn't "teach" a college class because you only taught "PART" of it?  LOL  The more you try and dig your way out of the initial lie you told the stupider you make yourself appear.  The next time you feel you have to embellish your life's history, Tommy...think long and hard about how embarrassing it is to get caught doing so.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 11, 2013)

My company is expanding operations in Europe.  I've been interviewing a lot of candidates and am horrified by the number of over educated people in their 20s and 30s who are desperate for a real job.  Europe has created a huge human capital problem of over investment with very poor opportunity for the investment to be productive.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2013)

So, Oldstyle, desperate to get some traction somewhere, makes the following statements.  Caring not in the slightest that he is lying again:



> You know what's amusing, Tommy? You accuse me of not being able to discuss economics but when we WERE discussing economics...I asked you what school of economics you were basing your argument on...you thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar college and not a school of economic thought. The person here who can't discuss economics is you which is amazing because you claim to not only have MAJORED in the subject but to have taught it at the college level!


No, you did not.  You asked what *economic school* advocated raising taxes.  Now, an economic school of thought is the same as an economic theory.  And an economic school could be either a college/university or an economic school of thought.  Since an economic school of thought (which you did not clarify) is not human, it is not possible for it to advocate anything.  So, I assumed that you were talking about an economic school, which is logical enough.  They have instructors who COULD advocate.  Which, of course, you know.  But it does not stop you from lying.  Because you have no integrity.




> So now your constantly "evolving" story is that you didn't "teach" a college class because you only taught "PART" of it? LOL The more you try and dig your way out of the initial lie you told the stupider you make yourself appear.



Here is the problem.  Nothing changed, me boy.  And I can prove it.  I told you many times, the first time about a year ago, exactly what I just said.  That is, that I taught part of a class. 
Here are the posts where you asked the same question for the 10th time, and I agreed to answer it.  And where you promised to leave the subject alone if I did so.  Which proves you a liar, AGAIN:

Thread:  Consumers Create Jobs
08-16-2012, 07:34 AM                         Post #166
Rshermr 
Registered User
Member #37424

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle 
"of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."
Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?
This is very simple...
You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.
So this is the point where *you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar.* When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.
Balls in your court, Sparky...

Ok, me boy.* You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. *

There it is, me boy.  From almost a year ago.  And nothing has changed in my story.  And nothing has changed with you.  You made a deal, broke the deal, and lied.  Same old Oldstyle.  Kind of hard to ignore your own post, eh oldstyle.  But being a consomate liar, I am sure you will.  Again.  




> The next time you feel you have to embellish your life's history, Tommy...think long and hard about how embarrassing it is to get caught doing so.


Uh, embellishing?  That only shows how little you have accomplished in your little life, me boy.  Having worked with a prof over 45 years ago to teach part of his class is hardly embellishing my life.  Jesus, you are a clown.  What it shows is that you have no life, and that you are unable to discuss economics.  Simple to see.  You are a sad little person.  And that you just can not stop lying.  Over and over and over.  It would be embarrassing to a normal human.  Do you drink a lot, oldstyle??


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, Oldstyle, desperate to get some traction somewhere, makes the following statements.  Caring not in the slightest that he is lying again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was *obvious* that you didn't have the faintest idea what I was talking about when I asked you what economic school you were basing your contention on, Tommy.  That's something that anyone who DID major in economics would understand immediately.  I had to explain it to you before you understood the term which is why I became convinced you were lying through your teeth about having taught economics at the college level.  When I asked you to provide some "details" about your teaching experience?  You weren't even bright enough to tell a plausible lie.  Instead you gave me this tall tale about teaching part of the class four day a week as an undergrad.  Now you've once again decided to walk back from THAT lie by declaring that you didn't *really* teach...even as you once again claim that you DID teach.  It's obvious that you're having a hard time keeping track of your various lies.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, Oldstyle, desperate to get some traction somewhere, makes the following statements.  Caring not in the slightest that he is lying again:
> ...


And more of the opinion of a food services of a food services professional.  You are lying, again, of course.  Even you know what you just said makes no sense.  But then, that is all that you have.  Poor little person.  Bye Bye, little person.  Try to get someone else to believe you.  Good luck at that.  I prefer to deal with people who have class.  You have none.


----------



## Freemason9 (Jul 11, 2013)

Did I just stumble into a LIFO/FIFO argument?

LOL


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

Freemason9 said:


> Did I just stumble into a LIFO/FIFO argument?
> 
> LOL



There is some sort of history between Oldstyle and Rshermr, which amounts to little more than an Ad Hominum issue.

That and Oldstyle's stance is that everything is a matter of opinion, perspective, including accounting.

This then makes sense of the "what economic school" vs "what school of economics" issue as Oldstyle considers economics to be simply a matter of opinion, or perspective, and you can simply pick the one you like.  Then you can reach whatever conclusion you want. 

On the other hand, Rshermr thought he literally meant "what college" as graduate economics no more distinguishes MMT from Keynsian than physics distinguishes Newtonian physics from Einstienian physics, except they are taught in different courses, were developed at different times, are used to illuminate different issues, and fundamentally must be in agreement because they are examining the same larger system, reality.

That is a bit of a loose analogy as economics isn't quite as tightly integrated as physics.  Still, any theories and models in economics are not to be taken as contradictory.  They are different simplifications of an overall complex system.

That seems to be it in a nutshell.  Though, you know how these quarrels go.  It's best to not get into the middle of them lest you get accused of taking sides.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2013)

Yup.  I should get out of this discussion with oldstyle.  It is the definition of wrestling with a pig.  Which is why I told him to pound sand in my last post.  He is truly not worth the effort.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Yup. *I should get out of this discussion with oldstyle. *It is the definition of wrestling with a pig. *Which is why I told him to pound sand in my last post. *He is truly not worth the effort.



I try to stay focused on the object, not the person. Some seem to center things around the person. *The difference is revealed quicky as they immediately use the second person pronoun, "you" as in "you are.. " or "you think..". *It didn't take me too long to figure it out, some years ago, when I asked myself what it was, exactly, that ran my blood pressure immediately up. *I started looking back at the thread and realized it was a learned bahavior on their part. *They change the focus from the object to you (or me). You then respond in kind, at which point they accuse you of starting an ad hominum attack. *Of course, by that time, you are in a defensive position. *

It is exactly what professional psychotherapists deal with.  Many patients attempt to turn the focus onto the therapist. It is either transferance or projection.  If your not a professional, it's best to just recognize it and walk away.

The trick is to watch for that first instance of the second person pronoun. *It tells you everything about them, that you need to know. *Then you have the choice of where to go. *You can stay on point, without being distracted by the covert attempt to divert attention onto you. *You are aware of their game and start taking notes on them. *And, you also have every right to focus keenly and sharply on them, at the time of your choosing, without mercy. *After all, they had no intent on having an objective conversation in the first place.

The sooner you recognize that they are not really interested in an objective discussion, the better. And it always starts with them changing the subject to you, using the second person pronoun. *And you will know, immediately, because your blood pressure spikes. *(At least mine does. and most people are uncomfortable looking at themself in photos or in a movie. Even most professional actors don't like watching their own movies.  Few of us like being self conscious)

Of course, on this entire post, I have used the second person pronoun repeatedly. And, rightfully, you can take it as projection.  One time I doubled up with "(or me)" because, like everyone, I too project and use tranferance. After all, all we really know is ourselves, and often not very objectively.  The difference, though, should be obvious.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2013)

Freemason9 said:


> Did I just stumble into a LIFO/FIFO argument?
> 
> LOL



Rshermr claims to have taught college economics while an undergraduate...yet didn't understand basic Keynesian economics and when asked what school of economics he was basing his contentions on, he thought it was referring to an actual bricks and mortar college.

He's your typical internet "poser"...someone who talks a bunch of shit about how much they know about a subject but then can't even answer basic questions *about* the subject.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Yup. *I should get out of this discussion with oldstyle. *It is the definition of wrestling with a pig. *Which is why I told him to pound sand in my last post. *He is truly not worth the effort.
> ...


Yup.  And I should know better.  Guys that change the subject and make personal attacks do so for the obvious reason:  They enjoy the battle and are incapable of rational discussion.  We see a lot of that on this board.  
the concept that you can do anything about it is what is really stupid.  I keep trying to have a conversation, but that is impossible with these folks.  The concept of discussion is of no interest.  So, ignore seems a really good method of handling the clowns.  Whoever they may be.........


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I use to find it of some value, taking it as a null hypothesis, and trying to prove it. *After a while, Ed got to repetative. *I'd pretty much figured out that nothing specific would pan out. *Usually, the comtrarians are just to vague to get any traction out of it. *And having lost my harddrive, I don't have the nifty data analysis tools to test things with. *The kind of "devil's" advocate convo, that we could get, with a more coherent group, seems to be lost in the mindless rabble. *In the most part, it is an exercise in not getting caught up in it. *I know we can do better, but I just can't find it. *So I just look for inspiration of a usefull search term that will reveal something in Google and*to leverage the motivation into learning something off forum.

Problem is, right now, all I've got to work with is cost accounting. *I'm not all that interested.

Profit=(1-TaxRate)*Qty*(Price-VC-AverageFixedCost)
COGS=Qty*VC=Qty*(LaborPerUnit+MaterialPerUnit)
AverageFixedCost=TotalFixedCost/Qty
Profit=(1-TaxRate)*(Revenues-Expences)
Revenues=Price*Qty
Expences=COGS+TotalFixedCost
EBT=Revenues-Expences

That's the financial accounting side of the supply curve in micro.

I should probably throw interest in there somewhere so I have EBIT, not just EBT.

Any more detailed than that and we are into bookkeeping. *It is the bookkeeping part where TotalCOGS better equal actual detailed records. It isn't a matter of buying an expensive item and applying it as an average unit cost for materials. I suppose one might get away with it, depending on how it ia reported to the IRS, but if they should decide to audit, I am sure they will happily go through each line item in detail. *They aren't stupid and have seen every manner of gimick.*

Something in me, I'd rather be bored and real then make shit up, just for the battle. *I get it. *It's better than a pot of coffee. *There have been times when I've made myself turn off this machine, lest it keep me up to late.

Still, I'd rather do the dull, time comsuming, detailed, mind numbing, accurate and precise theory that describes the world the way it is rather than the way I'd like it to be. *

I'd like, once, for someone to describe, in necessary detail, how debt and deficit cause general economic degredation. *I get that, in theory, it could cause "crowding out" if the economy is running at full employment, full output, and the government is demanding labor and product that shifts the economy away from what it might otherwise be. That is a big bunch of ifs. *The economy hasn't been at full employment, not by my accounting of FULL labor labor utilization but twice in the history of the US. *If we look at the employment level as percentage of total population, it hit a max twice, in about '00 and '07. *That, I believe, was every available working age adult. Up till then, it was socio-economic changes as more working age people started working. *From the '60s on through the decades, more individuals within the households joined the workforce. *Obviously more women, though I had some numbers that suggested the "women going to work" meme was not as accurate as it may have been portrayed. *Maybe pre-WWII. *Not after 1960. *By 2000, I had some 48.x% of the total population as working.

You can see it here;






That is when we could get crowding out. *Up till then, unless there is some way to show that the non-employment base contribution was somehow more valuable, then the economy had idle labor sitting there at home.  And it seems to me that all that growth, from 1960 on, has been based on whatever forces happen at the margin to increment employment and output up.

What is it that causes a) growth to develop, at the margin, so it just keeps up with population growth and b) so that it outpaces population growth.  I haven't seen that described.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2013)

Yup, well, the whole issue with gaap rules is to provide ACCURATE and TRUE representations of financial reporting.  Not just for the IRS, of course, more importantly for potential and current shareholders in the companies involved.  The whole issue of changing the value of the cost of goods sold is close to the top in things that auditors check, because it is so easy to misrepresent.  
And the case we were discussing was way too obvious to leave any doubt that it was fraud, if proved.  AND, had nothing at all to do with lifo/fifo.  Those methods are old and well spelled out.  And misrepresentation of cogs could be equally easily done with either.  And would be equally illegal with either.
And you are correct.  This is getting into the bookkeeping details, and is enough to drive anyone nuts.  Not what you would call mind expanding.

Relative to describing the world as it is rather than how you would like it to be, ABSOLUTELY.  Without being able to stay on the side of fact, and of truth, as best you can support it, I am there.  What drives me nuts is those that prefer to believe what they want to believe.  In my youth, I believed that you could not believe anything without proof.  This board PROVES differently.  It is indeed possible for a lot of folks to believe what they want to believe.  They call it opinion, often, and equate it to what those who do the hard work of research believe based on their work.  Crazy in my mind, and harmful in a lot of ways.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 12, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> This board PROVES differently.  It is indeed possible for a lot of folks to believe what they want to believe.



what  an very odd thing for a libtard to say given he believes tax and spend bubbles work better than earn and spend sustainable growth without the tiniest bit of logic.


----------



## Kimura (Jul 12, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > This board PROVES differently.  It is indeed possible for a lot of folks to believe what they want to believe.
> ...



Shouldn't you be trying to rape an underage school girl in a parking lot? 

After you move out of your mother's basement, I would recommend community college.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


What is that old saying???  Consider the source.  When Ed is the source of an insult, you know you must be doing something right.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


The problem ed has with raping underage girls is that he opens his mouth and says something about "candy" and "little girl".  But then he keeps on talking.  And they run like hell.  Even they know stupid when they hear it.


----------



## Kimura (Jul 12, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Here's a guy with zero credentials. Just insulting people, he gets away with it. Whatever, son. Have you ever been laid ? I'm curious, I'm doing the sociological thing?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I use the ignore option liberally. As soon as it is clear they are one of the loonies, ignore.  They are clinically insane, surely this is clear.  It is measurable and quantifiable. On ignore, it all just goes away.  If you put em on ignore, you get this really cool personal effect, when you have to ask yourself, "why am I even looking?"

Still, I gotta clear my head of it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2013)

So, if you are a fan of the austrian school (and maybe 4 or so others....) do you not have to say austerity is a good thing???  And, if so, what is the argument that it is working???  The argument seems to be that austerity is not happening, but then that is to ignore that that claim has been well and fully debunked.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 13, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, if you are a fan of the austrian school (and maybe 4 or so others....) do you not have to say austerity is a good thing???  And, if so, what is the argument that it is working???  The argument seems to be that austerity is not happening, but then that is to ignore that that claim has been well and fully debunked.



You haven't debunked jack shit.  Spending has gone up in all the countries that you claim are implementing "austerity."  Real austerity is when spending decreases.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2013)

So, this strange noise keeps emanating from some tool who believes that austerity does not exist.  Funny, he has had proof that it does, but as with most con tools, he is unable to consider the facts.  Just re-posts the dogma.  Over and over and over and over.  Thinks it will become true if he says it enough.  Funny, eh?  Poor ignorant bastard.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 13, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, this strange noise keeps emanating from some tool who believes that austerity does not exist.  Funny, he has had proof that it does, but as with most con tools, he is unable to consider the facts.  Just re-posts the dogma.  Over and over and over and over.  Thinks it will become true if he says it enough.  Funny, eh?  Poor ignorant bastard.



There hasn't been any proof of austerity, numb nuts.  Tax increases don't fit the liberal definition of austerity.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, this strange noise keeps emanating from some tool who believes that austerity does not exist.  Funny, he has had proof that it does, but as with most con tools, he is unable to consider the facts.  Just re-posts the dogma.  Over and over and over and over.  Thinks it will become true if he says it enough.  Funny, eh?  Poor ignorant bastard.



I believe that if you analyse the writings of non-austerity adherants, you will find that their definition will be that it does not exist unless the government has a net positive surplus, no debt, and no social programs.  This will not include military spending. In the case of military spending, a debt and deficit will still be considered austerity because providing for the commom defense is necessary. (I may be overstating the net surplus, but I doubt it.  They invoke the household analogy a lot. So I suspect that they would go so far as to feel that if they are not saving, they are not being austere).

Getting this from what is overtly stated is difficult because they will simply claim a lack of austerity due to whatever one of the above is convenient, without ever overtly stating their full definition of austerity.  

They never come out and simply state their full position.  They like carrying a concealed weapon.  It is part of their charm.  I think it is the result of both innate and learned behavior.  Fundamentally, the concept of "and" is simply not a neurological construct.  The second is it requires multiple items be held in short term memory, and they don't have the capacity for multiple abstractions in short term memory.  Lastly, by not presenting more than one at a time, they can switch to another and still hold their position.  If they presented all of them overtly, as a whole, it could be shot down as a whole.

Lastly, they don't grasp context.  They are rule base and the rule is absolute.  It isn't in a context. The context becomes defined by the rule.  And if the rule shouldn't apply, like oil companies liemon their websites about AWG to take government subsidies, the context is shifte so the general rule doesn't apply.  The definitional parameter of if austerity is happening does, obviously, depend on the definition which creates the context.  The rule is that it isn't, ergo, all you have to do is change the context, the definition, until it is true.  They are, though, oblivious to the context that they are invoking.   Context is the background upon which your mental images, that define an idea, are highlighted. You are likely aware of the background and aware when you change it.  They are not.

There is a recent study that I ran across which illuminates the rule based vs consequence based thinking.  I have this impression that, at least in my mind, that consequence=background=context.  And I am ever so keenly aware of the background upon which my ideas are highlighted in bold relief.  If not for that background, nothing exists.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, this strange noise keeps emanating from some tool who believes that austerity does not exist.  Funny, he has had proof that it does, but as with most con tools, he is unable to consider the facts.  Just re-posts the dogma.  Over and over and over and over.  Thinks it will become true if he says it enough.  Funny, eh?  Poor ignorant bastard.
> ...


Good analysis.  I had just assumed that they all had a form of congenital idiocy.  Your analysis is much more refined.  Though in the end, perhaps it is all the same.

What continues to astound me is that they seem to be able to believe what they want to.  Actual analysis, proof, all that bothersome stuff is of no concern to them.  Friend of mine has a boy with a lot of mental issues.  You talk with him knowing that you are not going to understand what he is taking from what you are saying.  It is enough that he is happy.  I suppose you can look at these folks the same way.  For instance, every impartial economist is telling the world that austerity is being practiced in a number of european countries.  You explain that to them.  You provide the links and help them to understand.  But it is like all that effort gets zero traction.  They just look at you with that ignorant empty look and keep on saying what they always did.  Again, I guess it is enough that they are happy.  In their case, it is absolutely true.  Ignorance is bliss.  So, perhaps we should just let them be ignorant so they can keep on with that really stupid looking grin.  It really is just bad luck.  Not their fault.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Local environment is significant. During this last election, the poll reporting presented the data by urban, suburban, and rural demographics.  This was the first time I have seen it grouped this way, overtly, and the difference is dramatic.  Urban vs rural is, of course, simply population density.  But this sets the stage for other direct experiences; public safety response time; product availability; prices; income; flow of funds; volume of employment opportunities; variability of goods and services; number of interactions per day; number of strangers met per day; level of specialization; and what else?

This urban vs rural effect seems particularly important.  When it comes to firearm management, it seems that conceled handguns are an issue in urban environments.  There are more opportunities to use them nefariously and it is difficult to conceal a rifle.  In rural environments, it seems to really not matter. You cannot dissappear into the crowd.  I am not sure if it really matters, either way, in a rural environment.

I have never been to NY or lived in SF, but we are pretty much aware of the huge crowd that one experiences on an hour to hour basis. I don't put much weight in what I experience from movies, but we have seen the sidewalk crowd in the business district of NY, during commute time, and I am sure it is reasonably accurate.  

I've never been to the concrete jungles of the inner city, still, I get the sense that it is so vast, beyond what I might have experienced, that it has an impact on perception and behaviors.  I should google earth it.  I have to wonder how what the availability is for fresh product as opposed to the prepackaged, high shelf life goods that have little risk of spoilage.  Milk stock has to be turned over, soda will keep forever.  I am not sure how to classify the concrete jungle.  It almost seems, in some way, a sort of high population density, rural environment.  There are alot of people, but MV per cap is low.

It seems to me that the volume of monies flowing through urban and rural areas is significant.  MV=PQ is fundamentally significant at a local level as it is at a national level.  And, if we are considering an equivalent change in CPI, the absolute volume increase is different.

I was looking at Local_CPI/wages across regions. That is baskets of goods that can be purchased.  Curiously, regional cpi swings greater than wages.  At least to the recession, wages may be much higher in NY and SF, compared to Dallas, but CPI swings further.  

Since the recession, I relocated to a more rural area.  It is on the outskirts of the major urban areas, an agricultural area.  Oddly, the major grocery stores run out of product, like milk.  I had never been to the store and found basic products in short supply.  I am located, basically, halfway between the two metropolitan areas, in a region that seems like neither wishes to claim.  And, when it comes to product stock, it is as if the major grocery stores get whatever is left after the larger city has been stocked. It is odd.

Our environment sets the background, the context, for our experience and how we interpret that experience.   We don't recognize the effect simply because we have nothing to compare it too. 

It seems to me that the difference in the details of experience that arises simply out of population density has a huge impact.  And I don't think it is necessarily a simple relationship.  Often, the difference is in the balance, the net effect.  

If I may get very abstract, it is quite reasonable to conclude that some differences in attitude is based on purely psychological impact, rather than real impact.  Does fewer people around result in a greater sense of isolation or a fewer encounters with strangers? In the aggregate, does more people lead to feeling safer or alone in a crowd?

It seems to me that the real and percieved impact of local environment, simply due to population density is far greater than we recognize simply because we don't live long enough, gain enough life experience, in both environments to have a clue as to the difference it makes.

We don't like to believe that we are primarily controlled by our environment.  We like to see ourselves as in control, objective and right.

There was a big dissagreement in psychology over whether language skill was learned or somehow inherent, built into our brain. Ther argument was, based on calculations by linguists, behavior and learning, that the shear volume of instances of repeated behavior and feedback is beyond what could be expected.  And then one sociologist put voice activated tape recorders everwhere that the child and parent went, at home, in the car, everwhere. When they counting all the instances of interaction, as any exhausted mother already knew, the numbers were astounding.  And, it agreed with theory.  It was, in fact, therd shere volume of interactions between parent and child that fully accounts for all that language skill.  It is all those microscopic experiences that add up to make all the difference. With the exception of the truely neurologically handicapped, environment is everything.

I'm just hypothesizing. Still, it seems to be a perspective that is looking in the right direction, that the differences in environment, created from simple population density, have a significant impact on perception and conclusions.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Well, so, that may well be true.  Environment undoubtedly makes a huge difference.  Still, there seems to be major inherent differences between people in like environments.  And my reading has been extensive in what it is that makes people believe.  What constitutes the truth for people.  
And the net is that study after study finds that there is a significant slice of the population who want to be told what to believe and what to do.  It was the basis for the control of populations by the nazi's, for instance.  And it was the basis for conrol by the "communist" countries - Russia in particular.  And the big take away is that the needs that this slice of the population have are really the same.  They want thing explained to them.  They want to be part of a "team".  They like being angry, and need others to hate.  Actually makes them happy.   
So this psychology is well understood by those studying it.  And it is generally pegged as being something between 12 and 20% of any population.  Once understood, it is very helpful to those wanting to control them.  And you see it in the actions of those doing so (controlling a group, that is) as they pander to those specific needs.  
The conservative machine, as I like to call it, is made up of a few very rich people who have done a great job over the years cultivating these folks.  They have the money, and the knowledge, to get the job done, and have been successful at doing so.  You can see the result on this board.  Blind belief with no ability to use facts to back up those beliefs.  Sad sort of thing.  You see the anger quickly in these folks, and the inability to have an actual discussion.  It is, in fact, just the way it is.  They want to believe what they believe.  And hate you if you prove them wrong.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> The conservative machine, as I like to call it, is made up of a few very rich people who have done a great job over the years cultivating these folks.



a few rich people? You mean our Founders ?? And you call 250 years a few years??  

By cultivating us to believe in freedom from liberal government they transformed all of human history and saved civilization on earth. I see you're keeping up your record, 1267 perfectly stupid posts in a row!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > The conservative machine, as I like to call it, is made up of a few very rich people who have done a great job over the years cultivating these folks.
> ...



Perfect timing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I believe that if you analyse the writings of non-austerity adherants, you will find that their definition will be that it does not exist unless the government has a net positive surplus, no debt, and no social programs.



There really are no non-austerity adherants. There are those who believe in capitalism and those who don't. Capitalists look at East/West Germany or Cuba/Florida or Hong Kong/China as Friedman did to test a real theory with real evidence. The idea that a debatable slowing of spending in some countries is austerity, let alone capitalism is beyond absurd.

Why not give the 3 best reverse example of East/West Germany, etc, where more liberal government absolutely clobbered more capitalist government?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


I think ed is making an appearance as a model for what I was discussing.   Perfect.  And how magnanimous of him.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




By cultivating us to believe in freedom from liberal government our Founders, starting with Aristotle, transformed all of human history and saved civilization on earth. I see you're keeping up your record, 1268 perfectly stupid posts in a row!

Tell us, was Aristotle one of the few rich people you were talking about?

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



He has appointed himself a delusional role as defender of the daddy state.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Well, you have to admit, there are few things that you can be absolutely confident are completely true.  So ed's posting is ONE of those very few things.  When you see him posting on this board, you can be sure it is nonsense.  Kind of a comforting thing.


----------



## SayMyName (Jul 14, 2013)

Is austerity working in Europe? Exactly what does that mean?

I just returned from a 2 month hike of the 800 kilometer Camino de Santiago across northern Spain. You see lots of empty buildings where construction left them only halfway completed, and in industrial areas factories that are not producing. 

So, they looked at their neighbors in the north and across the Atlantic and borrowed to bring their level of living up to what they measured as successful or good, instead of realizing that perhaps what they had was good to begin with. The Spanish do not want to give up their siesta, but those nations that are producing and lending the money want Spain to do exactly that and start contributing during daylight hours. 

So, while I was there, you had demonstrations in Madrid and signs here and there against cuts in this or that program.  Yet, they want that new Iphone as well, or this or that car...and someone else to pay for it. This is just one example. The same situation is unfolding in Greece and Italy, and even to a lesser degree in Sweden where I currently reside.

So, how is austerity working in Europe? People are having to face no longer being able to live on the backs of others and not having to pay for it. There is complaining. Yet, are they mad enough to do something about it? I haven't seen that. 

People are falling into an acceptance of this new direction. Is it because they know that, unlike decades before, a Turkish, Morroccan, or Pakistani is at the door banging to get in to not only work...but actually produce? I think that is one part of it. I think the other part of it is that so many of these migrants are quickly becoming the new wealth in these countries, and they tend to be so much more conscious of how to build and maintain wealth, and thus not favor government programs that diminish that, or, what we would normally and mistakenly call conservative economic principles. They are helping to further push the change of Europe in a new direction.

While Europe is beginning to shift in a direction that favors cuts in government programs and austerity, the US is going that opposite direction. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the years to come.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Like death and taxes?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Increasingly. *impartial sources* close to the subject have become more and more and more pessimistic



You're a cog at best.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

SayMyName said:


> Is austerity working in Europe? Exactly what does that mean?
> 
> I just returned from a 2 month hike of the 800 kilometer Camino de Santiago across northern Spain. You see lots of empty buildings where construction left them only halfway completed, and in industrial areas factories that are not producing.
> 
> ...



So austerity isn't working.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 15, 2013)

It's funny that these politicians embezzled all this money and then they want to blame the solution to get back to business as usual. Actually, that's not funny. That's what they're supposed to do if they can get away with it. What's funny is the lemmings buying their propaganda.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2013)

Ah.  So the government stole the money/  The gov officials are getting rich.  The workers are loosing their shorts.  So far so good.
So, how are the wealthy doing in those countries???  Stats say damned well, thank you. Wealthy get wealthier. Middle class and poor pay for it.  Sounds like a great plan.  
So, you seem to be neutral???  Or just philosophical????


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Yeah, but ed saying something really stupid is more certain than death.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Increasingly. *impartial sources* close to the subject have become more and more and more pessimistic
> ...


So you agree???  Disagree????  Or are just being philosophical??
You think I am a cog???   Should I worry???  Are you a drive gear???


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


 
His posts are to inspecific to be clear.  They could imply a couple of things, at least.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 15, 2013)

It's funny that these politicians embezzled all this money and then they want to blame the solution to get back to business as usual. Actually, that's not funny. That's what they're supposed to do if they can get away with it. What's funny is the lemmings buying their propaganda.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > Is austerity working in Europe? Exactly what does that mean?
> ...



austerity is a tiny aspect of capitalism. What you want to think about is whether capitalism works better than socialism. Do you know that when China switched to capitalism it immediately eliminated 40% of world poverty? What does that tell you?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


But then, there is this other voice.   The one attached to the site troll.  Ed the idiot.  Never makes any sense, just keeps on posting dogma.  Needs to get back on his meds.  There are meds for being a congenital idiot, are there not???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



ad hominem from typical liberal without IQ for substance


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2013)

And the con tool proves my point, AGAIN.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > Is austerity working in Europe? Exactly what does that mean?
> ...


I think he walked so far he is not sure.  They seemed to not be doing well with austerity, but perhaps it was just that they were too tired.  All that walking.  Makes you unhappy.


----------



## justme335 (Jul 28, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Austerity isn't measured by the public debt.
> ...



surprised to hear that especially from someone living in Portugal. What is everyone demonstrating about then?


----------



## justme335 (Jul 28, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> The main reason for economic problems in Europe is the world wide recession, not EU economic policies.



The countries that are in recession are those which rely heavily on services and have no competitive industrial production


----------



## jasonnfree (Jul 28, 2013)

SayMyName said:


> Is austerity working in Europe? Exactly what does that mean?
> 
> I just returned from a 2 month hike of the 800 kilometer Camino de Santiago across northern Spain. You see lots of empty buildings where construction left them only halfway completed, and in industrial areas factories that are not producing.
> 
> ...



You say that now they know  that  A Turk, Moraccan, or Pakistani is at the door willing to produce like it's a good thing.  The search  for the cheapest labor by either bringing the low wage people into the country or sending the work out  to the low wage nations is a good thing?  This should be something to be protested.  Supply and demand skewed by big business.  It's been happening here in USA and I don't think it's anything to be applauded.  Obama the so called liberal is hell bent on bringing more people here to compete for the disappearing jobs right now.  Both low wage earners for the hotel, motel, tourist industries,  Hb 1's for the tech industries and the list goes on.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 28, 2013)

Simple Concept: You have to spend less than you take in at some point (minus very responsible credit spending; which we know never happens). The OP is a fucking retard and he knows it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Simple Concept: You have to spend less than you take in at some point (minus very responsible credit spending; which we know never happens). The OP is a fucking retard and he knows it.



Confusing macro economics with home economics and ignoring investent.

Many people take out an auto loan, student loan, or buy a house, spending beyond their take home pay and savings, on an investent which, done right, decreases their future monthly outlays, or increasing their future income, by incurring debt and paying interest.

It is a simple concept, really.


----------



## rdean (Jul 28, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
> I have been waiting to determine what the outcome is likely to be.  My want is that it would be most likely that Austerity would be a disaster.  But I felt I owed it a look before mouthing off about the absurdity of the whole thing.  And in my opinion, my opinion is of little value until there is some proof of the likely outcome.  So, I kept watching, and after a year or two, I think the verdict is close to in.  Increasingly. impartial sources close to the subject have become more and more and more pessimistic.  And we are close to a time when it will be the decesion of most, by a wide margin, that austerity has failed, or is failing, in pretty much every country where it has been instituted.
> Here is an article out of the UK that is very representative of what is being said:
> 
> ...



The very foundation of conservatism is "don't do anything, keep things the same".  "Standstill" is something we know from nature, is simply not possible.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 28, 2013)

Yep.  They seem to have forgotten that just do nothing was practiced perfectly in the years prior to the fdr inauguration.  And the us watched the unemployment rate go from under 3% to over 24%.  And they want to do it again, and again, and again.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Yep.  They seem to have forgotten that just do nothing was practiced perfectly in the years prior to the fdr inauguration.  And the us watched the unemployment rate go from under 3% to over 24%.  And they want to do it again, and again, and again.



Eventually, someones money gets put where their bs mouth is.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Yep.  They seem to have forgotten that just do nothing was practiced perfectly in the years prior to the fdr inauguration.  And the us watched the unemployment rate go from under 3% to over 24%.  And they want to do it again, and again, and again.
> ...


Problem is, they read it in the con web sites, and they believe it.  Because they want to.  Sad.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 29, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I actually cheated you out of a longer thought.  i often hold back, for some reason I am unaware of.  Probably because I don't feel it has sufficient evidentiary suppot.  So, this is the full thought;

History often must repeat itself a number of times before the lesson becomes part of the general public's mindset. *Although the conservative christian fundamentalists continue to push their mindset (why do groups that conspire accuse the rest of us as being part of some conspiracy?), the movement of written history that we leverage to understand our world isn't going to go backwards.

While the majority of people do report believing in "god", the meaning of that continues to wane. *More and more people report being "spiritual" while not reporting being "religious". *I am sure that the general understanding remains that religion considered the Earth to be the center of the Universe and fought hard against Copernicus, Galaleo, and the onward progress of science, science that is deeply rooted in our culture.

Most, I hope, are aware of both sides of the historical argument of the Great Depression. *Most people are not stupid enough to not get that the economy was headed South, and fast, before the stimulus packages. *Bush made sure everyone new where that stimulous refund came from and why. *I remember receiving a pre-stimulus check notice, telling me that George Bush would be sending me a stimulus check. I can only hope that most people recall.

I also recall that the freefall began, the huge bailout occured, in a couple of forms, it stabilized, then nothing major came out of Washington except a fiscal cliff and austerity. *

It was getting worse, stimulus, it stopped. *"Austerity", nothing changed. *It isn't all that hard. *We have traded growth and recovery here for deficit reduction. *In Europe, they have traded stability for debt reduction.*

That is twice in history that austerity has failed.

It is a hard sell to rewrite the history books when parents and grandparents look at it and say, "That isn't how I remember it went down." *

At some point, you simply can't rewrite the Spanish Inquisition. *And at this point, you can't rewrite the Great Depression when people look around and the story is playing out exactly like the history book said it did. Grandma says, "Yeppers, that's what my dad told me." The history book says, "Yep, that's what grandma says." And mom and dad are reading the news saying, "Yep, that's what is going on now."

Half the population has a below average IQ, but they don't all tend to end up all the same family. *It is a little more mixed up than that with only a third being made up by nothing but complete morons.*  The idea being that the thoughtfullness morons is elevated by their closest associated smarter aquaintence.

Hey, I can always hope.

Spiritual but not religious - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Simple Concept: You have to spend less than you take in at some point (minus very responsible credit spending; which we know never happens). The OP is a fucking retard and he knows it.
> ...



I'm not confusing anything, a-hole. There has to be a considerable return on investment and proper fiscal management to justify any budget. If you think that these politicians are anything but glorified crooks, then you're sorely mistaken and total butt fucking moron.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 29, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Wow.  Profound.  
You did INDEED prove that you are confusing macro economics with home economics.

It is a very, very common malady.  It does not suggest you are stupid.  It does suggest you are ignorant.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 29, 2013)

You're STILL here pretending to know something about economics, Tommy?  Too funny...


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Still comes back to that effort by the far right to throw billions of dollars at the population in order to get them to believe what they want them to believe.

The article in Playboy a couple years ago about an interview with consultants writing talking points for the tea party is illustrative:  "Strategists deliberately try to stir up rage among average Americans, calculating that it's much easier to push a political movement if it's deeply frightened than if it's entirely hopeful. "We're playing to the reptilian brain rather than the logic centers, so we look for key words and images to leverage the intense rage and anxiety of white working-class conservatives," the consultant writes. "In other words, I talk to the same part of your brain that causes road rage."
NSFW: Anonymous Playboy Author Lifts The Veil On The Tea Party | Political Correction
The consultants were KStreet consultants.  Well paid by right wing organizations.  Kind of explains why we see the type of talk we see from the far right.  They care nothing about truth.  They only care about agenda.

So, while hundreds of millions were spent in the last election, the payback for those bucks was awful.  It will be interesting to see what happens next.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 30, 2013)

So, while this thread is about austerity in EUROPE, we could look around a bit to see how it worked elsewhere.  Japan, for instance.  Which attempted austerity measures and watched things get worse and worse over time.

"Japan can finally breathe a sigh of relief. After more than a decade of economic stagnation, the country's economy is growing again, *fueled by the massive stimulus measures *taken by new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
German Press Says Extended EU Recession Shows Austerity Ineffective - SPIEGEL ONLINE

So, in trying to find a case where austerity seems to be actually working, everyone has failed.  All the non partial information out there says austerity is not working in europe.  
And it did not work in Japan.  Japan has now changed to Keynesian principles of economic stimulus, and is getting good results.  

Does someone out there have different data???


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 30, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I confuse nothing. You want to believe that fiscal principles stop existing when the government blank checks spends. It's f'ing nonsense. It does suggest you are stupid and ignorant.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 30, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


And, if you would only take an econ class, it would be so helpful.  So, who should I send a check to to pay back the national debt when it comes due, as you seem to think it will?  
Look, sorry you are so angry with me.  You should be angry with whoever has told you that the national economy operates like a personal checking account.  Honest, it was they that lied to you, not me.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 30, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I've taken plenty of economic classes, asshole. And a predominant point is that government should only spend what it needs to spend and upon what the private sector is unwilling to spend upon. Otherwise, it's called 'waste.' You should take an economics class instead of pretending that you have taken them.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > The main reason for economic problems in Europe is the world wide recession, not EU economic policies.
> ...



No, the repeal of Glass-Steagal did. Pushed by the GOP, and then the banks played a ponzi scheme with derivitives world-wide. The GOP owns the world wide recession. Simple as that. And they would go once again down exactly the same path were we to let them.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Taken lots of political classes also, I take it. That is what makes you so great at predicting the outcomes of elections


----------



## jasonnfree (Jul 30, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



 Stimulus spending.  It worked in ww2.  The greatest stimulus in history probably.  Full employment.  I always ask the name of a major country that pulled itself out of a slump using austerity.  No answers yet.


----------



## Misty (Jul 30, 2013)

"Latvia, feted by fans of austerity as the country-that-can and an example for countries like Greece that cant, has provided a rare boost to champions of the proposition that pain pays.

Hardship has long been common here  and still is. But in just four years, the country has gone from the European Unions worst economic disaster zone to a model of what the International Monetary Fund hails as the healing properties of deep budget cuts. Latvias economy, after shriveling by more than 20 percent from its peak, grew by about 5 percent last year, making it the best performer in the 27-nation European Union. Its budget deficit is down sharply and exports are soaring.

But in Latvia, where the government laid off a third of its civil servants, slashed wages for the rest and sharply reduced support for hospitals, people mostly accepted the bitter medicine. Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis, who presided over the austerity, was re-elected, not thrown out of office, as many of his counterparts elsewhere have been."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/w...y-and-its-pain-eases.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0







jasonnfree said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 30, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Right.  I think you are economically illiterate.  But, perhaps you can suggest when cutting gov spending has ever helped out economy when we have had high unemployment.


----------



## jasonnfree (Jul 30, 2013)

Misty said:


> "Latvia, feted by fans of austerity as the country-that-can and an example for countries like Greece that cant, has provided a rare boost to champions of the proposition that pain pays.
> 
> Hardship has long been common here  and still is. But in just four years, the country has gone from the European Unions worst economic disaster zone to a model of what the International Monetary Fund hails as the healing properties of deep budget cuts. Latvias economy, after shriveling by more than 20 percent from its peak, grew by about 5 percent last year, making it the best performer in the 27-nation European Union. Its budget deficit is down sharply and exports are soaring.
> 
> ...



Thanks, but I asked what _major_ country has pulled itself out of the slump using auserity.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 30, 2013)

Misty said:


> "Latvia, feted by fans of austerity as the country-that-can and an example for countries like Greece that cant, has provided a rare boost to champions of the proposition that pain pays.
> 
> Hardship has long been common here  and still is. But in just four years, the country has gone from the European Unions worst economic disaster zone to a model of what the International Monetary Fund hails as the healing properties of deep budget cuts. Latvias economy, after shriveling by more than 20 percent from its peak, grew by about 5 percent last year, making it the best performer in the 27-nation European Union. Its budget deficit is down sharply and exports are soaring.
> 
> ...


Well, latvia is interesting.  There is no common oppinion on latvia at this point from what I see out there.  Lots of different opinions.  Even in the link you used, to the ny times, the conclusion was not that things were great in Latvia as a result of austerity:

"Alf Vanags, director of the Baltic International Center for Economic Policy Studies here, is skeptical. &#8220;The idea of a Latvian &#8216;success story&#8217; is ridiculous,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Latvia is not a model for anybody.&#8221;

A better and more equitable way out of Latvia&#8217;s troubles, he believes, would have been a devaluation of the currency, an option closed to Greece and 16 other countries that use the euro. Latvia kept its currency pegged to the euro, putting itself in much the same straitjacket as euro zone nations.

But Latvia&#8217;s high pain threshold and unusually open economy set it apart, enabling a relentless squeezing of wages, said Morten Hansen, head of the economics department at the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga.

&#8220;You can only do this in a country that is willing to take serious pain for some time and has a dramatic flexibility in the labor market,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The lesson of what Latvia has done is that there is no lesson.&#8221;"
From your source above.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 30, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You ever hear of the New Deal? Government tried to spend their way out of The Great Depression and immensely prolonged the suffering. You're clearly unaware or unwilling to accept that government has largely only created many artificial costs to doing business. They are the epitome of waste. My guess is your govt. desk jockey who is just more than happy to suck at the teet.  That's fine for you. But, the rest of us have to live in the real world.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 30, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Uh, right.  The great republican depression of 1929.  You seem to be only mildly familiar with it.  Here is the actual fact, me boy.  First, under repub presidents, from '28 to March 33, the unemployment rate went from under 3% to over 24%.  And it was still rising.  And fast when fdr was inaugurated that march.  Those great repub presidents did just as you would have wanted them to do:  Nothing.  Worked really well, didn't it.  An increase in the ue rate of over 21%.  Perfect policy.  So, after inauguration in march of 1933, fdr started pushing programs to stop the hemorrhaging.  And, me boy, by the end of his first year, his stimulus programs and implementation of the prior president's stimulus program, the ue rate turned around.  And it went down, from 25% to 14% in 4 years.  In 37, fdr incorrectly decided to stop stimulus spending and see how things would do going forward.  And, me boy, embracing the republican congress' wishes, he did indeed stop stimulus spending.  And, of course, the result was that the ue rate went up, by 5 points in '38.  Seeing this, fdr started spending again, in earnest.  And the result was predictable.  The ue rate started back down.  To 14 % in 1940, and by the time the US entered the war, to 9%.  The war, of course, was the great stimulus, and drove ue and production, ending any remaining talk of the depression.

So, I guess if you like high ue rates, doing nothing in the face of high ue rates is a great idea.  Is that what you like, me boy?  High ue rates???

You know, you should give up guessing what folks did with their life.  I was in bus from college until i retired a couple years ago.  Never worked for the gov.  So, at guessing you loose, me poor ignorant con.  Thing is, I like the truth.  Not fantasy, like you seem to want to believe in.

You say you took many econ classes??  Where did you go to school???  Perhaps internet college at the school of bat shit crazy con web sites??  Only they teach the version of the great depression you like to believe in.  Though there is Liberty University........


----------



## Auteur (Jul 31, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I have to say again how amazed I am by the sort of ultra-right rhetoric that floats around the US these days. The irony with this statement is that FDR probably saved capitalism for all those wheeler-dealer businessmen who were so outraged by the thought of some mild government intervention in the economy. The great depression was settling into a permanent state in the US, and could have remained for years if not for the New Deal, and later the militarization that followed Pearl Harbour. Other nations had responded with social measures faster than the US, and as a consequence were in better shape around the time of the beginning of WW2. The US lagged as a result of fierce opposition to FDR's social programs. If the state of affairs that existed after 1929 were allowed to fester, a strong backlash, even revolution may have occurred, leaving our outraged businessmen in a far less comfortable position.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You was in a bus from college until you retired? Is English your first language?

There are various reasons for the Depression hitting. Republicans then, just like today were complicit in the downfall. I never once told you I gave two shits about the Republicrats. That's your nonsense. 

If FDR's policy's were so great and made such a great impact, then why did the unemployment jump from 16.9 to 19.0 percent for 36 to 38? (As an aside, at least they were keeping more honest stats back then. Unemployment is more like 25 to 30 percent right now as we are reliving an FDR nightmare). 

And why did it take a war for big govt. to decide it was in the American people's interest to knock 10 percent off the unemployment number? The reality is, that's what you get when the government treats people like cogs instead of being of and for the people.

And I don't divulge personal info online. But, I can tell you I've taken a few econ courses and govt. waste is a very basic concept that is taught. Deluded utopians like yourself cherrypick circumstantial data points and abstract theories, instead of regarding tried and proven principles.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 31, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> If FDR's policy's were so great and made such a great impact, then why did the unemployment jump from 16.9 to 19.0 percent for 36 to 38? (As an aside, at least they were keeping more honest stats back then. Unemployment is more like 25 to 30 percent right now as we are reliving an FDR nightmare).



This has already been answered for you.



TheGreatGatsby said:


> And why did it take a war for big govt. to decide it was in the American people's interest to knock 10 percent off the unemployment number? The reality is, that's what you get when the government treats people like cogs instead of being of and for the people.



You are nothing if not full of irony Mr Gatsby. Stop and think for a moment. What would the most far left economic policy you could think of look like? Massive government intervention in the economy, wage and price controls, rationing of materials, millions placed on the federal payroll, borrowing without limit......yes, you get the picture.

War was forced on the US, yet from an economic perspective, it validated FDRs policies, and made a mockery of conservative principles, ie: government does have a critical role to play in the economy, and policies can be used to prevent disasters like the depression.



TheGreatGatsby said:


> And I don't divulge personal info online. But, I can tell you I've taken a few econ courses and govt. waste is a very basic concept that is taught. Deluded utopians like yourself cherrypick circumstantial data points and abstract theories, instead of regarding tried and proven principles.



Here is one small "proven fact" for you. The movement away from regulation and the spirit of FDR's reforms, and towards your libertarian philosophy, caused the meltdown of 2008, which nearly brought down the world economy. The "waste" caused by the so called free market has been variously calculated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars. Just one historical event among many. Doesn't that make you want to pull that picture of Ron Paul down from the mantle? It should.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 31, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Jesus.  I hate trying to discuss anything with non feedback organisms like you, dipshit.  
I was in bus.  That is short for *business.*
I explained the uptick in the ue rate in '38.  If you really paid attention in any of those econ classes you would have some actual understanding of economic history.  And republican presidents were not just complicit, they were the complete cause.  They OWNED the us economic policies clear through when the depression was at it worst.  As in 1933, when fdr took over the cesspool that was the us economy.  Again it is simple.  UE rate under 3% in '28, to over 24% in march of 1933.  Coolidge till March '29, Hoover til March '33.  It is really not that hard, me boy. 
And, if the war had decreased the ue rate from the time the us entered the war by 10%, we would have then had a *NEGATIVE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. *  You did not need war.  The ue rate was going down, except when fdr had his brain fart in '37 that caused the '38 uptick.  And was going down again when he started stimulus again.  Again, a really simple concept.  Taught in pretty much any econ class.  Please, educate yourself, look up Stimulus.   Look up Keynsian economic theory.  Help yourself.
I answered your response already.   And you then proved what your major malfunction is by showing that you either did not read what I had written, or are incapable of understanding what I said.  So, go back and try reading it again.  Best of luck with that.
And, to a person having taken several econ courses, saying that stimulus is an abstract theory is rather interesting.  So, you never heard of Keynesian economics???


----------



## Misty (Jul 31, 2013)

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom


"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics.*
*
"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.
*
"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."
*
Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted  albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.
*
Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.
*
"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."
*
-UCLA- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


----------



## Kimura (Jul 31, 2013)

Misty said:


> "Latvia, feted by fans of austerity as the country-that-can and an example for countries like Greece that can&#8217;t, has provided a rare boost to champions of the proposition that pain pays.
> 
> Hardship has long been common here &#8212; and still is. But in just four years, the country has gone from the European Union&#8217;s worst economic disaster zone to a model of what the International Monetary Fund hails as the healing properties of deep budget cuts. Latvia&#8217;s economy, after shriveling by more than 20 percent from its peak, grew by about 5 percent last year, making it the best performer in the 27-nation European Union. Its budget deficit is down sharply and exports are soaring.
> 
> ...



First of all, the Baltic countries of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania have been pushed so deeply and violently into debt, we have a situation where whole chunks of their populations are emigrating. They&#8217;re fleeing like the zombie apocalypse landed on their front door.

The Latvian economy contracted by 25% and this caused unemployment to shoot up to around 20%. Currently, the last time I looked at the numbers, unemployment is around 14-15%. Where&#8217;s the success in that? We have a situation where tens of thousands of people have exited the country looking for better opportunities abroad. This has made horrendous unemployment numbers look somewhat less horrendous.

Last year, for example, Latvia had a budget deficit which was 3.5% of GDP, with trade deficits at 3%. According to sectoral balances, this means that the private savings is at zero, which could go on for many year to come, but isn&#8217;t sustainable for more than a few years.

Austerity is a disaster and simply cannot work. It destroys financial assets in the private sector, which has the effect of atrophying labor and capital. We&#8217;re seeing this happen in real time across a good portion of the EU and Baltic states.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 31, 2013)

Misty said:


> FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> 
> "Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics.*
> ...


Good.  You found a single economist who agrees with your agenda.  How about the thousands who do not???  
Nice try.  But you certainly did not prove anything with that piece.

The article that you have found is well known, and is hardly well supported.  For instance, wpa jobs are not considered in their analysis.  
The right-wing New Deal conniption fit - Salon.com


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
> ...



You clearly are not familiar with economists! Fucking clearly. The media always cherry picks those handful who yuck it up for FDR and you translate that as a majority. I'm seriously asking you this. Have you even taken an economics class? Because FDR policies are rife with what's called waste.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Jesus.  I hate trying to discuss anything with non feedback organisms like you, dipshit.
> I was in bus.  That is short for *business.*
> I explained the uptick in the ue rate in '38.  If you really paid attention in any of those econ classes you would have some actual understanding of economic history.  And republican presidents were not just complicit, they were the complete cause.  They OWNED the us economic policies clear through when the depression was at it worst.  As in 1933, when fdr took over the cesspool that was the us economy.  Again it is simple.  UE rate under 3% in '28, to over 24% in march of 1933.  Coolidge till March '29, Hoover til March '33.  It is really not that hard, me boy.
> And, if the war had decreased the ue rate from the time the us entered the war by 10%, we would have then had a *NEGATIVE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. *  You did not need war.  The ue rate was going down, except when fdr had his brain fart in '37 that caused the '38 uptick.  And was going down again when he started stimulus again.  Again, a really simple concept.  Taught in pretty much any econ class.  Please, educate yourself, look up Stimulus.   Look up Keynsian economic theory.  Help yourself.
> ...



First off dickface. If you're going to speak in broken English. Don't draw your ire with me when I don't know what the fuck you're even talking about. Frankly, listening to you speak, I think it's very plausible that you drove a bus.

You did not explain the uptick in 38, asshole. So, go ahead and do that. I don't want to hear this bull shit that that base is covered just because you don't want to regard the point.

Third off, you're a left wing loon. All this it was the Republicans fault and the Dems can do no wrong is bull shit and belies the world we live in. It's funny that you tout that even after I told you I wasn't interested in your us vs. them bull shit. You're nothing but a fucking cheerleader with no actual basic knowledge of how economics works.

And I'm not saying Keynsian economics is abstract. It's actually a precise science (if you can call it that). What I'm saying is morons (like yourself) applications of it is not scientific whatsoever. Even if you primarily subscribe to the spend to get back model, you still have to have proper fiscal management. And what you fail to understand in your zeal to back corrupt forces, is that the government is not setup to give a fuck about whether money is spent correctly and they bulldoze anything in its path.


----------



## oldfart (Jul 31, 2013)

Misty said:


> "Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics.*
> *
> "High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."



The UCLA press release is dated August 10, 2004, but there is no citation, link, or mention of the study ever being published.  Another summary, however, appeared in the Wall Street Journal five years later:
How Government Prolonged the Depression - WSJ.com
Cole, Harold L. and Ohanian, Lee E. "How Government Prolonged the Depression." Wall Street Journal. February 2, 2009

Needless to say, this apparently unpublished nine-year old study is not the consensus view of economic historians such as Milton Friedman.


----------



## oldfart (Jul 31, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> You clearly are not familiar with economists! Fucking clearly. The media always cherry picks those handful who yuck it up for FDR and you translate that as a majority. I'm seriously asking you this. Have you even taken an economics class? Because FDR policies are rife with what's called waste.



You might want to moderate your language and reconsider presenting yourself as knowledgeable about economists.  There are about a dozen posters on this board with graduate degrees in economics, five of which by my count have taught university level economics and three of which are published in peer-reviewed journals.  If you want to hang with that kind of crowd, you will have to understand the subject matter, make cogent arguments, and lose the attitude.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 31, 2013)

Misty said:


> FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> 
> "Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics.*
> ...



The very first sentence in your quote gives away the rest. In fact, the depression has been exhaustively studied, and is well understood- by reputable economists anyway, including the money-changer in chief himself, Ben Bernanke, who wrote a book on it.


----------



## oldfart (Jul 31, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > You know, you should give up guessing what folks did with their life.  I was in bus from college until i retired a couple years ago.  Never worked for the gov.  So, at guessing you loose, me poor ignorant con.  Thing is, I like the truth.  Not fantasy, like you seem to want to believe in.
> ...



OK, let's cut to the chase.  Nobody has to give out personal IDENTIFYING information on a message board, but when you claim expertise in an area as you have, and that expertise is not reflected in your posts, you are going to get called on it.  Your responses to several posters shows no familiarity with either economics or economic history.  

For what it's worth, I have taught 21 separate economics courses at university level, served as an expert witness in federal and state courts, published in peer-reviewed journals, and conducted research in economic history.  Anyone who bothers to check out my posts will be able to judge my grasp of the literature and the degree of civility I extend when another poster is being serious.  

If you had read any of the main works on the Depression such as Friedman and Schwartz, "Monetary History of the United States",  Ben Bernanke's 2000 work, "Essays on the Great Depression", or even Murray Rothbard's "America's Great Depression" published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, also in 2000, you would understand how off the wall your cited research was and why it probably couldn't find a publisher.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

oldfart said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You're a lying fucktard with an agenda. I've said nothing that belies basic economics and you want to come out saying I deserve to be called out? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of you bull shit post. Don't think I'm going to waste too much time on worms like yourself.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
> ...



Ben Bernanke? You mean the guy that just last week said he wasn't "qualified" to advise Detroit regarding their bankruptcy? 

The Great Depression was greatly exacerbated by the government. If you don't realize that, then you're in denial. Not so ironically, govt. red tape is flying again and the economy is shit.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

oldfart said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > You clearly are not familiar with economists! Fucking clearly. The media always cherry picks those handful who yuck it up for FDR and you translate that as a majority. I'm seriously asking you this. Have you even taken an economics class? Because FDR policies are rife with what's called waste.
> ...



You might want to fuck off.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

oldfart said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > You clearly are not familiar with economists! Fucking clearly. The media always cherry picks those handful who yuck it up for FDR and you translate that as a majority. I'm seriously asking you this. Have you even taken an economics class? Because FDR policies are rife with what's called waste.
> ...



Gasbag thinks GDP growth isn't economic growth. 

Just so you understand the level you're dealing with here.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



You're a total fucking idiot. If you're going to taunt and mock; at least be on the fucking money, instead of cockily making fallacious points like a total fucking retard.

GDP is only an economic indicator. It doesn't equate to economic growth if you astronomically increase the debt and/or have large inflation. These are simple concepts that you would know if you took economics instead of just making the laughable claim that you have a degree in economics.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



^^^^^^
Gasbag didn't know how coupons worked either. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-rubber-room/286498-payless-shoes-f-ing-geniuses.html

rofl


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

Who gives a fuck about your trolling, bitch. Some of us move on. Read this link and learn that GDP is not the be-all when it comes to economic analysis:

Does Growth Equal Progress? The Myth of GDP | Demos


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-rubber-room/286498-payless-shoes-f-ing-geniuses.html
> 
> rofl



It's not a big deal that I forgot you could use a coupon the day it expired. I took my licks then and moved on. What are you fucking 10? Get a fucking life, loser.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Who gives a fuck about your trolling, bitch. Some of us move on. Read this link and learn that GDP is not the be-all when it comes to economic analysis:
> 
> Does Growth Equal Progress? The Myth of GDP | Demos



The first line of your link is "GDP equals economic growth"

Hahahahahahaha. 

Contradicts himself. 

Hilarious. 

You're awesome, gasbag.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-rubber-room/286498-payless-shoes-f-ing-geniuses.html
> ...



"Forgot?"

Hahahahahahaha. 

Yeah right. You "forgot."  



Outstanding. 

Why don't you call Oldfart a "retard" while you're at it like you did in that thread.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

Basic economics 101 for gasbag;

1.  Reported GDP is after inflation. 

2.  Rising GDP = economic growth.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Who gives a fuck about your trolling, bitch. Some of us move on. Read this link and learn that GDP is not the be-all when it comes to economic analysis:
> ...



It measures a superficial level of economic growth, it could be said. But, in terms of real growth (IE progress) that is not the case. In fact, it says that right in fucking first line, twat:

"GDP measures economic growth, but is it an accurate measure of progress?"

Do you even know what GDP is? It is the sum of finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period. It's basically a productivity stat. And within terms of a country, positive GDP growth is good while negative GDP growth is bad.

But, there are a myriad of other factors that must be considered when determining if an economy is truly improving. That's all I've ever fucking said. Debt, house prices, wages, unemployment, poverty levels, savings, interest rate, etc are all very relevant in determining the state of any economy. 

The reality is GDP by definition is almost always growing for every country in almost every quarter. Does that mean their economies have astronomically "grown" from one year to the next or one decade to the next? You need to get a fucking clue.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Does it fucking matter whether or I forgot or didn't know? Who give a fuck, loser. Shut the fuck up and get a life, seriously. People move on from stupid shit. You sit there and fixate like someone with down syndrome.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> Basic economics 101 for gasbag;
> 
> 1.  Reported GDP is after inflation.
> 
> 2.  Rising GDP = economic growth.



1. No. GDP is not after inflation. Sometimes/often, it gets adjusted for inflation. But, that is not standard. It is always assumed that it does not account for inflation unless otherwise stated. If you were a real economist and didn't just pretend to be one on a net board, you'd know that.

2. Rising GDP = Asset growth, period.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

rofl

Sometimes it's just best to give guys the rope and let them hang themselves.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

Whatever, dude. I refuted everyone of your lame points. I'm not surprised that you're going back to lame blanket statements after getting shown what's what. That's what ten-year-olds do.


----------



## AmazonTania (Jul 31, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Here is one small "proven fact" for you. The movement away from regulation and the spirit of FDR's reforms, and towards your libertarian philosophy, caused the meltdown of 2008, which nearly brought down the world economy. The "waste" caused by the so called free market has been variously calculated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars. Just one historical event among many. Doesn't that make you want to pull that picture of Ron Paul down from the mantle? It should.



What movement away from regulation would that be? I'm dying to know... And what Free Market would that be? America has never had one since... How old is your country again?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 31, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Here is one small "proven fact" for you. The movement away from regulation and the spirit of FDR's reforms, and towards your libertarian philosophy, caused the meltdown of 2008, which nearly brought down the world economy. The "waste" caused by the so called free market has been variously calculated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars. Just one historical event among many. Doesn't that make you want to pull that picture of Ron Paul down from the mantle? It should.
> ...



It's hillarious that he touts "libertarian" principles as being at the root of the 08 downturn. As a quasi libertarian, I can tell you that libertarians are on the fringe of political influence at best. No, no, no. It's the corruption of Dems and Dem Lites. He's nothing but a propagandist.


----------



## Auteur (Aug 1, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Here is one small "proven fact" for you. The movement away from regulation and the spirit of FDR's reforms, and towards your libertarian philosophy, caused the meltdown of 2008, which nearly brought down the world economy. The "waste" caused by the so called free market has been variously calculated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars. Just one historical event among many. Doesn't that make you want to pull that picture of Ron Paul down from the mantle? It should.
> ...



If that is you in the picture, you are likely too young to remember  1980, the Reagan administration, and the conservative backlash against the progressive policies of the '60s. Government was not the solution, Reagan famously said, it was the problem. After this admission of his incomprehension of the world, deregulation became the fashion of the times, everything from the airline industry, to- notably- the financial industry. Wall Street was allowed to run wild, and it did, creating all manner of get rich quick schemes. What was once a small but respected segment of the economy, that served to provide a flow of capital where it was most needed, then became a giant circus, perhaps 30 percent of the total economy, a self-serving fantasy land where fortunes could be made by sharp operators moving billions about cyberspace, for no other reason than to, well, make one's fortune. If individuals and groups such as pension plans suffered in the process (they did), then too bad. If one goes to the carnival side show, they need to keep their wits about them, and their hands on their wallets. Or so goes the philosophy of the far right, which has carved such a niche for itself in America today.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 1, 2013)

Auteur said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



I remember the 1980's, as well what deregulation means. Deregulation is removing or reducing the amount of state regulations. This did not happen. When you have pages of new regulations added each year, that is not deregulation. If you look through the federal register or US Code, you'll find a few pieces of regulations repealed or taken off the books, but the Government is still added much more on top of the ones they've already replaced. It's really wonder if any of you understand the difference between deregulation, mis-regulation and no-regulation:




Aside from always being wrong, it's my understanding that many love to use the same examples over and over again, such as Regulation Q and Regulation 12 USC 377. Generally, examples which have zero to do with your underlying problems. Yeah, I'm fairly certain that this entire crisis would have been averted if checking accounts were not allowed to receive interest, and if commercial banks were not allowed to deal in securities.

Talk about a red-herring.


----------



## Misty (Aug 1, 2013)

Do you even know what austerity means. 

Cutting the budget and raising taxes to cut deficits.  The fed can not print money forever. Something has got to give. 

Now here in California they've raised the taxes part, now all they have to do is cut the spending and this is where we run into problems. No one wants to cut spending. So we just dig a deeper hole and pay more for the shovels. 







Kimura said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > "Latvia, feted by fans of austerity as the country-that-can and an example for countries like Greece that can&#8217;t, has provided a rare boost to champions of the proposition that pain pays.
> ...


----------



## Misty (Aug 1, 2013)

The government can not support everyone just by taxing "the rich". 

The government has to cut ALL it's wasteful programs of which there are thousands. 

I'm all for EFC.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 1, 2013)

Misty said:


> There is no arguing austerity. Do you even know what austerity means.
> 
> Cutting the budget and raising taxes to cut deficits.



Yes, I know what austerity means. It's a cute way of saying to hell with workers' rights and let's suppress wages as much as humanly possible. 

Austerity measures simply can&#8217;t work in the United States. It destroys capital and labor. If we define this as budget surpluses, which constitutes tax revenues exceeding government spending, this would destroy financial assets in the domestic private sector. You would have to replace these financial assets through running a trade surplus. If the private sector continues to hemorrhage financial assets, we end up in a recession, depression, or credit bubble. It&#8217;s impossible for the Unites States to run a government sector surplus, a trade deficit, and to increase private sector wealth. All sectors of the economy can&#8217;t all simultaneously be in surplus; one sector&#8217;s surplus is another sector&#8217;s deficit.

Savings doesn't generate business investments; it&#8217;s actually the the other way around. Deficits don't reduce national investments or savings if that's what you're getting at. For example, the issuing of US Treasuries doesn't use up X amount of funds which were going to be utilized by the private sector. Investment generates economic saving so to speak.



> The fed can not print money forever. Something has got to give.



Where to do you think the dollar in your pocket comes from? Money creation is ex-nihilo under a fiat system. 



> Now here in California they've raised the taxes part, now all they have to do is cut the spending and this is where we run into problems. No one wants to cut spending. So we just dig a deeper hole and pay more for the shovels.



You can't compare a states, municipalities, or households to the federal government. We have collect the currency before we can use it, whether it's you or I or the state of California. On the other hand, the federal government has to spend the currency before it can use it. The currency issuer plays by a different set of rules - both in a literal and operational sense.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 1, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I will be greatly gratified if you cease reading and attempting to respond to my posts.


----------



## Misty (Aug 1, 2013)

Ex nihilio "from nothing" another FDR fuck up.


----------



## Toro (Aug 1, 2013)

oldfart said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



No way!

I encourage gasbag to respond!

He's hilarious!

Such clueless lack of self-awareness is hard to find.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 1, 2013)

Toro said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



I have to admit, that thread was worth a chuckle. But stop being a bully and pick on someone your own size...

Like... This thing... I dunno:


----------



## Kimura (Aug 1, 2013)

Misty said:


> Ex nihilio "from nothing" another FDR fuck up.



Where do you think the dollars in your wallet come from?


----------



## Toro (Aug 1, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I know. Sometimes, I almost feel bad picking on gasbag.


----------



## Toro (Aug 1, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Ex nihilio "from nothing" another FDR fuck up.
> ...



From riding on one's unicorn to The Magic Money Tree out back, off which you pick and put in your wallet. 

Or at least that's what liberals tell me.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 1, 2013)

Toro said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



Thanks. 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsGYh8AacgY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsGYh8AacgY[/ame]

I was under the impression there was a dollar factory in Bejiing.


----------



## Misty (Aug 1, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Ex nihilio "from nothing" another FDR fuck up.
> ...



Commodity backed money.


----------



## Misty (Aug 1, 2013)

Who saved the banks and GM?  The government printing their invisible toilet papet money? No the taxpayers. The government prints and spends and their back up is the American taxpayer. 

My back up is a commodity. A valued product.


----------



## Toro (Aug 1, 2013)

Misty said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



Like wheat?


----------



## Misty (Aug 1, 2013)

Toro said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I prefer Wheaties. 

The Federal Reserve is a private company owned by banks, with the unlimited power to print money because they've deemed money is worth something because they say it is with nothing to back it up, so what happens when their flat money falls flat?

They use taxpayer money to bail out their cronies and themselves. 

They have it made in the shade.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 1, 2013)

> The Federal Reserve is a private company owned by banks, with the unlimited power to print money because they've deemed money is worth something because they say it is with nothing to back it up, so what happens when their flat money falls flat?



No, it's not. It's a central banking system which consists of private member banks. However, the Board of Governors, which are publicly-appointed and part of the federal government, execute monetary policy.



> _*The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government.  It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.
> 
> As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
> 
> ...



FRB: Who owns the Federal Reserve?



> They use taxpayer money to bail out their cronies and themselves.
> 
> They have it made in the shade.



The don't need "taxpayer money". The FED basically loans base money into existence.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 1, 2013)

Toro said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...


----------



## oldfart (Aug 1, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Actually it's in North Korea and it puts out EXCELLENT work.


----------



## Misty (Aug 1, 2013)

Oops! Kimmie. 

"The Federal Reserve openly admits that it is privately owned.* When it was defending itself*against a Bloomberg request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Reserve stated*unequivocally in court that it*was "not an agency" of the federal government and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act."

10 Things That Every American Should Know About The Federal Reserve


----------



## Misty (Aug 1, 2013)

You are defending the devil. It's so laughable. You have NO idea what you are talking about. 

And the personal attacks against gatsby prove you know nothing.


----------



## Toro (Aug 1, 2013)

Misty said:


> You are defending the devil. It's so laughable. You have NO idea what you are talking about.
> 
> And the personal attacks against gatsby prove you know nothing.



If that is directed at me and you think gasbag is right, you are very ignorant about the topic at hand. No offense.

If not, well, carry on.


----------



## Toro (Aug 1, 2013)

Oh, and considering that virtually all the profits of the Fed are swept to the government, that's a funny definition of private ownership.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 1, 2013)

Toro said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > You are defending the devil. It's so laughable. You have NO idea what you are talking about.
> ...



Not that I care, I don't jump into other debates, but right about what: the Federal Reserve, GDP or the Coupons. I only ask because I have no idea why you are picking on him. I am fulfilling my duties as a concerned spectator...

P.S. You're a very mean guy


----------



## Toro (Aug 1, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



I don't suffer fools gladly, it's true. It's a character flaw. Better here than IRL. 

1.  The Fed is not the devil. I'm not a fan and think they've created a lot of damage, but the conspiracy theories about the Fed are as idiotic as the twoofer and birfer theories. There is so much misinformation. 

2.  Most of what gasbag said in our exchange is just flat out wrong. 

3.  If someone who knows little (gasbag) is going to call someone who knows a lot (oldfart) an idiot hack with an agenda and to fuck off, then don't be surprised if he gets his own idiocy thrown back at him (coupons). 

Have a nice day, and happy trading! I hope you cut your losses in your SPY short from a month ago.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 1, 2013)

Toro said:


> Oh, and considering that virtually all the profits of the Fed are swept to the government, that's a funny definition of private ownership.



Bingo. Any and all profits are remitted to the Treasury.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 1, 2013)

Misty said:


> Oops! Kimmie.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve openly admits that it is privately owned.* When it was defending itself*against a Bloomberg request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Reserve stated*unequivocally in court that it*was "not an agency" of the federal government and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act."
> 
> 10 Things That Every American Should Know About The Federal Reserve



It's independent within the government. Congress can get the info ASAP if they so desire. It's that simple, but they lack the political will. 

LOL @ Economic Collapse Blog. Whoever wrote that article has no clue about the Federal Reserve, nor how our monetary system operates. It's like Ron Paul and gold bug quackery with a splash of conspiracy theory.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 1, 2013)

Toro said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



I'm aware of your positions on certain things. Guess I wasn't really paying attention to the full exchange. Never really you lash out on anyone you've disagreed with. And I know we disagree but we are usually okay (although you do tend to single me out on occasion). I guess if someone is being hostile then it can't be helped. Just wanted to know all the facts before artibarity jumping in on a subject.



> Have a nice day, and happy trading! I hope you cut your losses in your SPY short from a month ago.



Yeah, that's been a rough one. When you can come up with a VXX product that that can print unlimited shares to be shorted bringing volatility down, what a head spin...


----------



## Toro (Aug 1, 2013)

For me, when I've shorted for profit successfully, there are three factors

1.  It's overvalued
2.  It's technically breaking down
3.  Fundamentals are deteriorating or are about to deteriorate

When I've lost money shorting, one of those things is usually missing.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 1, 2013)

Shorting is interesting, and yet dangerous. I normally buy puts instead of shorting, unless I have a really large amount of capital to put up as a margin. Your shorting strategy is almost identical to mine, except I look for other things like a high accounts receivable and a switching of auditors. But a trending market decay and restructuring can be good for being long of ETF's. Even if the fundamentals are bad, it only hurts the ETF in a non trending, volatile market.

When dealing with my exposure with commodities, I don't short. Prices generally surge outside of my favor, and then some wacko may decide to accept the physical commodity, instead of the cash from a winning position just to spite me.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 1, 2013)

Toro said:


> 2.  Most of what gasbag said in our exchange is just flat out wrong.



Everything I said was spot on. You make blanket denial statements b/c you can't handle real debate. You're here to troll, not debate.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 1, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



No, he's a troll. He uses the same tired jabs against me. That coupon thing and the fed thing, he's led with in no less that a score of trolling sessions. It's pretty sad really. I guess that's the down syndrome talking.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 1, 2013)

Toro said:


> Oh, and considering that virtually all the profits of the Fed are swept to the government, that's a funny definition of private ownership.



You're a real genius. The Fed is a Wall Street cartel so that virtually all profits can be swept to the government? Do you even listen to yourself?


----------



## Toro (Aug 1, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > 2.  Most of what gasbag said in our exchange is just flat out wrong.
> ...



Gasbag, most everything you wrote is wrong.  I'd take the time to refute it if I thought you'd understand it.


----------



## Toro (Aug 1, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and considering that virtually all the profits of the Fed are swept to the government, that's a funny definition of private ownership.
> ...



^^^^^^^^
This is what I mean about not understanding it.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 1, 2013)

Toro said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Well  you're defiant and have low comprehension to clarify the reality.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 1, 2013)

Toro said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



^^^^^^^^

This what I mean about blanket denials because you can't debate points. You have the mind of a ten-year-old.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 7, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...


Well, it is true that if anyone should know what it is like to not understand economics, it would be you.  But you see, me poor ignorant clown, that is your opinion.  And you are starting to see how much people who DO understand economics a bit value your opinion.  Like me, they do so value your opinion.  
Back to the bat shit crazy con web sites for you, now.  See if you can find some more stupid statements to post.  But for my part, I am going to simply ignore you.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 7, 2013)

^^^

You willfully said a whole lot of nothing. This thread is a joke. I've proven that it was started as a propaganda piece by a libtard that knows nothing about economics. And alas, that is the world we live in now.


----------



## Grandma (Aug 7, 2013)

Except that the austerity programs sent the UK into triple-dip recession, 5 other countries are virtually bankrupt, eastern Europe's post-soviet recovery has been crushed, and Germany owns just about everything.

Gatsby, if you're going to bullshit post, make sure those reading your posts aren't more familiar with the subject matter than you are.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 7, 2013)

Grandma said:


> Except that the austerity programs sent the UK into triple-dip recession, 5 other countries are virtually bankrupt, eastern Europe's post-soviet recovery has been crushed, and Germany owns just about everything.
> 
> Gatsby, if you're going to bullshit post, make sure those reading your posts aren't more familiar with the subject matter than you are.



You're a fucking moron that doesn't know shit; let alone know more than me.

Triple dip recessions? I sincerely doubt it and challenge you to document your bull shit. But, you can't. 

Secondly, you don't go on the verge of bankruptcy with decades of corruption and thne think it's all going to be okay the next quarter. It's not. All of these nations have huge debts hanging over their heads and inept regulations gridlocking their systems.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 7, 2013)

Grandma said:


> Except that the austerity programs sent the UK into triple-dip recession, 5 other countries are virtually bankrupt, eastern Europe's post-soviet recovery has been crushed, and Germany owns just about everything.
> 
> Gatsby, if you're going to bullshit post, make sure those reading your posts aren't more familiar with the subject matter than you are.


IMPOSSIBLE.  NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, knows less about economics than Gatsby.  He has that honor OWNED.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 7, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > Except that the austerity programs sent the UK into triple-dip recession, 5 other countries are virtually bankrupt, eastern Europe's post-soviet recovery has been crushed, and Germany owns just about everything.
> ...



When did "austerity" in Europe take place?  What's amusing to me is that progressives now point to something that DIDN'T happen as "proof" that doing it doesn't work!


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 7, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > Except that the austerity programs sent the UK into triple-dip recession, 5 other countries are virtually bankrupt, eastern Europe's post-soviet recovery has been crushed, and Germany owns just about everything.
> ...



And NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, "pretends" to know more about economics than Rshermr!  He's the Tommy Flanagan of the US Message Board.  Yeah, that's the ticket!!!


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 7, 2013)

Well, maybe someone knows equally little about economics.  Almost forgot.  And equally pre disposed at leading with unsupported and unsupportable insults.  What a combination!!!


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Grandma said:
> ...



Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece have all had significant budget cuts.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 7, 2013)

Toro said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > When did "austerity" in Europe take place?  What's amusing to me is that progressives now point to something that DIDN'T happen as "proof" that doing it doesn't work!
> ...



This is the problem with the austerity hawks.  They have a definition of austerity which no nation will adopt and therefore avoid responsibility for the disastrous results of the policies they advocate.  It's not true austerity unless the entire public deficit is erased, the central bank is dismantled and the nation returns to the gold standard, and taxes are lowered.  If nations like Ireland follow their program and it seems to work for a while, they claim success.  When it turns out that the program isn't working at all (in Ireland's case because it's a small economy and there is a peculiarity in its pharma export business related to tax avoidance that inflates GDP figures), then they claim austerity was never really tried.  

Among other things this kind of argument is intellectually dishonest and anyone making it is doing so in bad faith.  Liberals used to do the same thing; if a poverty program didn't work it was never because it was badly structured, it was because we didn't fund it adequately.  Now it's conservatives who think that any problem can be solved by defunding or privatizing it.


----------



## Misty (Aug 7, 2013)

Toro said:


> Oh, and considering that virtually all the profits of the Fed are swept to the government, that's a funny definition of private ownership.



Hey the Fed claimed themselves privately owned. I guess that only matters when it helps them hide their crimes.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 7, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Well, the problem with the stimulus doves is that their idea of austerity is not being fiscally reckless fast enough. How is that not intellectually dishonest? In austerity is defined as reducing government spending. This... did...not... happen... The only EU counties which have really made efforts to cut government spending are Hungary  Portugal, Ireland and Greece. Other than those countries, that is is. Expenditures have either increased or barely budged for the rest.

Portugal's expenditures have merely tapered off from it's 2010 levels, now government spending is at a two year low. Greece Spending is only at a three year low. The rate at which their economy is producing, both of these nations have increased spending to more than 50%, so I don't know how austere that is suppose to be

Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table

As for Ireland, it's not in picture perfect health, but it's one of the better preforming EU nations with it's labour force rising and tops the EU third-level education attainment and has one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the EU of 11% (which is an enormous problem regarding the EU right now).

No recovery is painless, but some makes more sense than others.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 7, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Problem with the data is obvious.  You must be aware of it.  When gnp drops, as it does when the ue rate goes up, as it did in those countries in europe where austerity was tried, and outlays are not reduced enough, then you have a real possibility of having increasing expenditures as a percentage of gnp.  Same problem that the right is having trying to show that austerity is not happening.  It is, it is causing a decline in gnp, and you have a higher percent of expenditures to gnp.  
Please try to find a study that suggests that austerity has not occurred, then we can examine the premice.  Simple graphs or stats showing expenditures as a percentage prove NOTHING.  OBVIOUSLY.  

So, for instance, if your little country had gnp of $100B, but after austerity measures it had gnp $75B, but expenditures dropped by 15%, then according to your analysis, austerity did not happen.  Which is, as has been shown numerous times, exactly what the right is saying.  Just does not pass the giggle test.
So, again, where is it that austerity is working???


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 7, 2013)

Toro said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



"significant"?  Is that when you don't spend *twice* what you're taking in?  You guys are like an alcoholic that goes from drinking two bottles of vodka a day to one and a half and then says the whole "sobriety" thing doesn't work.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 7, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



I believe that my post also took  a swipe at liberals for doing the equivalent.  Both sides have a tendency to support policy measures and then if they fail claim the failure is because they do not go far enough.  The proper time to make that argument is before the policy is implemented.  Whether stimulus or austerity, you either own the program or you don't, before you have results.  

So you believe that austerity has been tried in Hungary, Ireland, Portugal and Greece?  But you don't want to claim Britain, Iceland, Latvia, Italy, or Spain?  Just want to keep my scorecard straight.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 7, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Problem with the data is obvious.  You must be aware of it.  When gnp drops, as it does when the ue rate goes up, as it did in those countries in europe where austerity was tried, and outlays are not reduced enough, then you have a real possibility of having increasing expenditures as a percentage of gnp.  Same problem that the right is having trying to show that austerity is not happening.  It is, it is causing a decline in gnp, and you have a higher percent of expenditures to gnp.



No, GDP drops when either Consumption, Investment or Net Exports drop. That's basic economics. You somehow forgot that Government Expenditures is a component of GDP. Which may be apparent by your use of the term 'GNP,' but I digress. Government as a percentage of GDP details how large Public Sector spending is as a percentage of your economy. If this component decreases, the GDP decreases as well if the other components do no pick up the slack. If your public sector consumption is increasingly larger and larger, this means that Government Spending is driving your economy. How exactly can it be austerity if Government Spending is driving your economy? It can't.

In Greece Government Final Consumption Expenditures are falling at a rate of -4.3% Y/Y, but the economy is contracting at a rate of -4.7% Y/Y. Meaning, Government Spending is lagging behind the contraction. It can't be driving it. Especially since you have already seen the small upticks in government spending. Private spending is decreasing by the same rate as government spending. The only different is that you have had Q/Q increases in government spending, while you've had a consistent Q/Q decrease in private spending.

And Greece is just one example. There may be other things driving it's decline, such as gross fixed capital formation. This has a -16.2% Y/Y decrease in this area, 4 times the effect consumption has on the economy. But it's pretty easy to see that Government spending isn't the catalyst. It has the lowest drop of any component of Greece's GDP. Aside from exports, tt's probably the only thing driving it's economy right about now.



> Please try to find a study that suggests that austerity has not occurred, then we can examine the premice.  Simple graphs or stats showing expenditures as a percentage prove NOTHING.  OBVIOUSLY.



First off,I can't disprove a negative. That a logic fallacy. Secondly the data wasn't for you, and third a study is not required. The definition of what austerity is quite clear and easy for everyone to understand. The only thing anyone needs to look at are primary sourced statistics. The data is pretty easy to understand if you know what you are doing. Just because you cannot understand the data doesn't mean the data is wrong.



> So, for instance, if your little country had gnp of $100B, but after austerity measures it had gnp $75B, but expenditures dropped by 15%, then according to your analysis, austerity did not happen.  Which is, as has been shown numerous times, exactly what the right is saying.  Just does not pass the giggle test.



Of course it doesn't, because that doesn't make sense, and it's also not funny.



> So, again, where is it that austerity is working???



I've already named names.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 7, 2013)

oldfart said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



There really is nothing to own if the policy you advocate isn't implemented close or exact the way you would have liked it to be. Leninst-Marxist don't refer to the the Soviet Union as Communism. Free Market economist don't refer to America has a Free Market. I wouldn't refer to government spending program which is 4% percent of GDP as stimulus. So why exactly do we call 3% spending cuts as austerity? Any other point in history, it would have not been seen as austere. It would have been just another plan to reduce the deficit and government spending. While you can say that by definition, that is austerity, then that would generally make the term subjective. 



> So you believe that austerity has been tried in Hungary, Ireland, Portugal and Greece?  But you don't want to claim Britain, Iceland, Latvia, Italy, or Spain?  Just want to keep my scorecard straight.



Britain & Italy have had their government expenditures increase from at least 2008 - 2009. That's not very austere. Latvia expenditures have barely budged and particularly stagnant, but that won't stop people from calling it austerity. Spain had the largest budget deficit in the EU like 5 months ago and their expenditures have increased as well. Not to mention Moody's has downgraded the UK. I don't really see where the austerity is in these places.

It's possible Iceland may have had some. Spending was at an all-time high in 2008. It tapered off some and then started to increase again.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 7, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > Except that the austerity programs sent the UK into triple-dip recession, 5 other countries are virtually bankrupt, eastern Europe's post-soviet recovery has been crushed, and Germany owns just about everything.
> ...



Yup. Just more hit and run posting from [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION]


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2013)

There was no triple-dip recession in the UK, though that's what people were fearing several months ago. 

It was thought that the UK had a double-dip recession, and official figures originally showed this to be the case.  However, official figures have been revised to show that the UK did not enter into a double-dip recession.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 7, 2013)

Official figures show that a meteorite didn't hit us after the sequester too. UK & US are just dodging bullets left and right.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 7, 2013)

> No, GDP drops when either Consumption, Investment or Net Exports drop. That's basic economics. You somehow forgot that Government Expenditures is a component of GDP.


 No, I did not.  





> Government as a percentage of GDP details how large Public Sector spending is as a percentage of your economy. If this component decreases, the GDP decreases as well if the other components do no pick up the slack.


Obviously.



> If your public sector consumption is increasingly larger and larger, this means that Government Spending is driving your economy. How exactly can it be austerity if Government Spending is driving your economy? It can't.


Sorry.  Gov spending can increase as a percentage of gdp even though it is decreasing.  Easily.  Way to simple to have to explain.  You must know how that is possible.  See another example below.



> In Greece Government Final Consumption Expenditures are falling at a rate of -4.3% Y/Y, but the economy is contracting at a rate of -4.7% Y/Y. Meaning, Government Spending is lagging behind the contraction. It can't be driving it. Especially since you have already seen the small upticks in government spending. Private spending is decreasing by the same rate as government spending. The only different is that you have had Q/Q increases in government spending, while you've had a consistent Q/Q decrease in private spending.
> 
> And Greece is just one example. There may be other things driving it's decline, such as gross fixed capital formation. This has a -16.2% Y/Y decrease in this area, 4 times the effect consumption has on the economy. But it's pretty easy to see that Government spending isn't the catalyst. It has the lowest drop of any component of Greece's GDP. Aside from exports, tt's probably the only thing driving it's economy right about now.


Yup.  Greece is a mess.  Probably the worst of all the eu countries.  Funny how it is the one always singled out by conservatives.  Not even close to one of the largest.  But you are misleading, again.  Gov spending in greece decreased in an absolute sense, but unemployment and private spending decreased more.  So, see the example below.  
So, the question is, how is austerity working there??  Or are you saying that there has been no austerity in Greece???  

Quote:
Please try to find a study that suggests that austerity has not occurred, then we can examine the premice. Simple graphs or stats showing expenditures as a percentage prove NOTHING. OBVIOUSLY.



> First off,I can't disprove a negative.That a logic fallacy.


  Finding a study that shows that austerity is working is NOT DISPROVING A NEGATIVE.  Where did that one come from.  It is finding a study of a european country where austerity is found to have worked.   





> Secondly the data wasn't for you,


Then I would suggest you not post it in a public forum.  Do you know some rules that I do not???  





> and third a study is not required. The definition of what austerity is quite clear and easy for everyone to understand. The only thing anyone needs to look at are primary sourced statistics. The data is pretty easy to understand if you know what you are doing. Just because you cannot understand the data doesn't mean the data is wrong.


   Nice to see you are so high on yourself, expecially when you have proven nothing.  See below.

Example 2 for Amazon:  So if the GDP was $100B, and the portion of that $100B that was gov spending was $30B, and the following year austerity measures brought gov spending to $20B, and the private sector dropped to $40B, and new gdp was $60B, then gov expenditures as a percentage of gdp just went from 30% to 33%.  So, through austerity the gov spending decreased by $10B, but gov spending as a percentage of gdp increased by 3%.  Which was the point I was making in my last post.  Get it yet???  Talking about gov expenditures as a percentage of gdp, or gnp for that matter, is of no real value.  Which is why, when you look out there, you will find out that your analysis leaves you pretty much by yourself, except among the conservative web sites, where I suspect your ideas came from.
What is left out is employment.  If all you care about is percentages of gdp, then you could say by your unique definition of austerity, that it did not exist in this case.  However, in the real world, you are incorrect.  Spending did decrease substantially, and in the real examples, unemployment went up greatly.  

Which is why I asked you if you had a study showing that austerity was working.  Obviously, it would be difficult for you.  


Quote:
So, for instance, if your little country had gnp of $100B, but after austerity measures it had gnp $75B, but expenditures dropped by 15%, then according to your analysis, austerity did not happen. Which is, as has been shown numerous times, exactly what the right is saying. Just does not pass the giggle test.


> Of course it doesn't, because that doesn't make sense, and it's also not funny.


See above, and you will understand your major malfunction.  Indeed, austerity can and does exist while spending becomes a bigger percentage of gdp.  If you can not yet understand it, that would be because you are either incapable of understanding basic math, which I do not believe, or simply trying to redefine austerity.  

Quote:
So, again, where is it that austerity is working???


> I've already named names.


I missed that.  So, I assume you named none.

You are trying to show that austerity has not occurred by showing percentages.  Just as a number of far right conservative web sites are doing.  That has been debunked by impartial sites (you know, the ones you do not read).  And you are now posting nonsensical data.  If you were in the rational world, and did a simple google search, you would find a whole lot of very economically capable folks who have proven your hypothesis wrong.  And yes, I know, you do not read that stuff, because you draw your own graphs.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 7, 2013)

Toro said:


> There was no triple-dip recession in the UK, though that's what people were fearing several months ago.
> 
> It was thought that the UK had a double-dip recession, and official figures originally showed this to be the case.  However, official figures have been revised to show that the UK did not enter into a double-dip recession.



Even the term double dip recession is pretty liberal given that there was about four years in between recessions and given the fact that the second recession was more like an aftershock than a total downturn like the first recession.

But, the reality is that massive debt and the devaluation of currency is only going to create more severe and frequent recessions. It's only the hack economists who are ignoring that reality.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 7, 2013)

Rash: Still spouting your propaganda? All those assertions and no hard data listed to support it?


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 7, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> No, I did not.  Which may be apparent by your use of the term 'GNP,' but I digress.



I never used it, you did. Stop starting off your responses with a lie.



Rshermr said:


> Problem with the data is obvious.  You must be aware of it.  When *gnp* drops, as it does when the ue rate goes up, as it did in those countries in europe where austerity was tried, and outlays are not reduced enough, then you have a real possibility of having increasing expenditures as a percentage of *gnp*.  Same problem that the right is having trying to show that austerity is not happening.  It is, it is causing a decline in *gnp*, and you have a higher percent of expenditures to *gnp*.





> Obviously.



Not to you. You thought it was the unemployment rate which dropped GDP.



> Right.  So, is there a point there???



The point is, if Government Spending is driving your economy, there is no austerity, as the point of austerity is to free up resources in the economy. As a result of these resources which has been freed up, Private Consumption, Investment and/or Exports generally becomes the new driver. This is not what is happening. These other components are falling faster than Government Spending is.

Get it now?



> Yup.  Greece is a mess.  Probably the worst of all the eu countries.  Funny how it is the one always singled out by conservatives.  Not even close to one of the largest.  So, the question is, how is austerity working there??  Or are you saying that there has been no austerity in Greece???



Wow, and it only took you two responses to catch on.



> Finding a study that shows that austerity is working is NOT DISPROVING A NEGATIVE.  Where did that one come from.  It is finding a study of a european country where austerity is found to have worked.



Proof of something that does NOT exist or is NOT happening is disproving a negative. It's called 'evidence of absence.' That's an logical fallacy, and I don't play that game.

Evidence of absence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Then I would suggest you not post it in a public forum.  Do you know some rules that I do not???



I'm following the formal rules or debate, which are generally rules followed by rational and logical people. You don't have to play by the same rules, but this is generally the reason why I my best to ignore you. Aside from the fact that I would rather debate someone challenging. 



> Got it.  So if the GDP was $100B, and the portion of that $100B that was gov spending was $30B, and the following year austerity measures brought gov spending to $20B, and the private sector dropped to $40B, and new gdp was $60B, then gov expenditures as a percentage of gdp just went from 30% to 33%.  So, through austerity the gov spending decreased by $10B, but gov spending as a percentage of gdp increased by 3%.  Which was the point I was making in my last post.  Get it yet???  Talking about gov expenditures as a percentage of gdp, or gnp for that matter, is of no real value.  Which is why, when you look out there, you will find out that your analysis leaves you pretty much by yourself, except among the conservative web sites, where I suspect your ideas came from.



Government expenditures IS a real value of GDP. Especially when it's used as a percentage of GDP. There is no real value when you discuss it in nominal absolute terms. And your own numbers doesn't make any sense. Why would the new GDP go from $100B to $60B, if government spending only dropped $10B (30 - 20 Billion by your scenario) and the private sector dropped to $40B?

By your own scenario, GDP COULDN'T have been $100B originally and couldn't have fallen by that much. Where is the investment spending? Where are the net exports? Are you suggesting that Government Spending and Private Sector Spending are the only components in your failure of an economy? And don't try to say that you kept it simple by using only two components. It really just enhances your deficiencies...

Let's try using real numbers, okay?



> What is left out is employment.  If all you care about is percentages of gdp, then you could say by your unique definition of austerity, that it did not exist in this case.  However, in the real world, you are incorrect.  Spending did decrease substantially, and in the real examples, unemployment went up greatly.



Like I said, -4.3% Y/Y drop in spending is not substantial. And Government spending has increased/decrease on and off. The unemployment is really irrelevant. Not sure why you decided to bring it up.



> Which is why I asked you if you had a study showing that austerity was working.  Obviously, it would be difficult for you.



First you asked me to show a study showing these countries have not implemented austerity. Now you want me to present of study showing it has worked?

Choose one. It really doesn't matter what you choose because a study is not required.

You can present one if you like. Then I'll debunk it like I always do.



> See above, and you will understand your major malfunction.  Indeed, austerity can and does exist while spending becomes a bigger percentage of gdp.  If you can not yet understand it, that would be because you are either incapable of understanding basic math, which I do not believe, or simply trying to redefine austerity.



I haven't redefined it at all. In many EU countries cases, GDP is contracting. This means everything is contracting. All the components of GDP is falling; however, other parts of the economy is falling faster than government spending. This is why government spending is a larger percentage of GDP, despite the fact that spending has decreased some.

It doesn't mean that they're having austerity. It just means that their economy is shrinking. That's all. The government spending still has not tapered off as much as investments and exports. The only component which is in lock step with Government Spending is Private Sector spending in the case of Greece.



> I missed that.  So, I assume you named none.



You can assume all you like.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 7, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > No, I did not.  Which may be apparent by your use of the term 'GNP,' but I digress.
> ...


Wow.  That was a completely irrational post.  You misquoted me.  On a couple of occasions.  And made statements that only you will understand.  
So, what you have said is that austerity does not exist in europe.  Which is really, really stupid.  but then, I could go back and get your statement of gas being distilled in oil tankers, and saying it like I was obvioulsy stupid not to know that.  
Now I remember why I put you on ignore.  Jesus, that was a lot of drivel.  In my humble, but correct, opinion.

So, being the economic expert that you are, and having a large staff of economists working for you, I should probably listen to the drivel.  But of course, there is just you, and a few bat shit crazy con sources that you would quote.  Or, I could listen to hundreds of economists who have actually been studying the subject.  I think the choice is obvious.  And besides, I prefer to deal with people that have some level of integrity.  
Austerity is not working in europe (and does indeed exist):
Austerity's Failure in Greece: Time to Think the Unthinkable?
Yes, Europe really is in the throes of austerity
Europe rethinks austerity - Los Angeles Times
German election will kill Europe austerity: Blackstone's Studzinski
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/05/the-end-of-austerity-in-europe.htmlell me, Todd.  Is ignorance bliss???
Charlemagne: After austerity, what? | The Economist
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo......austerity-in-europe/.../gIQAQ1NsAU_blog.ht.
» Deepening Economic Crisis: Austerity Policies Heighten National Divisions throughout Europe Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Thousands rally against European austerity on May Day | Reuters
PressTV - Only Germany?s Merkel backs austerity in Europe: French minister
Anti-austerity forces in Europe raise their voices - Darrell Delamaide's Political Capital - MarketWatch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-203209
Why is austerity so unpopular in Europe? Because it?s not working. - The Washington Post
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...owne/europe-austerity-measures_b_1536318.html
Austerity Not Working in Europe: Analyst - CNBC
Austerity is not working - Time for a social investment pact - Citizens For Europe
The lesson for Obama of Europe's failed austerity | Robert Reich | Business | theguardian.com
And on, and on, and on.  I could post hundreds.  And all impartial sources.  No nut case conservative or liberal sources.  And, if you look at a few, you will find they have what you do not:  A great deal of economic background with studies and facts determined to prove the truth, not an agenda.  
Sorry, me girl.  What you want folks to believe is, technically, STUPID.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 7, 2013)

Thanks for spamming your bookmarks. Next time make cogent points and properly cite them.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 7, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that my post also took  a swipe at liberals for doing the equivalent.  Both sides have a tendency to support policy measures and then if they fail claim the failure is because they do not go far enough.  The proper time to make that argument is before the policy is implemented.  Whether stimulus or austerity, you either own the program or you don't, before you have results.
> ...



I'm trying hard to agree with you.  But you seem to be making the argument that only extreme programs count.  If no nation has tried true austerity or true stimulus, then we have no basis for considering either a success or failure.  

My point was that its bad form to wait to see how things turn out to decide if a program meets the purity test.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 7, 2013)

oldfart said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



That's the point she's making. Superficial cuts or increases don't constitute substantial changes or warrant the labels except for perhaps on a superficial basis. A true 'austerity' to me would start at a 20 percent cut. Then and only then would there be real pressure to cut waste and produce savings.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 7, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Wow.  That was a completely irrational post.  You misquoted me.  On a couple of occasions.  And made statements that only you will understand.
> So, what you have said is that austerity does not exist in europe.  Which is really, really stupid.  but then, I could go back and get your statement of gas being distilled in oil tankers, and saying it like I was obvioulsy stupid not to know that.
> Now I remember why I put you on ignore.  Jesus, that was a lot of drivel.  In my humble, but correct, opinion.
> 
> ...



So not only did you decide not to respond to a single thing I've said, you've decided to unleash every single thing you've bookmarked about austerity. I also thought that you wanted studies, not blogs/articles. Good to know that your debating standards can turn on a dime. Weren't you in another thread chastising me about the proper use of a source? Nothing hypocritical about that at all...

Look, I don't care what you use as a source. I really don't. But what is boring about debating you is that you can't even rely on your own 'so-called self-proclaimed economic knowledge.' You need the help of a third party to guide you. I can't debunk the person who wrote the article. And refuting sources with another source is boring...

You're free to try again when you possess a better understanding of the topic, but this was an utter waste of time...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 7, 2013)

^^^

LOL. This was never about her understanding of the topic. I already debunked her propaganda a while back.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 7, 2013)

Her? Well, that makes things a tad clearer....


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 7, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.  That was a completely irrational post.  You misquoted me.  On a couple of occasions.  And made statements that only you will understand.
> ...


Sorry.  You do not want to admit that austerity is being tried in europe.  The list I gave you is not bookmarked.  Just a list from google.  So, you believe in sources that support your idea of higher ue numbers, even from a rag like the ny post.  But you do not bother to look at the obvious.  The weight of the data is quite profound.  So, you do not choose to look at it.  Nothing I can do to help that.  But, me dear, your assertion that if the percentage of gdp represented by gov spending goes up, it proves that austerity does not exist, is just plain stupid.  It is untrue by definition.  If you understand basic math.  
And your assertion that I said unemployment was what caused gdp to decrease was untrue.  What I said was that ue is a major reason why austerity will not and can not succeed.  Because regardless of what gdp does, unemployment will cause the program to fail.  People will not continue to put up with increasing unemployment.  
Here is the problem, amazon.  You do not make an effort at being an honest broker.  You have an obvious agenda.  And you post complete drivel as though it is true.  Which is why I chose to ignore most of your last post.  So, you can say all you want what you will about your brilliant analysis of data and not needing sources to back you up.  You see, me dear, only you believe that.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 7, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.  That was a completely irrational post.  You misquoted me.  On a couple of occasions.  And made statements that only you will understand.
> ...


Sorry.  You do not want to admit that austerity is being tried in europe.  The list I gave you is not bookmarked.  Just a list from google.  So, you believe in sources that support your idea of higher ue numbers, even from a rag like the ny post.  But you do not bother to look at the obvious.  The weight of the data is quite profound.  So, you do not choose to look at it.  Nothing I can do to help that.  But, me dear, your assertion that if the percentage of gdp represented by gov spending goes up, it proves that austerity does not exist, is just plain stupid.  It is untrue by definition.  If you understand basic math.  
And your assertion that I said unemployment was what caused gdp to decrease was untrue.  What I said was that ue is a major reason why austerity will not and can not succeed.  Because regardless of what gdp does, unemployment will cause the program to fail.  People will not continue to put up with increasing unemployment.  
Here is the problem, amazon.  You do not make an effort at being an honest broker.  You have an obvious agenda.  And you post complete drivel as though it is true.  Which is why I chose to ignore most of your last post.  So, you can say what you will about your brilliant analysis of data and not needing sources to back you up.  You see, me dear, only you believe that.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 7, 2013)

oldfart said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



My point is that it's subjective. Everyone has their idea of what is sufficient enough and what is not. Using historical examples of Austerity, the EU isn't experiencing anywhere near those kinds of levels. I believe this is the idea austerity hawks are trying to get across. Only the extreme are advocating for lights out at the central government.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 7, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I don't really have to admit it. I've already shown why it's not. Sure, you may have some EU states which are or have implemented it, but they are part of a tiny minority. To say the EU as a whole has implemented it would be a lie.

Also, what does a quote I used from the NY post have to do with anything?



> But you do not bother to look at the obvious.  The weight of the data is quite profound.  So, you do not choose to look at it.  Nothing I can do to help that.  But, me dear, your assertion that if the percentage of gdp represented by gov spending goes up, it proves that austerity does not exist, is just plain stupid.  It is untrue by definition.  If you understand basic math.



That is not my assertion. If you didn't give up during the third round, you'd understand what the assertion is.

The assertion is that *these economies are contracting*. All components of GDP either falls or becomes worse (in the case of a current account balance) when the economy shrinks. And I've already shown using Private/Government Final Consumption expenditures, as well as Gross Fixed Capital Formation that Government spending is not driving the contraction. It is lagging behind the contraction, as other components of GDP is shrinking faster than government spending. I have also already explained because these components of GDP are shrinking faster than Government Spending, Government Spending is now larger as a percentage of GDP, despite the fact that Government Spending is falling too.

I don't know why you consider a shrinking economy austerity, but that's never been the premise before. Most components either fall or remain stagnant when an economy shrinks. 



> And your assertion that I said unemployment was what caused gdp to decrease was untrue.  What I said was that ue is a major reason why austerity will not and can not succeed.  Because regardless of what gdp does, unemployment will cause the program to fail.  People will not continue to put up with increasing unemployment.



Fine. Whatever. You didn't say it. I still do not understand why relation Unemployment has with Austerity. Unemployment will not magically become better simply because you have austerity. No one said austerity was painless.  



> Here is the problem, amazon.  You do not make an effort at being an honest broker.  You have an obvious agenda.  And you post complete drivel as though it is true.  Which is why I chose to ignore most of your last post.  So, you can say all you want what you will about your brilliant analysis of data and not needing sources to back you up.  You see, me dear, only you believe that.



My agenda is to make money. I do not see why this is wrong. And regardless of whatever sources I use, you will find a way to bitch about them like you always do. So I really don't take the time to present it. I offered the Eurostat numbers and that is all the numbers I really need.

Also, my analysis is pretty top notch. Most of all, it's my own thoughts. Not the thoughts from another blogger or economist.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 7, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


Jesus.  Another Tanya moment.  You do not see what unemployment has to do with austerity.  Which proves why no one should listen to you.  You are simply way to ignorant.
And it is great to know that your opinion of your analysis is that it is top notch.  Funny.  But great to know, I guess.  Now, you may note that your analysis differs from the vast majority of others analyzing austerity.  But what the hell. I am sure you  believe someone is buying what you are saying.  Delusional though you may be.  And, yes, you have said before how you do not respect economists.  So, good for you.  And by the way, you still need to find out what a blog is.  As I recall, the sources I provided were NOT blogs.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 7, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I'm talking about austerity. Not the effects austerity has. I really don't understand why you brought it up in the first place.



> And it is great to know that your opinion of your analysis is that it is top notch.  Funny.  But great to know, I guess.  Now, you may note that your analysis differs from the vast majority of others analyzing austerity.  But what the hell. I am sure you  believe someone is buying what you are saying.



I probably am. Then again, I probably am not. I can't please everyone.



> Delusional though you may be.  And, yes, you have said before how you do not respect economists.



Show me where I have said this...



> So, good for you.  And by the way, you still need to find out what a blog is.  As I recall, the sources I provided were NOT blogs.



Actually, you did:





So calculated risk is not a blog?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 7, 2013)

Good for you.  You found one. So now go look up "as I recall."  Most would understand that it meant I was not sure.  Sorry you are to ignorant to understand the meaning of the term.  Then look up petty.  Best of luck on that.
By the way, any source that I used is much more accepted than the ny post.  Jesus, sometimes I just wonder.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 7, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Good for you.  You found one. So now go look up "as I recall."  Most would understand that it meant I was not sure.  Sorry you are to ignorant to understand the meaning of the term.  Then look up petty.  Best of luck on that.
> By the way, any source that I used is much more accepted than the ny post.  Jesus, sometimes I just wonder.



Either way, you spammed out links. Anyhow, you've only engaged in pseudo-economics at best to this point.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 7, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Good for you.  You found one. So now go look up "as I recall."  Most would understand that it meant I was not sure.  Sorry you are to ignorant to understand the meaning of the term.  Then look up petty.  Best of luck on that.
> ...


that would be your opinion. And you know how much I, and pretty much everyone else, values your opinion.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 7, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Good for you.  You found one. So now go look up "as I recall."  Most would understand that it meant I was not sure.  Sorry you are to ignorant to understand the meaning of the term.  Then look up petty.  Best of luck on that.



Why would I do that? It's not my fault you are sloppy in your research. Perhaps it would be better if you didn't use Google as an economic textbook while presenting anything that just happened to have the word 'austerity' in it.

Otherwise, I don't fault you. The Calculated Risk blog actually has some good stuff in it.



> By the way, any source that I used is much more accepted than the ny post.  Jesus, sometimes I just wonder.



That's fine. It still does not take away anything behind the validity of the article.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 7, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I also know your lack of regard for reality and real economics.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 7, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


That would be impossible.  Obviously.  Because you know precisely NOTHING.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 8, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Good for you.  You found one. So now go look up "as I recall."  Most would understand that it meant I was not sure.  Sorry you are to ignorant to understand the meaning of the term.  Then look up petty.  Best of luck on that.
> ...



Rshermr uses Google because he doesn't know very much about economics...which is amazing since it wasn't only his major in college but he says he taught the subject at the college level.  If you took away his ability to Google things old Rshermr would be as clueless as Barry without a teleprompter.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 8, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Oh-uh-ho! How am I ever going to recover?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 8, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



He's not an econ major. I know when I'm talking to an economics major. He and Toro have made up fake credentials online and it's easy to spot!


----------



## Toro (Aug 8, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



^^^^^^^^^^
Thinks GDP growth isn't economic growth. 

Thinks BEA GDP releases aren't adjusted for inflation. 

Doesn't know how coupons work. 

Doesn't read books he doesn't have to.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 8, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
> I have been waiting to determine what the outcome is likely to be.  My want is that it would be most likely that Austerity would be a disaster.  But I felt I owed it a look before mouthing off about the absurdity of the whole thing.  And in my opinion, my opinion is of little value until there is some proof of the likely outcome.  So, I kept watching, and after a year or two, I think the verdict is close to in.  Increasingly. impartial sources close to the subject have become more and more and more pessimistic.  And we are close to a time when it will be the decesion of most, by a wide margin, that austerity has failed, or is failing, in pretty much every country where it has been instituted.
> Here is an article out of the UK that is very representative of what is being said:
> 
> ...


You are certifiably nutz.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 8, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


Good.  Put your money where your mouth is.  How about, say, $10K, I pay you if I can not produce my diploma, you pay me if I do.  
Funny.  You will not.  You know you will loose.  Just another con with no knowledge, and a desire to use personal attack in place of knowledge. 
funny.  But then, thing is, you should have an average iq to post on any blog.  so between yourself, oldstyle, and a couple of others, maybe you get to 100.  In aggregate.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
> ...


Another profound post by a con tool.  Jesus.  Are you also incapable of rational argument??  
Of course you are.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 8, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You said, "My want is that it would be most likely that Austerity would be a disaster."

How can anyone make a rational argument about your statements.  Is there some liberal decoder book I can use to convert what you said into English?  It's just gibberish.  As much as I can tell you are trying to say governments attempting to live within budgets is absurd.  If that's your point, I just have to laugh.  You said it all.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Simple enough.  I used the wrong word.  It is not my "want" that anything would fail to help an economy.  And should you read what I have said throughout this post, you would find that to be obvious.
What I meant to say is that it was my belief that austerity would not work.  My error.  But then, if you had a  brain, you would have found that very easy to understand based on the rest of my posts.  And there have been hundreds by now by me in this thread.
So, are you incapable, then, of pointing to a case where austerity is working in europe??  Or are you, as I would assume, incapable of and disinterested in discussing the subject of the thread?


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 8, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


So your "belief" is what, that socialism will work in Europe if they double down, again, on social spending?  Define a measure for identifying if austerity is "working." Can you compare and contrast what would have happened if they did not reduce spending on entitlements?

Do you understand the concept of a budget?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


This is a message board.  I asked for opinions.  It was a simple question, which was how is austerity working in europe.  
There is NO single answer.  Every country is different.  The official answer has been to cut spending and to increase taxes in order to close each countries deficits.  
So, you have made the determination that the deficit problems in those countries was because of entitlement payments.  That is an answer to a question I did not ask, but it is fair game.  You must have some proof that those payments are the cause of the deficits of all those countries.  But you provide no proof.  
So, perhaps that should be a different thread.  Titled something like "What is the cause of the economic decline in europe?".  If you would prefer to address that subject here, go for it.  But perhaps you have some proof of your statement.  If not, that statement has no value.  Neither my, nor your, nor anyone else's opinion is of value without some sort of proof.  

I am suggesting no such thing as doubling down on entitlements.  That is your straw man.  My belief, for what it is worth, is that some entitlements were to high.  But I am not in to trying to say which entitlements in which country were to high.  That I would leave to the experts on the subject, which I am not a member of.  And calling people or countries socialist is simply ignorant.  

Do I understand what a budget is?  Uh, yes.  I do.  Any other really stupid questions??


----------



## Kimura (Aug 8, 2013)

Toro said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




Can I join the club? I also have fake credentials in finance and economics.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 8, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Absolutely.  Please do.  Responding to these economic geniuses is getting to be a bit too much of a time drain for me alone.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 8, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
> I have been waiting to determine what the outcome is likely to be.  My want is that it would be most likely that Austerity would be a disaster.  But I felt I owed it a look before mouthing off about the absurdity of the whole thing.  And in my opinion, my opinion is of little value until there is some proof of the likely outcome.  So, I kept watching, and after a year or two, I think the verdict is close to in.  Increasingly. impartial sources close to the subject have become more and more and more pessimistic.  And we are close to a time when it will be the decesion of most, by a wide margin, that austerity has failed, or is failing, in pretty much every country where it has been instituted.
> Here is an article out of the UK that is very representative of what is being said:
> 
> ...



Here's your OP TROLL to remind you what you actually said vs. the bull shit you just posted about asking for opinions.


----------



## Toro (Aug 8, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Do you know how coupons work?  If so, you're in!


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, there has been a lot of talks about the austerity programs being pushed on european countries.  Lots of blame being placed on the countries where austerity is in place, from all sorts of folks.  Austerity is, in general, a forced program of free market policies with the primary plan being the reduction of debt by elimination of government spending.  The stated projected outcome is that debt will be reduced, GDP will grow, and employment will be increased.
> ...


And there, right on time, is one of those economics geniuses.  
As normal, incapable of discussion of the thread subject, but fully capable of nonsensical personal attacks.  Which, of course, is all that he has left.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 8, 2013)

Toro said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


----------



## Kimura (Aug 8, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



It's that there's a TON of misinformation out there about monetary operations and macroeconomic policy. People are constantly bombarded on the radio and television by ignorant and agenda driven pundits.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 8, 2013)

Yup.  You don't suspect they have ulterior motives, do you??


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 8, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



TORO has been adequately schooled about GDP. He's fond of his soundbyte style posting though.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/281130-how-is-austerity-doing-in-europe-59.html#post7624029


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 8, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Yup.  You don't suspect they have ulterior motives, do you??



Who are they and what motives?

And speaking they and ulterior motives; you pretend that govt. doesn't have ulterior motives. That's the huge flaw in your nonsense. If an angelic commission was doling out the money, there might be merit to your nonsense.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 8, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Posting YOUR OP is a "personal attack?"  Dude it's what YOU WROTE TO START THE THREAD.  Not one thing in your OP that has anything to do with asking people about opinions.  Your thread is a TROLL about how fantastic socialism is and how budgets are stupid and will never work.  Your thread not mine.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 8, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Yup.  You don't suspect they have ulterior motives, do you??
> ...



The government couldn't _possibly_ be maliciously fudging numbers, especially about employment data.  It is too busy spying on those who are unemployed and have nothing better to do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/306214-unemployment-rate-drops-to-7-4-a-10.html#post7654211

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/306214-unemployment-rate-drops-to-7-4-a-11.html#post7660317


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 8, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Yea. The govt. is full of propaganda under the Obama regime.


----------



## Toro (Aug 8, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



When gasbag isn't schooling us all on how GDP growth isn't economic growth, or on how GDP releases aren't adjusted for inflation, he has this book.






Alas, he'll never know, since he doesn't read books he doesn't have to.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 8, 2013)

Toro said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Really trying hard not to laugh at your picture, but I couldn't resist. LMAO.

But on a deeper note, not that I am defending Gasby anything, but... Even if you believe GDP is a measure of economic growth, it certainly isn't the same measure of economic growth it once was before. Now the BEA has changed the methodology of the investment component to include intangibles, which pretty much includes Hollywood. GDP grew by $500 Billion in Q2. Not sure if the change was to make GDP bigger or the debt to GDP smaller, but you have to admit something fishy is going on.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 8, 2013)

^^^

Why do you say you're not defending me like I said anything wrong? I've stated all along that GDP is an indicator of potential economic growth; but that it's not an absolute measure of economic growth. A first year econ student could tell you that. Toro is the idiot with the issue, not me, AT. Don't be further implicating me in his nonsense.


----------



## Toro (Aug 8, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Really trying hard not to laugh at your picture, but I couldn't resist. LMAO.
> 
> But on a deeper note, not that I am defending Gasby anything, but... Even if you believe GDP is a measure of economic growth, it certainly isn't the same measure of economic growth it once was before. Now the BEA has changed the methodology of the investment component to include intangibles, which pretty much includes Hollywood. GDP grew by $500 Billion in Q2. Not sure if the change was to make GDP bigger or the debt to GDP smaller, but you have to admit something fishy is going on.
> 
> What are your thoughts?



Believe it or not, I actually like gasbag.  I'm sure he doesn't reciprocate, but it's hard to dislike anyone who makes you laugh.

I generally disagree with the new changes, which are capitalizing media content.  I don't believe it's anything nefarious.  It's technical.  I just think they're incorrect.  The best guy to ask is pinqy IMO. 

I think the economy is stronger than advertised.  A couple of sources, both money managers whom I think are highly credible, support that argument.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 8, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ^^^
> 
> Why do you say you're not defending me like I said anything wrong? I've stated all along that GDP is an indicator of potential economic growth; but that it's not an absolute measure of economic growth. A first year econ student could tell you that. Toro is the idiot with the issue, not me, AT. Don't be further implicating me in his nonsense.



I never said you were wrong. I don't jump into debates, especially when I believe both sides has a good point. 

Do I think GDP is a metric of economic growth? Yes.

Do I believe GDP is the best metric of economic growth? Not at all.

GDP can be fundamentally flawed at times. You have to look at the data closely to understand when someone is using it as a bogus metric.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 8, 2013)

Toro said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Really trying hard not to laugh at your picture, but I couldn't resist. LMAO.
> ...



It might not be anything malicious, but I don't understand why the new change is necessary. Other countries do not measure GDP in this fashion. And there is really nothing different from the US and other advanced economies. Maybe it's because more citizens rely on entertainment than any other country and the statisticians want to capture that in the GDP. Or it could be propaganda piece politicians can use to show that they're policies are working when really it's not...

I believe it's incorrect because it doesn't differentiate between a capital good and a consumer good. It makes zero sense from a business and an investment perspective.


----------



## Toro (Aug 8, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



Often, when the American agencies change how they calculate an economic metric, the foreign ones follow.  For better or for worse.

Media companies capitalize much of their content.  If a show becomes a hit and the company thinks a hit show (i.e., The Big Bang Theory) will go into syndication, they will capitalize the cost and run it off over several years.  If a show is a flop (i.e., the Lone Ranger), it will be expensed.  My guess is that this is the thinking at the BEA.  Content libraries are enormously valuable.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 8, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^
> ...



GDP is a very oversimplified way of looking at the economy. It ignores debt accumulation, unemployment levels, poverty levels, inflation, increases in liabilities, decreases in quality of lives, etc. Republicans and Democrats alike use the GDP to justify all kinds of nonsense while stooges like Toro go along for the ride.


----------



## Toro (Aug 8, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^
> ...



GDP growth is everywhere and always economic growth.  That is not debatable.  

However, it is fair to critique the quality of growth.  For example, much of the growth in the 00s was driven by a housing bubble.  Without the housing bubble, growth would have been lower.  It is also fair to question whether QE is creating similar artificial growth.  Only time will tell, but given that it is controversial and the scale unprecedented, it is open to fair criticism.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 8, 2013)

Toro said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Yes, but there is also plenty of R&D which tells you that you should not develop something, or whether or not something is profitable in the long run. If I decide to spend money on production of a movie or music, all the money I spend is considered an investment, even if it is of zero value to anyone else. It's really silly, and it makes my head hurt.

Anyways, how about that short-term oversold rally on QQQ and SOCL


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 8, 2013)

Toro said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



There are many things which can contribute to economic growth. The issue is whether or not it is indeed economic growth, but whether or not it always the best indicator no matter what. If it's used right, it can be, but often times it's used as a bogus metric.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 8, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Economic growth is merely the increase of goods and services in the economy. It's really not suppose to include all of what you have mention, but the general premise is that the more goods and services which are purchased in the economy, the more the economy grows. There is nothing wrong with this metric, but it is subject to manipulation and distortion.

For example many of the goods and services which exist in the country are foreign produced. Is this a bad thing? Not really, but much of money used to purchase these goods and services is borrowed as well. GDP has many elements that are hedonically adjusted. There is alot of malinvestment which can attribute to the growth. It makes no distinction between unproductive money transfers as opposed to wealth creating endeavors. Also, not everything which takes away from GDP is bad for the economy.

There are tons of indicators which can make the growth questionable and tons of different ways to look at GDP.

It really all depends on the structural problems with the economy, but I understand where you concerns lie. GDP was originally meant to be a measure of effective Government Policy, not economic well-being.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 8, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



Actually, the issue very much is whether GDP is indeed economic growth. During the Obama years, GDP has crawled upward while debt has skyrocketed and now for the first time ever, the debt has surpassed GDP. The question is not can the US sustain this trend; but for how long. I would say that the last four years have been severely negative in many ways for the US economy. Yet, if we were to take Toro's simple minded approach of only looking at GDP, we could only deduce that everything is roses.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 8, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Yup.  You don't suspect they have ulterior motives, do you??
> ...


See, that is how we know you are delusional.  Saying that I made statements that I never made.  But, what the hell.  Delusion is a psychological issue.  It really is not your problem.  Just plain bad luck.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 8, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I never said you said jack, deuchewad. Hence why I asked you who you were referring to and what they're alleged motives were. Then I did regard your over-arching argument of maximized government spending.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 9, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Please, I know you are mad.  But that is just a symptom of being a congenital idiot.  
By the way i would like to apologize for calling you a delusional congenital idiot.  That is just not fair.  And it is redundant.  Congenital idiots are always delusional.  And I know it makes you see things that are not there.  And again, it is not your fault.  Just plain bad luck.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I know you think you're clever. But, all you did was engage in an ad hominem rambling session. You accused me of falsities and then when I successfully refuted you, you decided that that was better than manning up and simply saying, 'my bad.'


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 9, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


So, there you go.  You are indeed just the best debater ever.  And don't you ever let them tell you differently.  Why, being a delusional congenital idiot .....OOPS, I do so have a problem with being redundant.  I mean, you have already mastered copy and paste.  And those nice people who give you those great talking points, why, no wonder you have problems with rage.  I mean, people telling you things other than what those nice people tell you to believe.  Why, those that have taught you what to believe have such nice white coats.  Really, it is like they say.  Believing what they tell you is SO much easier than having to try reason, and all that hard stuff.  And believing what they tell you is so much more convenient.  And they make you so mad.  And you so like being mad.  And, like they tell you, your urge to hunt little girls on playgrounds is not your fault.  You are just that way.  Just plain bad luck.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 9, 2013)

Austerity doesn't = investment into a economy. That's all you need to know.

Investment can equal (more) return if done right. This is why most intelligent corporations *invest *into new technology within their r@d departments and why we as a nation invest into education for our children.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 9, 2013)

In personal life

You add a swimming pool = $
You add a extra room to your home = $

To a corporation

Your corporation adds another r@d building = $

Austerity is like Intel saying oh shit we should fire 2,000 works and give them to AMD. LOL

Unless you can't afford to do so without collapsing your cooperation it is a bad idea. Same with a nation. Cutting education is a bad idea.  Killing investment into science is a really bad idea and pave that road is pure idiocy.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 9, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Austerity doesn't = investment into a economy. That's all you need to know.
> 
> Investment can equal (more) return if done right. This is why most intelligent corporations *invest *into new technology within their r@d departments and why we as a nation invest into education for our children.


Yup.  I agree.  So is there some reason to believe that reducing a budget deficit by brute force would ever have some degree of success in making the economy better???
It leaves some questions to answer, like:
1.  When has a bad economy ever been helped by reducing gov spending??
2.  What has reducing gov spending ever worked in bringing a bad economy back from high unemployment??
3.  What is going to happen to a country that increases spending and the deficit during times of high unemployment???
4.  Since decreasing gov spending has demonstrably increased unemployment levels, can you find a time when the economy has gotten better from a deficit standpoint when unemployment levels are increased??

The answers are obvious.  Only when you invest into an economy to make demand increase can you expect job numbers to get better, and only then will the economy improve.  And cutting things like education are only done by the brain dead, as it can only hurt the economy.  You would do so only if you want to import workers to help those from other countries.  Not your own.

But if you can cut services and decrease education costs and shrink the gov and require the working middle class to take smaller wages, you do set up a sure fire way to make the wealthy more so.  Higher unemployment ALWAYS makes wages go lower, which immediately increases profits for the business owners.  And, as costs decrease for services, taxes decrease for those same business owners.  Again, making their profits higher.  And, all is well, from a deficit standpoint, they believe, if they can just keep the working class in control.  How nice it is if the economy grows as long as they get the increases in earnings.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Austerity doesn't = investment into a economy. That's all you need to know.
> 
> Investment can equal (more) return if done right. This is why most intelligent corporations *invest *into new technology within their r@d departments and why we as a nation invest into education for our children.



Bullshit. Unless you are spending to defend from enemies who are attacking you... Less money sucked into the vortex that is government spending is most certainly a better investment in the economy than government spending.

Nothing, nothing done by government is better than what the people would have done for themselves with their own money.  You want my paycheck to spend on your crack pot investment scheme? Screw you.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Austerity doesn't = investment into a economy. That's all you need to know.
> ...



Profound, rkm.  Stupid.  Unsubstantiated.  But I am sure you believe it is profound.  So, do you have an example of a bad us economy being helped by doing nothing, or by decreasing taxes?


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



You mean other than the American revolution and the Reagan revolution? 

I did not say do "nothing."  The key is to do things that improve the economy, and usually that does not have to include spending tons of money through government redistribution programs.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Bush's mistakes included making income tax rates zero for half the country, thus creating a classic system of democratic class warfare with the bottom half voting for re-distributions out of the public kitty extracted solely from the top half; converting our country into quasi facist system living under the boot of the department of homeland security; doubling down on medicare with the drug reforms that really just tripled what we pay for drugs and set up Obama Care; doubling down on government mandated no income home loans; ...


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Nice.  A graph from freedom works.  A true bat shit crazy con web site.  Try again, me poor ignorant con tool.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Bush's mistakes included making income tax rates zero for half the country, thus creating a classic system of democratic class warfare with the bottom half voting for re-distributions out of the public kitty extracted solely from the top half; converting our country into quasi facist system living under the boot of the department of homeland security; doubling down on medicare with the drug reforms that really just tripled what we pay for drugs and set up Obama Care; doubling down on government mandated no income home loans; ...


Wow.  Again right out of the bat shit crazy con web sites.  Nice.  Do you ever try rational, non partial sources???  Or do you stay rite there in your comfort zone.  Because it leaves you as nothing but a joke, if you do.
For instance, if you look at the charts, you would see that reagans tax cuts in 1981 started the ue rate up, and it went to the highest point since the great depression by late 1982.  Then, he borrowed more than all the previous presidents combined, and tripled the national debt.  And increased taxes 11 times.  His other tax decreases happened during low unemployment.  When tax decreases make sense.  Sorry for the truth of the matter.  You can now go back to the bat shit crazy con sites you feel more comfortable in.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...




Debt-to-GDP ratios don&#8217;t affect growth.  If the US didn&#8217;t have a non-convertible currency, or had its debts denominated in another currency, then it would be a problem. The Reinhart and Rogoff data &#8211; besides omitting these variables &#8211; had coding errors and omitted certain time periods.  In Eurozone countries we find that government budget constraints create a negative relationship between debt-to-GDP ratios and growth.

In monetarily sovereign nations, such as the US, UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia, etc we could see an indirect relationship between debt-to-GDP ratios and growth as a direct result of reactionary policies by the political class who worship austerity in a cult-like devotion, even though the data presents a different story, such as deficit reductions having a negative impact on growth. It&#8217;s all basic macroaccounting at the end of the day.

There really isn&#8217;t national debt in the traditional sense of the word. All we&#8217;re doing is swapping out one government sector financial instrument (US Treasuries) for another type of financial instrument (bank deposits). We&#8217;re simply dealing with changing the composition of assets between the government sector and private sector, since net private financial wealth is equal to public debt down to the last penny. Any and all financial assets in the private sector are liabilities of the federal government - both as currency and bonds. The exchange of these assets cannot pose any strain on the US financial system in any capacity any more than transferring money between your checking account and savings account.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


The source is OMB (the whitehouse) and BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics).  You saw a website advertisement and freaked out.  ROFL


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Bush's mistakes included making income tax rates zero for half the country, thus creating a classic system of democratic class warfare with the bottom half voting for re-distributions out of the public kitty extracted solely from the top half; converting our country into quasi facist system living under the boot of the department of homeland security; doubling down on medicare with the drug reforms that really just tripled what we pay for drugs and set up Obama Care; doubling down on government mandated no income home loans; ...
> ...


I wrote that paragraph you ignorant prick.  What the hell is a "ue rate?"  Do you mean "revenue?"  You are nothing but a TROLL  An ass hole looking for a life.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


What a load of crap.  If the entire GDP IS SPENT PAYING INTEREST, then the GDP to debt ratio sure as hell does matter and sure as hell does affect growth.  YOU CAN'T SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.  YOU CAN'T EVEN FEED YOURSELF IF ALL YOUR MONEY IS TAKEN FROM YOU TO PAY FOR PAST DEBT. PEOPLE WON'T LEND YOU MONEY WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY BORROWED.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

> What a load of crap.  If the entire GDP IS SPENT PAYING INTEREST, then the GDP to debt ratio sure as hell does matter and sure as hell does affect growth.  YOU CAN'T SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.  YOU CAN'T EVEN FEED YOURSELF IF ALL YOUR MONEY IS TAKEN FROM YOU TO PAY FOR PAST DEBT. PEOPLE WON'T LEND YOU MONEY WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY BORROWED.



You cannot compare  households to the federal government. We have to collect money in order to use it; the federal government has to spend money before it can use it. We can't use the currency in any capacity until the government spends it. Under a fiat system, for the umpteenth time, spending precedes taxing and any type of "borrowing". The federal government basically taxes what it has already spent, and also borrows back what it has already spent so to speak.

Secondly, the US government can always service its debts, regardless of interest rates. As a matter of fact, spending is virtually costless for the federal government, and it sets the interest rate at which it acquires "debt". The US government doesn't "borrow" in the traditional sense. The US government doesn't have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> > What a load of crap.  If the entire GDP IS SPENT PAYING INTEREST, then the GDP to debt ratio sure as hell does matter and sure as hell does affect growth.  YOU CAN'T SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.  YOU CAN'T EVEN FEED YOURSELF IF ALL YOUR MONEY IS TAKEN FROM YOU TO PAY FOR PAST DEBT. PEOPLE WON'T LEND YOU MONEY WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY BORROWED.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot compare  households to the federal government. We have to collect money in order to use it; the federal government has to spend money before it can use it. The US can always service its debts, regardless of interest rates. As a matter of fact, spending is virtually costless for the federal government, and it sets the interest rate at which it acquires "debt". Also, the US doesn't "borrow" in the traditional sense. The US government doesn't have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer.



I nominate this "the federal government has to spend money before it can use it" as the dumbest post of all time!  Ranks up there with Pelosi's we have to spend our way out of this recession comment.


----------



## Freemason9 (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Note that in 1980-81--prior to the onset of Reagan's "supply side economics" strategy and tax cuts--the economy had already started to recover from a long and painful recessionary environment, although growth was still slow. Reagan's tax cuts had the effect of immediately reducing tax revenue for the next two years. Tax revenue increased again from 1985 on because of ECONOMIC RECOVERY. *And actually, had Reagan just left the rate structure alone, the rate of economic growth carried forward from 1980-81 would have indicated far more growth than what we got with the cuts. So it may be that Reagan impeded economic growth and caused economic harm through his tax policies--the upward trend in 1980-81 was greater than anything Reagan achieved later.*
If you bothered to look into history, you would find that tax revenues always increase rather briskly during the periods after recession--IOW, during economic recoveries. It's actually happening right now.

You should also recall that many Reagan "cuts" were restored later--although the greater effect of Reagan tax cuts was to shift tax assessments downward to city/county/state levels that tended to be more regressive.

IOW, it's a big complex subject that cannot be readly described through a simple picture graph.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Freemason9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I lived through the Carter years, the Reagan years, ... there is no comparison.  Reagan's  revolution brought America back from the brink of destruction.  It plugged the holes in the boat and set it moving again.  The Bush's and Obama took the plugs out and have sunk the ship.  We are on the bottom.  There is no chance for recovery.  We are now living in a quasi facist / socialist state.  I'd just as soon burn my bank account as let this government get ahold of a red cent from me.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > > What a load of crap.  If the entire GDP IS SPENT PAYING INTEREST, then the GDP to debt ratio sure as hell does matter and sure as hell does affect growth.  YOU CAN'T SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.  YOU CAN'T EVEN FEED YOURSELF IF ALL YOUR MONEY IS TAKEN FROM YOU TO PAY FOR PAST DEBT. PEOPLE WON'T LEND YOU MONEY WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY BORROWED.
> ...



Who does the US borrow from? Santa Claus? The US government doesn&#8217;t have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer. Any and all tax payments and bond purchases are made with money that is already spent. If this wasn&#8217;t so, there wouldn&#8217;t be any dollars to buy US financial securities (Treasuries) or any money to extinguish your tax obligations.

Operationally, the settlement of bond auctions and tax payments to the Treasury can only happen through reserve accounts. The balances in these reserve accounts are from previous government deficits which are comprised of FED loans or credits to these reserve accounts. These Federal Reserve loans can be facilitated by the purchase of private securities, loans, and repos. Therefore, in order for any bond sales to get settled, or for tax payments to get made, there must have been previous government spending.


----------



## Freemason9 (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Freemason9 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Pure bullshit.

The economy of the 1970s was defined by excessive war spending, a constriction of oil (energy) supplies and consequent price hikes, soldiers re-entering a battered job market, the growth of Asian competitors, and an absurd obsession with stopping inflation by Ford.
Ford policies hammered the economy (remember his WIN buttons? LOL). Carter spent his term trying to undo the Nixon-Ford legacy. He did it, too, and the economy responded with a recovery in 1980-81.

Unfortunately, Reagan shit all over it.

Don't get me wrong, though. I don't like this government either, and this government comes from a flawed Constititution that prevents improvement in processes. We will eventually demand and get a new government that actually HONORS working people for a change.


----------



## Freemason9 (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Technically, the U.S. government borrows nothing at all. It creates money and expands the money supply by debt creation. Unfortunately, many Americans imagine that the process is similar to car loans. It isn't.

The U.S. can create as many jobs as it wants. The fact that it doesn't create jobs says a great deal, don't you think?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Wow.  You actually admit to writing that drivel??  Well, good for you
The ue rate, should you have any idea of economics is widely understood to mean the unemployment rate.  Not my problem you are an ignorant con with no economic knowledge.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


no, me poor ignorant con tool.  I saw who they got their nubers from.  But we all by this time, assuming we have a brain (maybe that leaves you out) know that those numbers can be picked as wanted for particular times.  And given particular meanings which have nothing to do with the truth.  I could, for instance, go get numbers moveon.org had taken from the blm and produced graphs and made statements of meaning.  But then I would not.  Because I have integrity.  Sorry you do not.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



>>> Who does the US borrow from?
Anyone who will buy t-bills.  Sometimes that is American citizens, sometimes it is non-us citizens, sometimes the independent banking cartel called the "fed" does.

>>> Santa Claus? 
No.  Santa is a fictional character.  It's just a story.

>>> The US government doesn&#8217;t have to borrow its own fiat as a currency issuer.
I have no idea what borrowing fiat means.   But yes the US Government can engage in the process of quantitative easing, or could change the current monetary system, and can also declare debt as invalid.  It's good to be king.

>>> Any and all tax payments and bond purchases are made with money that is already spent. 

Huh?  The act of spending money moves money from one account to another account. If that's what you are trying to say ok.  But I have no idea why you think you can spend money that is already spent, it's ludicrous and makes me think you are confusing theft and fraud with normal accounting practices.

>>> If this wasn&#8217;t so, there wouldn&#8217;t be any dollars to buy US financial securities (Treasuries) or any money to extinguish your tax obligations.

HUH?  Here you appear to be confusing the concept of "currency" in the form of notes, with the concept of amounts of funds secured in accounts foreign and domestic.  At any point in time only a very small fraction of assets are represented in the form of physical bills or notes.

>>> The balances in these reserve accounts are from previous government deficits which are comprised of FED loans or credits to these reserve accounts. These Federal Reserve loans can be facilitated by the purchase of private securities, loans, and repos. Therefore, in order for any bond sales to get settled, or for tax payments to get made, there must have been previous government spending.

Agreed.  Not sure how that ties to "the federal government has to spend money before it can use it" comment but ok. I suppose it was a typo and you really meant to say "the federal government has to borrow money before it has to repay the loan by taking our assets?"


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Freemason9 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



If we look at the Reagan era (supply-side), it was completely and utterly distorted. It&#8217;s overall effects were badly filtered through the economy, because it was connected to other idiotic polices which negatively affected wage earners. As a matter of fact, real income for wage earners decreased in the 1980s, and they continue to decrease, or fail to keep up with our distorted policies. If these wretched supply-side policies actually worked, then the individuals making said supply, the workers, should have seen an increase in real incomes. It never happened. 

Let&#8217;s look at some numbers: business investments in the 1980s averaged around 10% of GDP.This included the Reagan tax cuts.  If we look at the 1970s, business investments went from 4% of GDP to 8% of GDP in the 1970s. We&#8217;re looking at a 100% increase in business investment. This happened even with those satanic and demonic unions.  Business investment under Obama makes up 15% of GDP, even after we had that paltry stimulus.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Freemason9 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You are making a fool of yourself, rkm.  Your complete lack of understanding of economics and lack of interest in learning anything is showing.  There are actual really high level economics blogs, where you would not have a clue.  There is this rather average joe level economic board, which is still way above you.  Maybe you could look at the efci.com site.  It is more your level.  The full name is economics for congenital idiots.com.  Just your level.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

> Anyone who will buy t-bills.  Sometimes that is American citizens, sometimes it is non-us citizens, sometimes the independent banking cartel called the "fed" does.



Operationally, bonds function to drain any excess reserves from the banking system. They also provide a place for the private sector to park its wealth in a risk-free environment.
What do those Americans and foreigners use to purchase T-Bills? They use dollars in their respective bank accounts which had to have been spent into existence by the government at some point. 



> I have no idea what borrowing fiat means.   But yes the US Government can engage in the process of quantitative easing, or could change the current monetary system, and can also declare debt as invalid.  It's good to be king.



QE isn't money printing if that's what you're getting at. US public debt simply reflects the total savings of the US economy. In other words, it represents the private sector's desire to save in US financial assets.



> Huh?  The act of spending money moves money from one account to another account. If that's what you are trying to say ok.  But I have no idea why you think you can spend money that is already spent, it's ludicrous and makes me think you are confusing theft and fraud with normal accounting practices.



My point was the spending, under a fiat monetary system, precedes any taxing and borrowing.



> HUH?  Here you appear to be confusing the concept of "currency" in the form of notes, with the concept of amounts of funds secured in accounts foreign and domestic.  At any point in time only a very small fraction of assets are represented in the form of physical bills or notes.



No, I'm not.

It's the same on the federal government's side of the ledger. Currency and bonds are liabilities of the federal government, which makes them assets to the public. 



> Agreed.  Not sure how that ties to "the federal government has to spend money before it can use it" comment but ok. I suppose it was a typo and you really meant to say "the federal government has to borrow money before it has to repay the loan by taking our assets?"



The current assumption is we pay taxes and purchase bonds so the national government can spend. This is operationally not the case. We can't use the currency until the federal government spends it, which is why spending precedes borrowing and taxing under a fiat system. Uncle Sam is borrowing back and taxing what's already spent. People make the mistake that we're still on a fixed-exchange rate in which case we'd really have to tax and borrow.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

Freemason9 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Modern capitalist economies aren't structured to handle full employment. We gave up on full employment as national policy after WWII. I'm a proponent of the Job Guarantee to reach full employment. 

Unemployment happens when net government deficits are too small to meet the demands of the non-government net saving desires. In other words, unemployment is a byproduct of deficits being too small.


----------



## Freemason9 (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Freemason9 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Beautifully stated! Thanks.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> You are making a fool of yourself, rkm.  Your complete lack of understanding of economics and lack of interest in learning anything is showing.  There are actual really high level economics blogs, where you would not have a clue.  There is this rather average joe level economic board, which is still way above you.  Maybe you could look at the efci.com site.  It is more your level.  The full name is economics for congenital idiots.com.  Just your level.


Economics bigots are the biggest ass holes.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Freemason9 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


The "fed" is not the U.S. Government.  It is you that is confused.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


So then you are complaining that Reagan's tax policies resulted, in part, in people going back to work?  You are just an ass.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Integrity is earned.  You are nothing but a piece of shit to me.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Freemason9 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



The Board of Governors control the member banks and they execute monetary policy. The FED is part of the US government, it's not private in the conventional sense. The member banks do own the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, but it's not the same as being an Apple or Google majority shareholder, since they have zero impact on monetary policy. The FED also rebates all of its profits to the Treasury each year. It's a government entity at the end of the day.


----------



## Freemason9 (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



From what I've seen here, Rshermr has owned you in every sense of the word, RKMBrown. I don't think he/she values your opinion much. You don't seem to have much of a grasp of economics.


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 9, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



maybe rmk wants to take over edwards job as the know it all know nothing.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

in blue


Kimura said:


> > Anyone who will buy t-bills.  Sometimes that is American citizens, sometimes it is non-us citizens, sometimes the independent banking cartel called the "fed" does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who makes the mistake that we are on a fixed-exchange rate?  Who?


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Freemason9 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



What a load of crap.  Yeah everything comes from government debt.  Without government debt we'd have no private enterprise.  OMG where do you idiots learn this shit?


----------



## Freemason9 (Aug 9, 2013)

That stupid fucker doesn't begin to understand what the federal debt represents, and how it functions.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Freemason9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You are correct that I have no grasp of YOUR view of economics.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Freemason9 said:


> That stupid fucker doesn't begin to understand what the federal debt represents, and how it functions.



Bull shit. 

Debt represents the quantity that this government had to borrow because it's spending was greater than it's tax revenue.  You guys seem to think our debt is some sort of gift we are giving to our children.  What a load a poo.


----------



## Freemason9 (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Freemason9 said:
> 
> 
> > That stupid fucker doesn't begin to understand what the federal debt represents, and how it functions.
> ...



Answer this, dumbass.

How does the U.S. government expand the money supply to meet the needs of an expanding economy?


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Freemason9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Freemason9 said:
> ...



It doesn't. 

It authorizes the fed to "increase" the amount of fed bond money the fed cartel banks can sell by putting ones and zeroes in the accounts of the bank.  Nothing backs this money it's funny money.  It's supposed to represent real assets but it does not have to actually represent assets. Basically it's like the money grows on trees for the cartel. They can then lend that money out.  Typically the amount "authorized" to the banks just goes up till the pyramid scheme crashes.  The fed is not the government.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Freemason9 said:
> ...



US public debt is nothing more than private wealth. Any and all interest payments on said private wealth constitutes private income. Again, US public debt is equal to private wealth down to the last penny. Our public debt is nothing more than the accrued budget deficits of the past.  

Secondly, you're correct, deficit spending creates financial assets for the private sector. Our deficits add net financial assets to the private sector, which creates the demand for real goods and services. This has enabled Americans to maintain income growth. This income growth, at the end of the day, has enabled us to save and accrue financial assets at a much faster rate then would be possible without deficits.

This obsession over US public debt levels borders on trivial and nonsensical.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Freemason9 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



That's just a complete misunderstanding of monetary operations. And I'm being kind...


----------



## Toro (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Freemason9 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Er, no.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Some of our debt is held by private wealth, some is the fed and cartel banks using their funny money to buy US debt, and some is foreign government investment.

>> Our public debt is nothing more than the accrued budget deficits of the past.  
agreed.

>>> Our deficits add net financial assets to the private sector
In part yes.  But most of it goes to the public sector. 

>>> This has enabled Americans to maintain income growth. 
It's been good to be a public employee in this recession.  Not so much to be a private sector employee.

>>> This income growth, at the end of the day, has enabled us to save and accrue financial assets at a much faster rate then would be possible without deficits.

And this is the nut of my disagreement.  I don't believe "saving" government jobs by overspending helps the people outside of those government jobs that have to pay for the excess spending.  To me, this is an argument that we are justified in spending our children's future income to make us comfortable.  It makes me want to puke.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Freemason9 said:
> ...



Well then, why don't you explain how the U.S. government expands the money supply to meet the needs of an expanding economy?


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Toro said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Freemason9 said:
> ...


Er, yes.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

> Some of our debt is held by private wealth, some is the fed and cartel banks using their funny money to buy US debt, and some is foreign government investment.


The US government doesn't purchase its own paper. The FED is precluded from buying directly from the Treasury by law. When the FED purchases US debt, it purchases said debt from the public. These are bonds, bills, and notes which the public has already purchased. This whole notion that the FED needs to purchase US Treasuries is completely false. US debt auctions are constantly oversubscribed.



> In part yes.  But most of it goes to the public sector.



No, dude, by accounting identity alone, those federal liabilities, such has bonds and currency, are assets to the non-government sector.



> It's been good to be a public employee in this recession. Not so much to be a private sector employee.



It doesn&#8217;t matter; we all use the same national unit of account as a medium of exchange. When you buy something at Macy&#8217;s, do you think the cashier cares if you earned those dollars in the public sector or private sector?



> And this is the nut of my disagreement.  I don't believe "saving" government jobs by overspending helps the people outside of those government jobs that have to pay for the excess spending.  To me, this is an argument that we are justified in spending our children's future income to make us comfortable.  It makes me want to puke.



If you reduce deficits, it removes income from economy. Fiscally, a deficit reduction and tax increase are identical, since they both remove income from the economy. Nobody has to pay for what you define as &#8220;excess spending&#8221; &#8211; whatever that means.

In terms of basic accounting, the government&#8217;s deficit, for example, over a year, corresponds to a non-government sector surplus, which we can define as an increase in the non-government sector&#8217;s financial assets.  There can be no aggregate net saving of financial assets in the non-government sector without a corresponding deficit as result of government spending.  At the end of the day, the government is the only way to provide the non-government sector with net financial assets.

Lastly, we&#8217;re not spending our children&#8217;s future income. Our children and grandchildren will get to consume what they produce.  There&#8217;s no reason why past government spending should prevent our children from producing the real goods and services they&#8217;re capable of producing. They'll be able to go to work just like we do and produce and consume the real output of real goods and services. The amount of US paper getting rolled over has zero bearing on this. In economics, this whole concept really doesn&#8217;t exist, whereby we sacrifice our real output for some nebulous date in the past and rolling it over to the previous generation. Our children won&#8217;t pay us back a dime even if they wanted to.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Think of it this way: the Treasury spends base money into existence and the FED loans base money into existence. For the purposes of our conversion, it&#8217;s not necessary to separate the Treasury and FED. The Treasury doesn&#8217;t borrow from the FED in any real capacity. The FED basically provides a monetary basis for the Treasury&#8217;s fiscal policy.

Ultimately, the federal government creates/spends money by crediting private bank accounts. This is money creation which ends up as reserves in the banking system. We then sell bonds to drain any excess reserves from the banking system. This reserve drain gives us a positive interest rate which the FED can then use to reach its targeted funds rate. 

In terms of the supply of money, as long as there is an increase in real goods and services in tandem with the money supply, there isn't a risk for inflation if that's what you're concerned out.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> > Some of our debt is held by private wealth, some is the fed and cartel banks using their funny money to buy US debt, and some is foreign government investment.
> 
> 
> The US government doesn't purchase its own paper. The FED is precluded from buying directly from the Treasury by law. When the FED purchases US debt, it purchases said debt from the public. These are bonds, bills, and notes which the public has already purchased. This whole notion that the FED needs to purchase US Treasuries is completely false. US debt auctions are constantly oversubscribed it legally do so.
> ...


Wrong. 

First. The fed is NOT the US Government.  You can say it till you are BLUE.  But saying the fed is the government won't make that true.  

Second.  Here is a fed purchase of 600b
New York Fed 101: The Federal Reserve&rsquo;s Asset Purchases (Called by some QE or QE2) - Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Buying fed debt from people while the private people are buying fed debt from the treasury is the SAME DAMN THING.  If you can't see the shell game you are blind.

...

I said, in part yes.  But most of it goes to the public sector. Then you said "no, dude, by accounting identity alone, those federal liabilities, such has bonds and currency, are assets to the non-government.

WTF is wrong with you?  Do you really not understand the difference between spending and borrowing?  WTF?


I said, "It's been good to be a public employee in this recession. Not so much to be a private sector employee."  Then you said "It doesn&#8217;t matter; we all use the same national unit of account as a medium of exchange. When you buy something at Macy&#8217;s, do you think the cashier cares if you earned those dollars in the public sector or private sector?"

Epic fail. WTF?  Do you really not understand the difference between government employees who work for the private sector using labor and assets from the private sector? WTF is wrong with you?

>>> If you reduce deficits, it removes income from economy.

WTF is wrong with you?  You appear to believe the money not held by the government or government debt is money withheld from the economy.  You are one sick puppy.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



OMFG  No NO NO NO NO

The government taxes the people the income from the taxes is called tax revenue.  The government spends that revenue.   The government did not create shit.  It taxed the people.  WTF is wrong with you?

You are grossly confusing the monetary system with Government spending.  Again WTF?


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Spends money into existence.  Dude that's just fairy dust.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I'm not the one that's confused here. The government taxes to create demand for the national unit of account and to regulate aggregate demand. As you pointed out in a previous post, fiat money has no intrinsic value. I agree. The value is of the dollar is derived from the fact that we have to use it to pay our tax obligations. The government doesn't need to collect back in taxes that which is freely issues. 

You asked me to explain to how monetary operations work. I explained it to you in a fairly simple and concise manner in my previous post. Money creation is a balance sheet operation, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Spends money into existence.  Dude that's just fairy dust.



That's how we operate under fiat monetary system. There's isn't some fixed amount of dollars in a vault at the FED.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Freemason9 said:
> ...



I don't know which numbers you are using. Are you referring to Gross Domestic Private Investment? That's generally averaged 15% from 1954 to 2013. Are you talking about Net Domestic Investment? That's never been higher than 6% GDP.

I can only assume that you are referring to GDPI This component of GDP is up to 15% under Obama; however, this was coming from all time lows of 12.5% of GDP. Under Obama, business investment averaged 14.3%. Under Reagan it averaged 18.5%.

But yes, Business Investment is generally up mostly due to the target tax cuts for which were meant to courage job creation, but instead ended up as discriminatory job screening measures. Most of this money has not gone to create jobs. Well, not any meaningful ones anyway.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Spends money into existence.  Dude that's just fairy dust.
> ...



Yeah no shit.  It's fairy dust.  What a great way to manage a monetary system... fairy dust.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...




>> The government taxes to create demand for the national unit of account and to regulate aggregate demand. 

No. The government does not tax to create demand.  The government taxes to fund spending.  I'll be nice.  Respectfully, IMO your perspective is whack.

>> The value is of the dollar is derived from the fact that we have to use it to pay our tax obligations. 

No.  The value of the dollar is derived from the exchange of labor and assets.  Yes, that includes services rendered by our Government employees. 

>> You asked me to explain to how monetary operations work. I explained it to you in a fairly simple and concise manner in my previous post. Money creation is a balance sheet operation, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm fully aware of how those operations work.  My issue was with the terms you chose to use. You did not like my terms.  I did not like your terms, that and the straw man of saying the fed is for all intents and purposes the dept. of the Treasury. You and I both know this is not even remotely true.  You were purposefully? mixing.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 9, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Austerity doesn't = investment into a economy. That's all you need to know.
> 
> Investment can equal (more) return if done right. This is why most intelligent corporations *invest *into new technology within their r@d departments and why we as a nation invest into education for our children.



The government is not ran like a business (thought it certainly is  big business) and we should not pretend that it is. It is supposed to take our taxes and use them on needed services that the private sector will not do or aruably on matters that the people do not trust the private sector to do (like the military).


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 9, 2013)

Kimura said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



You're crazy if you think that the debt can be referred to as a literal asset.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > > Some of our debt is held by private wealth, some is the fed and cartel banks using their funny money to buy US debt, and some is foreign government investment.
> ...


I was watching this exchange, in which kimura is trying to educate you.  It was amusing for a while.  but it has become way too embarrassing.  And, me boy, you are the joke.  If you would try to understand what Kimura is saying, you would actually learn something.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 10, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I understand Kimura's perspective.  And I understand the poor use of terms that were carefully chosen to give credit to the Government where it is not due. I refuse to agree with the perspective that without public debt we would have no private assets, it is complete bull shit.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 10, 2013)

> OMFG  No NO NO NO NO
> 
> The government taxes the people the income from the taxes is called tax revenue.  The government spends that revenue.   The government did not create shit.  It taxed the people.  WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> You are grossly confusing the monetary system with Government spending.  Again WTF?



The government create/issues the national unit of account. It doesn't need to receive back in taxes that which is freely issues as the monopoly issuer of the dollar.



> The government taxes to create demand for the national unit of account and to regulate aggregate demand.
> 
> No. The government does not tax to create demand.  The government taxes to fund spending.  I'll be nice.  Respectfully, IMO your perspective is whack.



No, it doesn't. I explained to you how it works on an operational level more than once. Under a fiat system, the national government _must _spend in order for us to get our hands on the currency. Taxes payments destroy money. 



> The value is of the dollar is derived from the fact that we have to use it to pay our tax obligations.
> 
> No.  The value of the dollar is derived from the exchange of labor and assets.  Yes, that includes services rendered by our Government employees.



Do you have to pay the IRS in dollars? Yes or No? 

What gives the dollar value, what motivates us to use the currency, is that all of our tax obligations are denominated in dollars and must be extinguished in dollars.



> You asked me to explain to how monetary operations work. I explained it to you in a fairly simple and concise manner in my previous post. Money creation is a balance sheet operation, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I'm fully aware of how those operations work.  My issue was with the terms you chose to use. You did not like my terms.  I did not like your terms, that and the straw man of saying the fed is for all intents and purposes the dept. of the Treasury. You and I both know this is not even remotely true.  You were purposefully? mixing.



With all due respect, you have no idea about monetary operations. If you did, you'd realize that the federal government doesn't need or require tax revenue to fund expenditures. The federal government can never be short of dollars, nor does it need you or I to pay taxes to get more money.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 10, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The government creates net financial assets through deficit spending. Net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny. Get over it already....

This is all basic sectoral accounting. If you want the domestic private sector to be in surplus, then the government sector has to be in deficit.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 10, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



For every liability, there is a corresponding asset. Those liabilities of the federal government, such as bonds and currency, are assets to the public. This is all very basic accounting, there's two sides of a ledger.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 10, 2013)

> I don't know which numbers you are using. Are you referring to Gross Domestic Private Investment? That's generally averaged 15% from 1954 to 2013. Are you talking about Net Domestic Investment? That's never been higher than 6% GDP.
> 
> I can only assume that you are referring to GDPI This component of GDP is up to 15% under Obama; however, this was coming from all time lows of 12.5% of GDP. Under Obama, business investment averaged 14.3%. Under Reagan it averaged 18.5%.
> 
> But yes, Business Investment is generally up mostly due to the target tax cuts for which were meant to courage job creation, but instead ended up as discriminatory job screening measures. Most of this money has not gone to create jobs. Well, not any meaningful ones anyway.



No, I wasn't using Net Domestic Investment, although I'd like to see those numbers. I was using Gross Private Domestic Investment. I can look it the data up again, but I'm too lazy at times, unless I'm motivated.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> The value is of the dollar is derived from the fact that we have to use it to pay our tax obligations. The government doesn't need to collect back in taxes that which is freely issues.



BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

I've never seen a more ignorant claim in my entire life.  You've just unmasked yourself as an economic ignoramus.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Spends money into existence.  Dude that's just fairy dust.
> ...



That's true.  The FED simply prints money any time it wants to.  No spending is required to make it money.  It becomes money the minute it appears on the books of some bank.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 10, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Austerity doesn't = investment into a economy. That's all you need to know.
> ...



The private sector isn't permitted to engage in plunder and robbery.  That's the only "service" that government provides.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 10, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



"Educate" must be a liberal euphemism meaning to prove that you're an ignorant fool.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 10, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> I understand Kimura's perspective.  And I understand the poor use of terms that were carefully chosen to give credit to the Government where it is not due. I refuse to agree with the perspective that without public debt we would have no private assets, it is complete bull shit.



You are 100% correct, and no credible economist agrees with Kimura.  He doesn't even know what an asset is.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> The government create/issues the national unit of account. It doesn't need to receive back in taxes that which is freely issues as the monopoly issuer of the dollar.



That's true. When private individuals undertake similar activity we call it "counterfeiting."



> The government taxes to create demand for the national unit of account and to regulate aggregate demand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He's right and you're full of shit.  You know squat about money and economics.  Actually, everything you know is pure statist propaganda.



Kimura said:


> > The value is of the dollar is derived from the fact that we have to use it to pay our tax obligations.
> >
> > No.  The value of the dollar is derived from the exchange of labor and assets.  Yes, that includes services rendered by our Government employees.
> 
> ...



wrong again.  Money has value because it is useful as a medium of exchange.  Under a gold standard, it also has value as a commodity, however that doesn't allow government to plunder us all with its counterfeit operation.



Kimura said:


> > You asked me to explain to how monetary operations work. I explained it to you in a fairly simple and concise manner in my previous post. Money creation is a balance sheet operation, nothing more, nothing less.
> >
> > I'm fully aware of how those operations work.  My issue was with the terms you chose to use. You did not like my terms.  I did not like your terms, that and the straw man of saying the fed is for all intents and purposes the dept. of the Treasury. You and I both know this is not even remotely true.  You were purposefully? mixing.
> 
> ...



That's all true.  The government can fund its operations purely by employing the printing press.  However, that has dire economic consequences that not even the fools and rogues in Congress are willing to endure.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> The government creates net financial assets through deficit spending. Net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny. Get over it already....



That is pure idiocy and easily disproved.



Kimura said:


> This is all basic sectoral accounting. If you want the domestic private sector to be in surplus, then the government sector has to be in deficit.



What does it even mean for the domestic private sector to be "in surplus?"  There is no single account for the private sector that needs to balance.

The stuff you spout isn't just wrong.  It's idiotic.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> For every liability, there is a corresponding asset. Those liabilities of the federal government, such as bonds and currency, are assets to the public. This is all very basic accounting, there's two sides of a ledger.



BWAHAHAHAHA!  You're serious?

You think the obligations of the Social Security Administration are an asset?


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> > I don't know which numbers you are using. Are you referring to Gross Domestic Private Investment? That's generally averaged 15% from 1954 to 2013. Are you talking about Net Domestic Investment? That's never been higher than 6% GDP.
> >
> > I can only assume that you are referring to GDPI This component of GDP is up to 15% under Obama; however, this was coming from all time lows of 12.5% of GDP. Under Obama, business investment averaged 14.3%. Under Reagan it averaged 18.5%.
> >
> ...



The only reason I know is because I made a graph for someone else bringing up the same point. Although if I go back farther, the average would probably be much lower.




Now that I look back at it, this graph was horribly constructed...




And actually going back to 1947, the historical average was 17% of GDP, instead of 15% GDP from the 1954 benchmark that I used. So I was wrong, going farther actually made the historical average of GDPI/GDP increase. Uncanny.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > The government creates net financial assets through deficit spending. Net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny. Get over it already....
> ...




Yes, net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny. 

The flows of income/spending accrue to stocks so to speak. The private sector&#8217;s ability to accrue net financial assets over a certain time period is only possible because it's spending is less than its income over that time period. Basically, the private sector has been saving, which has enabled it to accrue a stock of wealth as financial assets. In my example, we&#8217;re using the private sector and public sector, whereby financial assets are liabilities &#8211; both as bonds and currency. These government IOUs can only be accrued when the government spends more than it receives back in tax revenue. We call this a government deficit which is the flow of government spending less tax revenue over a given time period. This government accrues a stock of government debt which is equal to the private sector&#8217;s accumulation of financial wealth over the same time period. The net financial assets of the private sector are equal the net financial liabilities of the government sector. 

For example, if the government ran a constant budget surplus, the private sector&#8217;s net financial wealth would go into negative territory. In point of fact, this is what happened under Clinton. The private sector was basically in debt to the public sector.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > I understand Kimura's perspective.  And I understand the poor use of terms that were carefully chosen to give credit to the Government where it is not due. I refuse to agree with the perspective that without public debt we would have no private assets, it is complete bull shit.
> ...



LOL. I have MS in Economics. 

By the way, there's many, many credible economists that agree with me.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > For every liability, there is a corresponding asset. Those liabilities of the federal government, such as bonds and currency, are assets to the public. This is all very basic accounting, there's two sides of a ledger.
> ...



You have to realize that one&#8217;s financial asset is another&#8217;s financial liability. This is basic accounting, buddy. For every asset, we have an offsetting liability. For example, a savings account is a household&#8217;s financial asset, but liability for the bank. We can say the same thing about a corporate bond or government bond, etc. A household also has liabilities, such as a mortgage, car note, student loans, etc. These things are assets to the creditor. 

The Social Security debate is the biggest scam ever in my estimation. There isn&#8217;t a nominal crisis with Social Security. The whole debate revolves around how this federal liability is an asset to the public. Nobody talks about the corresponding assets. The SS wealth of the American people is as real and tangible as the federal liabilities which support it.

Here&#8217;s some more basic accounting: the asset of the payroll tax revenue to the government is actually a liability for the public. This is the same as how any and all future liabilities of the federal government are assets to the public.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Assets = Liability + Owners Equity 

It's been about decade since my accounting classes. So, I'd have to give it some thought (Plus, I'm tired at the moment). But, I'm all but certain your reasoning is spurious. Were it not so, we'd want to borrow an infinite amount of money to allegedly increase our assets. Which, it would do in that very second (not accounting for depreciation). But, there's a sustainability factor in any amount of money being borrowed.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> This government accrues a stock of government debt which is equal to the private sectors accumulation of financial wealth over the same time period.



That's where you go wrong.  You have provided no support for this claim.  



Kimura said:


> The net financial assets of the private sector are equal the net financial liabilities of the government sector.



Pure horseshit.



Kimura said:


> For example, if the government ran a constant budget surplus, the private sectors net financial wealth would go into negative territory. In point of fact, this is what happened under Clinton. The private sector was basically in debt to the public sector.



Another claim with no factual basis of support.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


But the thing is, dipshit, you prove yourself to be an ignorant fool by simply posting something.  Did you think anyone actually paid any attention to you.  But hell, lets be fair.  You are a simple congenital idiot.  Not your fault.  Just plain bad luck.  And we all understand your unrealistic desire to be taken seriously.  Just not your fault.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 10, 2013)

Kimura said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You have an MS in government propaganda, and only other demagogues of your ilk agree with you.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Really, me boy.  It is ok.  We all understand you are a congenital idiot.  It is simply not your fault.  So, you can not be expected to understand anything about economics.  And therefor, you do not really disappoint anyone.  We all understand your ailment.
And, even though your posts have no trace of validity, they do serve a purpose.  We all need someone to laugh at.  And you, magnanimously, have decided to serve that purpose.  Good job, and keep up the humor.  It is nice to see that the mentally challenged (and boy, are you ever mentally challenged), are able to contribute something to society.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > This government accrues a stock of government debt which is equal to the private sector&#8217;s accumulation of financial wealth over the same time period.
> ...



Example time....


Domestic Private Sector + Domestic Government Sector + Foreign Sector = 0

For example, let&#8217;s say that the foreign sector (rest of the world) runs a balanced budget. In my example, for the sake of argument, it equals zero for obvious reasons. Let&#8217;s also assume the domestic private sector&#8217;s income is $200 billion while its spending is $180 billion, which give us a budget surplus of $20 billion dollars over the course of the year. By accounting identity alone, the domestic government sector will have a budget deficit equal to $20 billion dollars. The domestic private sector will accrue $20 billion in net financial wealth during the year, which will consist of $20 billion of domestic government sector liabilities.

Using another example, let&#8217;s say that the foreign sector spends less then it income, with a budget surplus of $40 billion. Simultaneously, the domestic government sector also spends less than its surplus by running a budget surplus of $20 billion. Again, by accounting identity alone, we know that the domestic private sector will have a budget deficit of $60 billion ($40 billion plus $20 billion). Its net financial wealth will have decreased by $60 billion as it issued debt and sold assets. The domestic private sector will have increased its net financial wealth by $20 billion, and the foreign sector will have increased its net financial wealth by $40 billion.

This is all very basic sectoral balances and macroaccounting. It should be abundantly clear that if one sector is going to run a suplus then another must run a defict. If we look at this in terms of stock variables, in order for one sector to accrue net financial wealth, one other sector must be in deficit by an equal amount. It&#8217;s impossible for all sectors to accrue net financial wealth by simultaneously running budget surpluses. 

_
In actual reality, the government&#8217;s red ink is our black ink.
_

See here:


----------



## Kimura (Aug 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 10, 2013)

Here is the thing.  What you just laid out may seem really, really, really simple.  But it did nave more than two components.  Now, Bripat is STRAINING at any argument with as many as 2 components.  That, and his inability to concentrate for as long as gnat, seems to me to rather obviously indicate there is NO chance he will understand what you tried to help him with.

So, maybe we should just refer Bripat to efci.com.  You know, economicsforcongenitalidiots.com.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> If you want the domestic private sector to be in surplus, then the government sector has to be in deficit.



The private sector has it's own assets.  It does not need the US Government or it's bull shit deficit.  We could burn the current government down tomorrow. Wipe out the deficit through bankruptcy court. Switch to a system where the new government is not allowed to have any deficit spending, where it can only spend what it draws in revenue. Deficits are not a necessary element of private sector assets.  Your statement is asinine.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> > OMFG  No NO NO NO NO
> >
> > The government taxes the people the income from the taxes is called tax revenue.  The government spends that revenue.   The government did not create shit.  It taxed the people.  WTF is wrong with you?
> >
> ...



>>> The government create/issues the national unit of account. It doesn't need to receive back in taxes that which is freely issues as the monopoly issuer of the dollar.

That money is borrowed.  You say borrowed money does not have to be repaid?  Bullshit.

>>> Under a fiat system, the national government _must _spend in order for us to get our hands on the currency. 

Again total bullshit.  You continue to mix the fed and government.  Why?  You know this is a lie, why do you keep lying by calling the fed a part of our government?

>>> Taxes payments destroy money. 
Bullshirt.  Redistribution of money is not destruction of money.   The money does not disappear it gets redistributed.  Granted money taken out of the hands of the people to fund government programs is usually a waste of money but it's not destroyed money.  It simply reduces future expansion of GDP due to the waste.

>>> Do you have to pay the IRS in dollars? Yes or No? 
Yes. Duh.

>>> What gives the dollar value, what motivates us to use the currency, is that all of our tax obligations are denominated in dollars and must be extinguished in dollars.

I already told you what gives the dollar value.  The value of the dollar is derived from the exchange of labor and assets.  The motivation for using the currency is to exchange/obtain labor and assets.  You are confusing the motivation of government to use dollars to obtain tax revenue with the motivation for dollars as a denomination to exchange labor and assets.  Further you are confusing the act of taxing and spending by this government with some freakish extinguishing of dollars reference that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I'm sure in your mind there is justification for your terms chosen. Probably some accounting babel.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Only a humbug government propagandists would claim there's something called "the foreign sector" that has a budget.  What a real economists would say is that Americans buy products overseas and foreigners invest money in American companies.  The number of dollars leaving the country has to balance the number of dollars coming into the country simply because Americans purchase foreign goods with dollars and if foreigners want to use their dollars they have to send them back to America, either by purchasing American goods or by investing them in American companies.

As for the "domestic private sector" running a "surplus."  All that means is that the government borrowed money from the private sector.  Of course that amount exactly equals the government's deficit.  When the government spends more than it takes in, it has to borrow the difference.

How does this prove all private sector "investment" is the result of government debt?  It doesn't.  All it proves is that government debt is the result of government debt.

If Ford Motor Corporation issues a bond and private investors purchase those bonds, where does that show up on your "sectoral balances?"  The answer is it doesn't.  Apparently your "analysis" doesn't consider the bonds of Ford Motor Company to be an asset.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Here is the thing.  What you just laid out may seem really, really, really simple.  But it did nave more than two components.  Now, Bripat is STRAINING at any argument with as many as 2 components.  That, and his inability to concentrate for as long as gnat, seems to me to rather obviously indicate there is NO chance he will understand what you tried to help him with.
> 
> So, maybe we should just refer Bripat to efci.com.  You know, economicsforcongenitalidiots.com.



The stream of personal attacks from you is the result of your inability to get over having someone call you on your statist bullshit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > If you want the domestic private sector to be in surplus, then the government sector has to be in deficit.
> ...



this line of propaganda is designed to make Americans believe that the economy couldn't run without the government money making machine.  However, it ran fabulously well for 150 years prior to the creation of the federal reserve.  The idea that all private investment or financial "assets" wouldn't exist without government debt is absurd on its face.  It takes a special kind of servility to believe this crap.

The working of the liberal mind is a truly nauseating spectacle.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 11, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 11, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



6years of college study and he still can't figure out that there were assets prior to government debt.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 11, 2013)

> That money is borrowed.  You say borrowed money does not have to be repaid?  Bullshit.



Borrowed from whom? The US has to borrow its own fiat. LOL.



> Again total bullshit.  You continue to mix the fed and government.  Why?  You know this is a lie, why do you keep lying by calling the fed a part of our government?



Do the Board of Governors execute monetary policy? Yes or No? They are publicly appointed and tell the member banks how to execute monetary policy. This FED conspiracy nonsense is has zero basis in reality.




> Bullshirt.  Redistribution of money is not destruction of money.   The money does not disappear it gets redistributed.  Granted money taken out of the hands of the people to fund government programs is usually a waste of money but it's not destroyed money.  It simply reduces future expansion of GDP due to the waste.



The government sector expenditures are net financial assets to the domestic private sector. This is all accomplished by crediting bank accounts. Taxation removes financial assets which were created by government sector spending by transferring money out of bank accounts. Government spending adds account entries to bank accounts and they are removed through taxation. Government spending creates money while taxation destroys said money. Modern currency sort of functions as a tax credit if you think about it.

Again, operationally, your federal taxes don't fund any government programs. And government spending is a component of GDP.




> I already told you what gives the dollar value.  The value of the dollar is derived from the exchange of labor and assets.  The motivation for using the currency is to exchange/obtain labor and assets.  You are confusing the motivation of government to use dollars to obtain tax revenue with the motivation for dollars as a denomination to exchange labor and assets.  Further you are confusing the act of taxing and spending by this government with some freakish extinguishing of dollars reference that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I'm sure in your mind there is justification for your terms chosen. Probably some accounting babel.



Taxes drive money so to speak. The federal government creates the national unit of account and then it implements taxes obligations in said national unit of account. The is good enough to guarantee that all prices, assets, and debts will also be denominated in the the national unit of account. Basically, the government imposes a liability on us so we will accept these government IOUs. 

I'm going to give you an example.

The US dollar is a sovereign currency. What does this mean? It means it's a keystroke which marks up an electronic entry on the bank&#8217;s balance sheet. And yes, it can be coins and paper. To be precise, it&#8217;s two entries: one entry in the deposit account of a defense contractor and a reserve credit at the FED for the defense contractor&#8217;s bank.

In terms of fiat currency, what does Uncle Sam promise? To redeem their currency for tax payments so to speak. When the defense contractor pays taxes, the debits are reversed: the deposit is debited and so is the bank&#8217;s reserves at the Federal Reserve. It&#8217;s magic! The sovereign currency goes into the great void!

The products from the defense contractor end up with the US government. This was the whole reason for the debits.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 11, 2013)

> this line of propaganda is designed to make Americans believe that the economy couldn't run without the government money making machine.  However, it ran fabulously well for 150 years prior to the creation of the federal reserve.  The idea that all private investment or financial "assets" wouldn't exist without government debt is absurd on its face.  It takes a special kind of servility to believe this crap.
> 
> The working of the liberal mind is a truly nauseating spectacle.



LOL. The financial system was a MESS before we established the FED, unless you define fabulous as having a banking panic and depression every ten years or so.

Our current fiat system has done orders of magnitude better than when we were on a  gold standard. 

Let's take a look at the "fabulous" time period you talk about. The gold standard gave us the Panic of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857, 1866, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1907, and the Great Depression. Basically, out of the ten panics of the 19th century, five were followed by steep recession and/or depression.

Yeah, dude, this time period was absolutely fabulous.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I'm not the one that's confused. You seem to be confusing real assets and financial assets.  Seriously.....


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


WOW yeah cause I can't own a share of a real asset.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> I'm going to give you an example.
> 
> The US dollar is a sovereign currency. What does this mean? It means it's a keystroke which marks up an electronic entry on the bank&#8217;s balance sheet. And yes, it can be coins and paper. To be precise, it&#8217;s two entries: one entry in the deposit account of a defense contractor and a reserve credit at the FED for the defense contractor&#8217;s bank.
> 
> ...


You have yet again proven you don't know what the fed is. The US government would have to end the fed to do what you claim.  

>>> The US dollar is a sovereign currency. What does this mean? 
That is not an example.  You did not learn English in college? 

>>> In terms of fiat currency, what does Uncle Sam promise?  To redeem their currency for tax payments so to speak. 

Yes. Currency is redeemable for the face amount.

>>> When the defense contractor pays taxes, the debits are reversed: the deposit is debited and so is the bank&#8217;s reserves at the Federal Reserve. It&#8217;s magic! The sovereign currency goes into the great void!

It's not magic.  Someone had to earn that currency.  You are however, correct in saying that the fed does not earn it's account.  That part as we agreed, is fairy dust. They don't have to do anything.  Fairy dust.  So yes if your point is that fiat currency is complete bull shit. Then I agree.  The alternative to the fed is people actually trade real assets instead of the fed counterfeiting currency.  For example, the government can actually provide work.  When the defense contractor pays his taxes that money goes to the work provided by the government worker. Not just the fed loans.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 11, 2013)

Toro probably would have found this interesting before his unexpected 'ejection.' The post revisions in GDP versus the pre revisions in GDP chained in 2009 dollars. While we both certainly disagreed with these revisions, we both disagreed with the strength of the economy.




According to the new revision, the economy is $1.8 larger; however data trends do not support the new structural size of the economy. If you follow the new revision, it means that the economy is weaker than portrayed, not stronger.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


You are a brave brave man, Kimura.  Trying to educate two economic wastelands at the same time is more than anyone should have to do.  My bet is that they leave as ignorant as they started.  But it is funny watching these dolts make really, really stupid statements.  But, you have to remember, it is what they want to believe.  It is what they are told to believe.  They are, of course, completely uninterested in truth.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 11, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the thing.  What you just laid out may seem really, really, really simple.  But it did nave more than two components.  Now, Bripat is STRAINING at any argument with as many as 2 components.  That, and his inability to concentrate for as long as gnat, seems to me to rather obviously indicate there is NO chance he will understand what you tried to help him with.
> ...


Look out.  Bripat is about to start spitting pablum.  But again, it is ok. I am fully supportive of you, my poor ignorant clown.  It is not your fault that you are completely ignorant.  You have a true medical problem.  Being a congenital idiot makes life tough for you.  Just your own bad luck.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Maybe if you two learned English, you'd be able to talk to folks outside of your liberal arts circle.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Perhaps, between yourself and bripat you can muster an IQ of 100.  Cumulative, of course.  You need serious help.  Because you are incapable of understanding what you are being told.  People try to help you, and you just get angry.  Oh.  Yeah.  I forgot.  You are a con tool.  And con tools LIKE being angry.  Con tool and angry is redundant.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


What's your IQ score?  Care to put up a bet?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


That is the thing.  If you would just read the articles I have linked you to, then you could understand that cons are stupid.  And that they believe they are smart.  But, look, it is not your fault.  You are a congenital idiot, nothing you can do to help yourself there.  But it is fun to watch  you prove it.  And you do so over and over and over.   And, me boy, I was just trying to help you.  You should be angry at those who got you to believe the drivel you do, not those trying to help  you understand the truth.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



What do cons have to do with your asinine assumption that we'd have no assets without public debt?


----------



## oldfart (Aug 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> I'm not the one that's confused. You seem to be confusing real assets and financial assets.  Seriously.....



You had them going for quite a while, but you slipped up and let the cat out of the bag. Accounting definitions and identities apply to financial instruments and accounting, not real assets.  When you look at stocks of real assets (like housing stock or military equipment) you have valuation problems, but you have moved beyond the financial instrument only balance sheets used in monetary policy.  

Shame on you for teasing them with the defense industry example!  They should have been able to figure it out from that one.  

Well, it was fun watching while it lasted.  

Folks, Kimura's point is correct when considering financial assets.  It has to be because it is the essence of double-entry bookkeeping.  A debit on one ledger has to be offset with a credit on another.  Basic accounting.  

When you introduce real assets (inventory, capital goods, housing, etc)  it gets dicey.  Take the Ford example.  Suppose Ford issues $10 million in bonds to finance inventory in progress.  The initial entries are to increase a liability account (bonds payable) by $10 million and to increase cash in bank by $10 million.  So far, so good.  Then Ford pays the $10 million for raw materials, labor, and expenses.  The cash in bank goes back down again, and presumably Ford makes vehicles for inventory worth somewhat more than $10 million.  Note I have finessed the accounts payable issue to keep it simple and I am assuming "full-absorption inventory accounting" for Ford.  How does Ford value this finished inventory?  Marx brothers:  Groucho, Harpo, Zippo, FIFO, and LIFO.  Sorry, a little accounting humor there (and yes accounting humor is that lame, if you want good jokes, hang out with actuaries; but I digress).  If Ford values inventory strictly at cost, the inventory is valued at $10 million.

Now is where things get fun.  Ford sells the vehicles through dealers (I'm collapsing the dealers and Ford together here, you really don't want to get into dealer financing do you?)  The dealers sell the cars for $12 million, creating a profit of $2 million.  We post $12 million to cash in bank, which can be used to pay off the bonds. We reduce inventory by $10 million and book a profit of $2 million (which is why assets= liabilities +capital!).  Ford is all tidied up.  

Now what about the buyers of the vehicles?  They gave up $12 million for their vehicles.  Their cash in bank goes down $12 million and the add an asset of $12 million to their personal balance sheets.  So where did the $12 million cash in bank consumers had come from?

In an accounting sense it doesn't really matter; we assumed they had it to begin with.  Alternately they could borrow it from the bank; if you have trouble figuring those postings out, K & R can walk you through it.  From an economic standpoint you have to go back to day one of the first econ course, the "circular flow" diagram where money goes clockwise and real goods and services counterclockwise with product markets on top and factor markets on the bottom.  The $10 million Ford spent for labor and other expenses went back to workers and factor owners, just like the $2 million of profit will be distributed to the household sector as dividends.  Except of course for what has to be paid in taxes, which goes to the government to pay for the.....you get the picture.  

So folks, it all really does work out and Kimura and Rshermr are not crazy.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Rshermr is another example of the liberal obsession with seeing themselves as "smarter" than everyone else...which is why everyone should let THEM call the shots.

But then when they had control of the House, the Senate and the Oval Office they gave us a stimulus that didn't stimulate and a health care reform bill that raises the cost of health care while it diminishes the quality of that care.  

Which begs the question...if these guys ARE so doggone smart then why can't they fix things?  I'm originally from Massachusetts and we had a long history of electing Republican Governors even though we are an overwhelmingly Democratic State.  Why?  Because Republicans were better at running the State than Democrats were and even died in the wool liberals understood that.  They'd elect a few Democrats and then put a Republican in there to fix the mess that always seemed to result.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


And there he goes again.  The opinion of a con with no links to prove his drivel.  Typical.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 11, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not the one that's confused. You seem to be confusing real assets and financial assets.  Seriously.....
> ...


Well, thanks.  But sometimes I am a bit crazy.  Just trying to work my way out of it.  But nice to see.  I was on top of this basic econ stuff 40+ years ago.  Funny how fast it comes back when someone who is on top of it puts it out there.  
But, I could discus the wonders of z/OS if anyone were interested.  And MVS to boot.  But then, the fact is it is a whole lot like discussing actuarial tables.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I wrote a z/OS simulator once.  One of my past jobs was lead architect for the kernel and GUI for NT and that old OS IBM dropped OS/2.  

Your arguments mixed terms between the fed and taxes/spending of the Treasury two completely different ledgers.  What was described would have been correct only from the fed perspective.  The fed is not the Treasury.   If it was just a joke, it wasn't correct or funny   Just cause you know the difference between a debt and a credit does not excuse leaving out the account number in the discussion and esp. does not forgive switching GLs without discussing the appropriate transfers.  The fed does not tax.  And the debt is not an asset of the Treasury.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 11, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not the one that's confused. You seem to be confusing real assets and financial assets.  Seriously.....
> ...



Good analogy, although you have overlooked a few things.


There are historic examples where a (the) nation's government deficit was zero or negative and the country has had net savings. A particular example would be Singapore. I don't know why I like to use this as my example for everything. It just seems like the country can do no wrong...
Of course, you don't need governments in order to save.

Let's say a school janitor saves his paycheck of $2,000 and in a few months he buys 50 shares of Ford Motor company at $40 dollars per share. Evidently, you would not call this an example of an accumulation of a net financial asset in the private sector. The savings of the janitor would be exactly offset by the "dissaving" of the person selling him the shares of stock (or bonds). In this case, the MMT doesn't work. Although, you could say that the $2,000 of this investment would be offset by the corresponding debt on the company's books. But this would require treating the newly issued shares as a liability on the part of the company, rather than an equity.

Debt = equity, as certain economic models have professed, but it gives the creedence that net wealth can never increase in the private sector. The analysis overlooks the fact that $2,000 of capital handed over to a company is an asset now owned by the corporation. If consumers aren't spending, this has to show up, somewhere, somehow, and it has to show up through government deficits. The theory implies that if my Janitor decided to invest his $2,000 paycheck into Ford Motor Company, then without deficits, it would drain $2,000 out of the economy. Well, what if everyone in the community decided to stop spending in their community and invest in the stock market? It's true, many people in the community would be out of a job, but business opportunities would be gained in many other sectors of the economy.

Despite all of the problems I have mentioned here, it's pretty easy to see what you are trying to say. A federal deficit of (enter amount here) caused an accumulation of same amount of net financial assets of the same amount, and at the same time, the foreign sector has a invested roughly the same amount in US financial assets. By this zero sum game, you have convince us that


The private sector can only save as much as the as the Government sector borrows
Foreigners accumulate dollar denominated assets roughly around the same amount equal to the US deficit.

Of course, you do realise the only why this accounting can work for the domestic sector in terms of savings is for the government sector to accumulate deficits larger than the trade deficit.... Which has kinda happened already.

Micro-accounting is like living inside of a mental prison (a nice way of saying it). MMTers normally define "private saving" as "private saving minus Investment" which is how MMTers normally use the word "saving", or sometimes "net saving". Then it's just standard National Income Accounting. Y=C+I+G, and S=Y-T-C, therefore S-I=G-T, which complete and utter self-perpetual rhetoric. You may not believe anyone who advocates this is crazy, but it's pretty crazy to assume that unless the Government runs a budget deficit, then the private sector cannot save... At all...


----------



## Kimura (Aug 11, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not the one that's confused. You seem to be confusing real assets and financial assets.  Seriously.....
> ...


----------



## Kimura (Aug 11, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



 It's pretty basic, unless someone else is creating net financial assets as US financial assets besides the US government. 

It boils down to the following: (S &#8211; I) = (G &#8211; T) + (X &#8211; M)

This is MMT from a macro standpoint.

We're talking government sector, domestic private sector,  and foreign sector.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 11, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



That's called "original thought", Tommy...it's what intelligent people do.  Intellectual lemmings like yourself are wedded to Google because you don't have the capacity to formulate your own opinion or express it in a well thought out manner.  It's why you felt the need to embellish your intellectual "credentials" by making up stories about teaching Economics as an undergrad.  If you really HAD the intellectual chops to argue your point you wouldn't be reduced to *posing* as an authority.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 11, 2013)

Kimura said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



Oldfart didn't use the foreign sector in his example. I assume it was to keep it simple. Because of this, I have omitted the foreign sector in my example. I only disregarded the foreign sector and concentrated on the domestic private sector and government sector in my example. The basic premise is that if the if no one is spending, then everyone must be saving and that savings is shown through government sector deficits.

Even if you believe that the net private savings of private investment can't grow without the government budget deficit, so what? The entire benefit of private savings is that it allows for private investment.

Net private savings _can_ equal a budget deficit, but it doesn't has to. That's where the external sector with international trade comes in. Deficits are not required for the public sector to have savings. The Government run surpluses without the need for the private sector to spend. It's generally encouraged that both the private sector save as well as the government, hence the creation of sovereign wealth funds.

I also find it very cute that MMTers divide the economy into only three parts: Government Sector, Private Sector and Foreign Sector. If it doesn't involve a transaction between those, they just ignore it. Very kooky indeed


----------



## oldfart (Aug 12, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Good analogy, although you have overlooked a few things.



To keep the post shorter than "War and Peace" I chose to make a LOT of simplifications.  You are correct, and in second year accounting people get a lot of the nuances.  



AmazonTania said:


> There are historic examples where a (the) nation's government deficit was zero or negative and the country has had net savings. A particular example would be Singapore. I don't know why I like to use this as my example for everything. It just seems like the country can do no wrong...



That's why I left the foreign sector out of the Ford example.  Try explaining the entries for product shipped to UK when the exchange rate fluctuates!  



AmazonTania said:


> Of course, you don't need governments in order to save.



That sort of depends on the kind of economic model you look at.  As you aggregate, more and more transactions net out.  For example if we divide the private sector into a business sector, household sector, and financial sector; when Last National Bank loans Bubba Barfwell the $55k to buy his Ford 350, the household sector increases debt and tangible personal property, the business sector increases cash in bank and decreases inventory, and the financial sector increases loan assets and decreases cash on hand (it went to Ford!).  But when you aggregate into one private sector, all of these net out to zero.  Only transactions involving the government or foreign sectors can create net financial saving for the private sector as a whole.  K & R assumed away the foreign sector and arrived at their two sector model where the only way for the private sector to save (i.e. have a surplus) is for the government sector to have an equal deficit, "to the last dime".  

There's a reason why this is called a "two-sector model" in monetary theory!  




AmazonTania said:


> Let's say a school janitor saves his paycheck of $2,000 and in a few months he buys 50 shares of Ford Motor company at $40 dollars per share. Evidently, you would not call this an example of an accumulation of a net financial asset in the private sector. The savings of the janitor would be exactly offset by the "dissaving" of the person selling him the shares of stock (or bonds).



Agreed.  Secondary financial markets must always net to zero, as in every transaction what the seller receives is identical to what the buyer pays.  



AmazonTania said:


> In this case, the MMT doesn't work. Although, you could say that the $2,000 of this investment would be offset by the corresponding debt on the company's books. But this would require treating the newly issued shares as a liability on the part of the company, rather than an equity.



I sense a little confusion here.  Our janitor buys 50 shares of Ford on a secondary market, and Ford makes no entries on its books at all (its liabilities and equity are unchanged).  It is not a party to the transaction.  Should Ford issue new stock, sell treasury stock, or redeem stock, then Ford is a party to the transaction and its balance sheet changes.  For newly issued stock, it increases paid-in capital and cash in bank by the same amount.  



AmazonTania said:


> Debt = equity, as certain economic models have professed, but it gives the creedence that net wealth can never increase in the private sector. The analysis overlooks the fact that $2,000 of capital handed over to a company is an asset now owned by the corporation. If consumers aren't spending, this has to show up, somewhere, somehow, and it has to show up through government deficits. The theory implies that if my Janitor decided to invest his $2,000 paycheck into Ford Motor Company, then without deficits, it would drain $2,000 out of the economy. Well, what if everyone in the community decided to stop spending in their community and invest in the stock market? It's true, many people in the community would be out of a job, but business opportunities would be gained in many other sectors of the economy.



This is, I think the "crowding-out" argument.  I'll defer it to another post in the interest of brevity.  If we aggregate the household sector (the janitor) and the business sector (Ford) the transaction nets out.  



AmazonTania said:


> Despite all of the problems I have mentioned here, it's pretty easy to see what you are trying to say. A federal deficit of (enter amount here) caused an accumulation of same amount of net financial assets of the same amount, and at the same time, the foreign sector has a invested roughly the same amount in US financial assets. By this zero sum game, you have convince us that
> 
> 
> The private sector can only save as much as the as the Government sector borrows
> Foreigners accumulate dollar denominated assets roughly around the same amount equal to the US deficit.



That's the basic argument.  I don't like two sector models for a variety of reasons, one of which is that this reasoning relies too much on accounting identities and ignores much of what is happening with real assets.  In particular I am disturbed that there is no distinction between consumer goods and capital goods.  The fundamental national income accounts identity is:

Ip+Ig+If+(X-M)=Sp+Sg+Sf+T

where Ip is private investment, Ig is government investment, If is net foreign investment, X is total exports, M is total imports, Sp is private savings, Sg is government savings (surplus), Sf is foreign repatriation of capital, and T is tax revenue.  

This is a far more robust model and produces a much better analytical framework.  



AmazonTania said:


> Of course, you do realise the only why this accounting can work for the domestic sector in terms of savings is for the government sector to accumulate deficits larger than the trade deficit.... Which has kinda happened already.



That's a three-sector model midway between K & R's two-sector model and the robust NIA model.  



AmazonTania said:


> Micro-accounting is like living inside of a mental prison (a nice way of saying it). MMTers normally define "private saving" as "private saving minus Investment" which is how MMTers normally use the word "saving", or sometimes "net saving". Then it's just standard National Income Accounting. Y=C+I+G, and S=Y-T-C, therefore S-I=G-T, which complete and utter self-perpetual rhetoric. You may not believe anyone who advocates this is crazy, but it's pretty crazy to assume that unless the Government runs a budget deficit, then the private sector cannot save... At all...



You are correct.  But if you look at the model I described, some interesting things occur.  First, you have a three-sector capital stock and therefore three investment flows.  It depends on where the investment is coming from, the private sector, government, or foreign sources.  An Interstate highway becomes a balance sheet asset for the government, adding to the national stock of capital just like the trucks which drive upon it.  Exports and imports become more nuanced, as it makes a difference if they are for consumer or capital goods.  As you play with this model most of the oversimplifications drop out.  Then one morning you discover input-output tables!  God bless Wassily Liontieff!  

Peace all.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 12, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



Here's an in-depth analysis of the Stock Flow Consistent Model used by Wynne Godly. I used a good portion of his work while developing my master's thesis.

Here

You have to realize that the government sector&#8217;s budget can either be in surplus or deficit. Correct? A deficit results when the government spends more than it receives in tax payments; a surplus being the opposite whereby the government sector taxes more than it spends. In Modern Monetary Theory, we realize, as a matter of accounting identity, that government deficits add net financial assets to the private sector. Basically, the government sector has deposited more currency into banks accounts than its received back in taxes. Again, without trying to sound redundant, with a surplus, the government sector has withdrawn more currency from private banks accounts than has been deposited through spending.

If we go back to our basic identity: (G-T) = (S-I) &#8211; NX

This identity is utilized all throughout macroeconomics. We can ascertain from this that private net saving can only when the government runs deficits. On the flip side, if the government goes into surplus, then the private sector cannot save.

Then we have  (S &#8211; I) = (G &#8211; T) + (X &#8211; M) whereby (S) is total private savings and is equal to (I) which private investment plus deficits (G-T) which is spending minus our taxes plus our next exports (X) minus out imports (M). Net exports as an identity of total net savings of the foreign sector. These are basic accounting identities and not really open to debate.

This has ramifications during time periods where we high effective demand, since the private sector will have use credit to fund any consumption needs. Thank back to the Clinton&#8217;s second administration. We can run budget surpluses when there is an inflationary risk I would presume or if there&#8217;s skyrocketing aggregate demand.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 12, 2013)

I'm not sure if I exactly follow every point of what you said Oldfart, or put another way I don't want to follow every point   But I do appreciate the point that more robust models produce better analytical frameworks.  I don't mind when the Economics expert(s) claim to have a model for a framework for discussion and prediction.  The part that bothers me is when the terms used and/or explanation appear to entirely ignore inconvenient data outside of the framework of discussion.  Especially when it appears that the model was carefully selected and/or artificially designed as a means to prove a political point.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Here's an in-depth analysis of the Stock Flow Consistent Model used by Wynne Godly. I used a good portion of his work while developing my master's thesis.
> 
> Here
> 
> ...



>>> In Modern Monetary Theory, we realize, as a matter of accounting identity, that government deficits add net financial assets to the private sector.

True.

>>> We can ascertain from this that private net saving can only when the government runs deficits. 

False.  Just because government deficits can add to the assets of the private sector, does not mean that private net saving can only occur when the government runs deficits.  You have made this assumption by assuming that all private sector net assets are the result of the government deficits.  Private sector assets are not SOLELY due to the cash infusion into lending banks.  You have completely left out the largest means for increasing private sector assets.  You have left out Labor, intellectual capital, ... discovered resources. 

>>> On the flip side, if the government goes into surplus, then the private sector cannot save.

False.  Just because government surplus payments on debt lead to a reduction in total amount of debt loaned to the government from the private sector does not mean the private sector cannot save. This is just a ridiculous claim.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...


This is again very obvious analysis.  You are about to run into the inability of a significant group to believe what they do not want to believe.  Regardless of how obvious it is.  
Proof positive that you can not help those who want to believe what they LIKE.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



No one debates those are account identities. If the government runs deficits, then it issues bonds. It's generally assumed that private individuals purchase these bonds. Thus, government deficits = private savings. Of course, it isn't as simple in real life. And this is the premise. These accounting identities are often used self-perpetual tautologies.

As I've said before, using accounting identities net private savings does not always equal to government deficits.

(S - I) - (X - M) = (G + TR) - TA​
S = Savings (Domestic)
I = Investment
X = Exports
M = Imports
G = Government Spending
TA = Taxes
TR = Transfer Payments

If we assume domestic savings equals domestic investment, then _S - I = 0_. So this means:

M - X = (G + TR) - TA​
Because domestic savings is equal to domestic investment, a trade deficit can finance a budget deficit at 100%. This can be done with with no net private savings provided by the domestic sector. Net private savings can be stated as _S - I = (G + TR)  - TA_, which is a budget deficit, with government public dis-savings), or you can have net private investment which can be as _I - S = TA - (G + TR)_, which is a budget surplus with net government public savings. Either of which is synonymous with countries today operates a trade deficit, a government sector surplus and net private savings. Very similar to what the country of Hong Kong is experiencing.

Even using the same accounting identities, a government deficit is not required for private sector savings. We know this because history shows us this. The problem with these accounting identities is that it ignores the behavioral process. Some people (the taxpayers) have notes payable, and other people (investors) have notes receivable. The reality is that government deficits represent what some people owe to other people. To say that private net savings increases with increased government deficits is virtually the same thing as saying notes receivable increases when government debt increases. This is true, but this accounting identity does not prove that deficits are helpful during recessions as the 'deficits don't matter' crowd generally implies. Ultimately, running more deficits helps a few at the expense of many more.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an in-depth analysis of the Stock Flow Consistent Model used by Wynne Godly. I used a good portion of his work while developing my master's thesis.
> ...




Insufficient deficits can be compensated for, but in an bad way. It involves private debt. For example, if actors in the economy aren&#8217;t net saving &#8211; or if the government sector enters surplus &#8211; then the stock of wealth will be decreased. Actors can spend less &#8211; reducing aggregate demand &#8211; or keep up spending levels through the private going into debt by borrowing from various financial institutions. This net saving is offset by what we refer to as horizontal money creation so to speak. We can keep spending through this mechanism; however, private sector net financial assets will naturally decrease.

This type of credit bubble within the private sector can work for quite some time. This usually involves firms and households going into liquidation mode and increasing debt loads. This is a limited hangout, since it temporarily replaces government deficit spending with finite private deficit financing. As opposed to the US government, individuals, households and firms are constrained from a financial standpoint.

Eventually, at some point, debt-to-income levels reach unsustainable levels, destabilizing the financial system which causes problems in assets prices and the ability for this private debt to be serviced.

Credit growth occurring within the private sector can support a growing economy like this for a while. This typically involves households liquidating assets and going into debt. It is however not a sustainable growth path, as it replaces sustainable government deficit spending with unsustainable private deficit spending. Unlike a modern money government, private households and firms are ultimately financially constrained. 

At some point, debt-to-income-ratios will reach unhealthy levels, making the financial system vulnerable to disturbances such as changes in asset prices or interest rates. If debt expansion increases further, there will come a point where incomes are simply not high enough to service the interest payments. 

Lastly, the US government has averaged a deficit of about three cents for every dollar of national income. If the foreign sector, using the sectoral balances model, is ever balanced, it wouldn&#8217;t be possible for the domestic private sector to net save in any capacity unless the government sector is running a deficit. If we don&#8217;t have a government deficit, net private saving is out of the question.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 12, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



There&#8217;s absolutely nothing wrong with government deficits, nor do they crowd out private sector activity. Constant government deficits are normal in a growing and expanding economy. They add net financial assets, as currency and bonds, to the non-government sector which helps with the propensity to net save.

If the government has deficits which are too large, we have a situation where effective demand outpaces the capacity for the economy to expand and meet it. This scenario would occur if were ever to hit full employment and the economy was at full capacity. This could lead to inflationary pressure and increase the price level.

If budget deficits are used properly whereby it meets the savings needs of the domestic private sector and foreign sector it could theoretically be 2, 3, 4, 5, or even 15% of GDP with zero possibility of inflation. It&#8217;s only when budget deficits increase move the economy past it real capacity limits that we could have a problem. Permanent deficits are perfectly acceptable if that&#8217;s what&#8217;s required to offset the non-government sector&#8217;s intention to save so to speak.

There should be zero concern about government sector deficits especially when we compare them to private sector deficits or even the foreign sector deficit. These things all add to total aggregate demand at the end of the day.

If we get back to some national accounting, we can define net saving from a time period when we have income minus taxes and spending on aggregate consumption. We can also subtract aggregate investment. This leaves us with actual net saving. If use (N) to represent net savings of our domestic private sector, we have N = (S-I). (I) being investment and (S) representing gross saving (income minus taxes and consumption). This being S = Y - T &#8211; C. We then of net saving in dollars within with foreign sector represent by (M &#8211; X). This would be imports minus exports. By accounting identity alone, the net saving of the foreign sector and domestic private sector must be offset a government deficit which is represented by (G &#8211;T). We have government spend minus taxes. This gives us (S &#8211; I) + (M &#8211; X) = (G-T). 

We can tweak this, as you posted previously, from our standard GDP national accounting equation: GDP = C + G + I + (X- M). We have Y = C + T + S where Y = GDP and we rearrange some deck chairs.

Edit to add:



> No one debates those are account identities. If the government runs deficits, then it issues bonds. It's generally assumed that private individuals purchase these bonds. Thus, government deficits = private savings. Of course, it isn't as simple in real life. And this is the premise. These accounting identities are often used self-perpetual tautologies.



Bonds are issued after the fact. Money creation is basically done through crediting private bank accounts. This has the effect of increasing reserves. In order to deal with these excessive reserves on any given day, the US issues bonds to drain any excess reserves from the banking system. The helps to enure we don't have any pressure on the FED's target interest rate. I hope you can see how the function of government bonds is much more than lending the government money.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I'm not sure why, but you continue to "mix" fed actions to increase the monetary supply (aka unlimited expansion of credit), with US government deficits. The fed could continue to increase the monetary supply independently from any US Government Treasury related taxes and spending.  If by "government deficit" you mean fed expansion of the monetary supply through their "fairy dust" system of backing loans to the cartel with "nothing" to back them... then you are being disingenuous, because most people see government deficit as meaning federal tax revenues over federal outlays.  Most people see government deficit solely as the number that goes into our "national debt."  Again, the fed is not the US government.  Even if the US Government stopped borrowing, we would still increase our money supply to fit the need for economic expansion.  

You appear to believe all economic expansion is based entirely on "government" spending.

I, by contrast, see the government as a services corporation that works for the people.  Albeit one that, from time to time, operates above the law.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 12, 2013)

oldfart said:


> To keep the post shorter than "War and Peace" I chose to make a LOT of simplifications.  You are correct, and in second year accounting people get a lot of the nuances.
> 
> That's why I left the foreign sector out of the Ford example.  Try explaining the entries for product shipped to UK when the exchange rate fluctuates!



Well, you can try it with a country with a pegged currency. Not sure how much easier that is...



> That sort of depends on the kind of economic model you look at.  As you aggregate, more and more transactions net out.  For example if we divide the private sector into a business sector, household sector, and financial sector; when Last National Bank loans Bubba Barfwell the $55k to buy his Ford 350, the household sector increases debt and tangible personal property, the business sector increases cash in bank and decreases inventory, and the financial sector increases loan assets and decreases cash on hand (it went to Ford!).  But when you aggregate into one private sector, all of these net out to zero.  Only transactions involving the government or foreign sectors can create net financial saving for the private sector as a whole.  K & R assumed away the foreign sector and arrived at their two sector model where the only way for the private sector to save (i.e. have a surplus) is for the government sector to have an equal deficit, "to the last dime".
> 
> There's a reason why this is called a "two-sector model" in monetary theory!



It could net out, but not all transactions are created equal. Bubba Barfwell has an income of $55,000 decides to consume $50,000 of that income and then lends the $5,000 to a neighbor at 5% interest. The neighbor decides to sign an IOU promising to pay Bubba Barfwell $5,250 in twelve months. Did Bubba save money? Yes. Did Bubba accumulate a net financial asset? Yes. After all, he is holding an IOU from a neighbor of his which has a market value of 5,000 and will grow by the time it the IOU matures. 

However, suppose the neighbor decides to raise the money to pay Bubba back by selling services to Bubba. She uses the $5,000 to go to Massage Therapy school and learns to become a massues. Bi-weekly or monthly, Bubba pays the neighbor for services and fees and after 12 months has ended she has accumulated the $5,250 to pay Bubba back. The scenario is still the same. Bubba has a financial asset, and has decided to voluntarily accept services from his neighbor.

We can make the work alittle easier for the neighbor and have her point a gun at bubba demanding for $5,250 in cash. Bubba hands over the cash, the neighbor gives it right back. In this scenario, did Bubba acquire a net financial asset? No, no he didn't. From Bubba's viewpoint, his 5,000 just vanished while his neighbor got to consume without increasing his debtload at all. This is really no different from what happens with you get the taxpayer involved to these transactions. 



> Agreed.  Secondary financial markets must always net to zero, as in every transaction what the seller receives is identical to what the buyer pays.
> 
> I sense a little confusion here.  Our janitor buys 50 shares of Ford on a secondary market, and Ford makes no entries on its books at all (its liabilities and equity are unchanged).  It is not a party to the transaction.  Should Ford issue new stock, sell treasury stock, or redeem stock, then Ford is a party to the transaction and its balance sheet changes.  For newly issued stock, it increases paid-in capital and cash in bank by the same amount.



There is no confusing. I am saying that there is no net accumulation of a net private savings, as very seller requires a buyer. This is in the case of buying and selling shares of stock. I guess I forgot to add if a individual decides to invest $2,000 worth of funds directly into a company. The corresponding debt is completely offset debt on the company's books.

Get what I'm trying to say?



> This is, I think the "crowding-out" argument.  I'll defer it to another post in the interest of brevity.  If we aggregate the household sector (the janitor) and the business sector (Ford) the transaction nets out.



Not always. As the Government borrows and spends more, accounting equations tells us that we might see lower private consumption, rising interest rates and real responses taken out of the private sector.



> That's the basic argument.  I don't like two sector models for a variety of reasons, one of which is that this reasoning relies too much on accounting identities and ignores much of what is happening with real assets.  In particular I am disturbed that there is no distinction between consumer goods and capital goods.  The fundamental national income accounts identity is:
> 
> Ip+Ig+If+(X-M)=Sp+Sg+Sf+T
> 
> ...



I've done the same thing in an earlier post, except my variables are completely different.

(S - I) - (X - M) = (G + TR) - TA​


> That's a three-sector model midway between K & R's two-sector model and the robust NIA model.
> 
> You are correct.  But if you look at the model I described, some interesting things occur.  First, you have a three-sector capital stock and therefore three investment flows.  It depends on where the investment is coming from, the private sector, government, or foreign sources.  An Interstate highway becomes a balance sheet asset for the government, adding to the national stock of capital just like the trucks which drive upon it.  Exports and imports become more nuanced, as it makes a difference if they are for consumer or capital goods.  As you play with this model most of the oversimplifications drop out.  Then one morning you discover input-output tables!  God bless Wassily Liontieff!
> 
> Peace all.



Besides the Interstate Highway System, what do you consider a government investment?


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 12, 2013)

Might as well ask what is an investment first.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> There&#8217;s absolutely nothing wrong with government deficits, nor do they crowd out private sector activity. Constant government deficits are normal in a growing and expanding economy. They add net financial assets, as currency and bonds, to the non-government sector which helps with the propensity to net save.
> 
> If the government has deficits which are too large, we have a situation where effective demand outpaces the capacity for the economy to expand and meet it. This scenario would occur if were ever to hit full employment and the economy was at full capacity. This could lead to inflationary pressure and increase the price level.
> 
> ...



Consumer spending is normal. Private savings is normal. Private Investment is normal. Government spending is normal. These all contribute to the overall growth of the economy. Deficits are neither normal nor abnormal. They're just the natural part of the Governmental accounting process, however, it's pretty difficult to deny that there is a crowding out effect. Again, going back to the equation:

G &#8722; T = S &#8722; I​
Again, if we take the foreign sector out of the equation and just focus on the domestic side. If government spending increases (G) while tax revenue (T) remains the same, then the left side of the equation gets bigger. Basic accounting (calculus rather) tells us that the right side of the equation must increase as well. It means people must cut down on consumption and save more, but this can also cause private sector investment to decrease.

In order for the government to finance such deficits, the government is forced to borrow from American Creditors or International Creditors. Every dollar that the Government borrows is a dollar that the private sector cannot borrow. There isn't an infinite supply of loanable funds. The more the Government Borrows, the upward pressure it places on interest rates which contrasts economic activity.

Regardless of what sort of budget the government decides to run, any individual in the private sector can adjust his or her savings according to their consumption ratio. This would leave net savings unchanged.

Income = Y = C+I+G

Savings = S=Y-C-T=I+(G-T)​
So consumption does not affect aggregate savings.



> Bonds are issued after the fact. Money creation is basically done through crediting private bank accounts. This has the effect of increasing reserves. In order to deal with these excessive reserves on any given day, the US issues bonds to drain any excess reserves from the banking system. The helps to enure we don't have any pressure on the FED's target interest rate. I hope you can see how the function of government bonds is much more than lending the government money.



We've discussed this many times before. And, uh, the Federal Reserve credits private banks to purchase bonds already issued to the private sector. I don't see how these IOU's were created after the fact. The government isn't creating much (if any at all) money through the issuance of bonds. The Government only creates a tiny portion of the money supply, namely the M0 monetary base. Much of the money creation happens in the private sector in the banking system. 

Deficits and bonds are not only used to create money. In fact, budget surpluses can create money just as much as budget deficits can, as we have often seen.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Might as well ask what is an investment first.



Good point, considering there are so many kinds of things people would call 'an investment.' However, when the Government spends money it doesn't always spends it within the same market as ordinary individuals. So, some clarification would be nice.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 12, 2013)

> Consumer spending is normal. Private savings is normal. Private Investment is normal. Government spending is normal. These all contribute to the overall growth of the economy. Deficits are neither normal nor abnormal. They're just the natural part of the Governmental accounting process, however, it's pretty difficult to deny that there is a crowding out effect. Again, going back to the equation:
> G &#8722; T = S &#8211; I




Crowding out doesn&#8217;t really exists the way we&#8217;re taught at university. The whole notion being that government deficits cause interests rates to rise. The story then goes on to tells us this would crowd out private borrowing for any type of investments since loans would cost more and this makes investment less desirable and profitable. This stems from the erroneous belief that the government has to borrow in order to run a deficit. The is obviously incorrect because the government isn&#8217;t revenue constrained in ANY capacity. It spends by simply issuing currency.

The story then continues and the end result of borrowing and spending is that reserves are withdrawn from the banking system. Borrowing does remove reserves but spending puts then right back again. This reserve deficiency would increase the interest rate. Wrong, wrong, and wrong down the line. The interest rate is held in a constant state and is a policy which is set by the FED.

_Government deficits actually put downward pressure on interest rates, because reserves are added and not removed within the banking system. _The FED can stop this by using its monetary policy to drain excess reserves from the banking system. It can even theoretically let the rate go to absolute zero. Japan has had record government deficits for YEARS with an interest rate of zero. There wasn&#8217;t any type of crowding out in this situation.

There could theoretically be another form of crowding out, though. For example, if the government sector competes for real, tangible resources which could have been used by the private sector we could have a literal crowding out situation.



> Again, if we take the foreign sector out of the equation and just focus on the domestic side. If government spending increases (G) while tax revenue (T) remains the same, then the left side of the equation gets bigger. Basic accounting (calculus rather) tells us that the right side of the equation must increase as well. It means people must cut down on consumption and save more, but this can also cause private sector investment to decrease.
> 
> In order for the government to finance such deficits, the government is forced to borrow from American Creditors or International Creditors. Every dollar that the Government borrows is a dollar that the private sector cannot borrow. There isn't an infinite supply of loanable funds. The more the Government Borrows, the upward pressure it places on interest rates which contrasts economic activity.
> 
> ...



The US doesn&#8217;t borrow. It doesn&#8217;t have to borrow its own fiat. Anybody purchasing US paper is doing so with dollars that have already been spent into existence. It can be the dollars in our checking accounts or dollars sitting in reserve accounts over at the FED. Personally, I'd like to see the day when we get rid of bonds. They aren't even operationally a requirement at this point in the game.

You have it backwards and you&#8217;re putting the cart before the horse. First if of all, there isn&#8217;t some fixed pool of savings out there. Savings is a byproduct of national income. When we have increasing national income, we have increased savings. If the government spends to stimulate aggregate demand, and this increases national income and GDP, savings will also increase. Savings simply cannot be a source of finance at any aggregate level.  

Regardless of GDP levels there is a trade-off between (I) and (C). Any changes in GDP levels are related to changes in (I) and (C). If GDP is increased, we know one of its components must have changed at some point as well. For example, let&#8217;s say Y = C + I and (Y) has an increase from 200 units to 220 units &#8211; we must realize that total sum of changes in (C) and (I) is equal to 20 units. We would then see increased total levels of both (C) and (I). This isn&#8217;t rocket science, but just a result of how we calculate components of GDP. Basically, income is the total sum of all its working parts so speak. Any increased income levels must translate into increased (C) and/or (I). It&#8217;s increased income which translates into higher levels of savings and consumption. 



> We've discussed this many times before. And, uh, the Federal Reserve credits private banks to purchase bonds already issued to the private sector. I don't see how these IOU's were created after the fact. The government isn't creating much (if any at all) money through the issuance of bonds. The Government only creates a tiny portion of the money supply, namely the M0 monetary base. Much of the money creation happens in the private sector in the banking system.



Bonds primary function is to drain excess reserves from the banking system. This is the only way the FED can guarantee there isn&#8217;t competitive pressure in the FED&#8217;s target interest rate.

Also, MMT rejects the money multiplier. We can get into that if you like.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 12, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Might as well ask what is an investment first.
> ...



We should stick with the textbook definition used in economics to avoid confusion.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> > Consumer spending is normal. Private savings is normal. Private Investment is normal. Government spending is normal. These all contribute to the overall growth of the economy. Deficits are neither normal nor abnormal. They're just the natural part of the Governmental accounting process, however, it's pretty difficult to deny that there is a crowding out effect. Again, going back to the equation:
> > G &#8722; T = S &#8211; I
> 
> 
> ...



>>> The US doesn&#8217;t borrow. It doesn&#8217;t have to borrow its own fiat. Anybody purchasing US paper is doing so with dollars that have already been spent into existence. It can be the dollars in our checking accounts or dollars sitting in reserve accounts account over at the FED. Personally, I'd like to see the day when we get rid of bonds. They aren't even operationally a requirement at this point in the game.

Again, you are wrong.  You are purposefully mixing the FED and the Federal Government. They are two completely different things.  The US most certainly does borrow. What do you think a US T-Bill is, if not a loan instrument? 

Yes, the US Government could in theory "end" the FED or pay the T-bills off with fairy dust by forcing the FED to take ownership of the T-Bills and pay them off as yet another "expansion" of credit.   As it stands, we the tax payers are on the hook to pay the T-Bills back to the owners.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



lol  yeah which economics text book


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 12, 2013)

in&#8226;vest&#8226;ment 
1. the investing of money or capital for profitable returns.
2. a particular instance or mode of investing.
3. a thing invested in, as a business.
4. something that is invested; sum invested.
5. the act or fact of investing or state of being invested, as with a garment.
6. a devoting, using, or giving of time, talent, emotional energy, etc., as to achieve something.
7. any covering or outer layer, as of an animal or plant.
8. the act of investing with a quality, attribute, etc.
9. investiture with an office, dignity, or right.
10. a siege or encirclement.
11. Archaic. a garment or vestment. 

I guess the question over what particular definition to use, goes to the "context" of the sentence.  Does government investment cover some level of devoting, using, or giving of time, talent, emotional energy, etc., as to achieve something that is desirable for the people and thus worthy of the costs inherit within?  Or does it only cover the investing of money or capital for profitable returns?  And if only money or capital... what is capital? just assets?  What about experience, time and talent provided through labor?

I can build a house on my own land using my own timber and my own two hands.  But that asset would be worth nothing in traditional economics until someone borrowed money from a bank to buy it from me.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 12, 2013)

> Again, you are wrong.  You are purposefully mixing the FED and the Federal Government. They are two completely different things.  The US most certainly does borrow. What do you think a US T-Bill is, if not a loan instrument?
> 
> Yes, the US Government could in theory "end" the FED or pay the T-bills off with fairy dust by forcing the FED to take ownership of the T-Bills and pay them off as yet another "expansion" of credit.   As it stands, we the tax payers are on the hook to pay the T-Bills back to the owners.



No, I'm not. The FED is part of the US government. The publicly appointed Board of Governors execute monetary policy, not the member banks, so your statement doesn't make any sense. Any and all profits by the FED are also remitted to the Treasury every year, year in and year out. This isn't even open to debate. The whole FED conspiracy meme has zero basis in reality.

A Treasury is similar to a savings account. Basically, it's an interest-bearing asset where the private sector can park its wealth in a risk-free form. These Treasury bills are purchased with dollars which are a result of previous government spending. A currency issuer doesn't borrow its own fiat. What you're saying makes zero sense at all. Taxpayers aren't on the hook for US Treasuries, why would they be?


----------



## Kimura (Aug 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



In economics, regardless of the textbook, we can define investment as the purchase of goods that will used at some future date to create wealth. Investments aren't immediately consumed.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> > Again, you are wrong.  You are purposefully mixing the FED and the Federal Government. They are two completely different things.  The US most certainly does borrow. What do you think a US T-Bill is, if not a loan instrument?
> >
> > Yes, the US Government could in theory "end" the FED or pay the T-bills off with fairy dust by forcing the FED to take ownership of the T-Bills and pay them off as yet another "expansion" of credit.   As it stands, we the tax payers are on the hook to pay the T-Bills back to the owners.
> 
> ...



>> Taxpayers aren't on the hook for US Treasuries, why would they be?
WOW where do you think the revenue comes from to pay for government spending if not tax payers?  

>> The FED is part of the US government.

OK What branch of our Government does it report to?

The Federal Reserve (FED) does not report to any part of our government.  It is not a part of our Government.  It does not report to the executive branch.  It barely submits a report on policy once a year.  But the FED is not a part of the US Dept. of the Treasury as you have so mixed so many numerous time.  The FED is is a completely independent organization formed of and by its member banks (aka. the banking cartel). The Fed Board nominated by the president supervises the banks of the cartel and manages monetary policy.  The FED is NOT the US Treasury.  These are two completely different organizations.  The US Treasury is a part of this government and reports to the executive branch.  The FED is NOT a part of this government.  Though it's head and board are selected by the POTUS and approved by congress they do not report to the POTUS.  The head of the FED is not a member of the POTUS cabinet, nor does the head of the FED report directly to any government entity.

>>> The whole FED conspiracy meme has zero basis in reality.
Yeah cause there's no money to be made in A NEARLY UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF ZERO PERCENT RATE MONEY handed out during a recession to the very banks that caused the recession so they can buy up the properties that went bankrupt because the owners had no income... all while we are paying these bankers out of the taxpayer's pocket to remunerate the banks for their losses for the very loans that caused the recession.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Crowding out doesnt really exists the way were thought at university. The whole notion being the government deficits cause interests rates to rise. The story then goes on to tells us this would crowd out private borrow for any type of investments since loans would cost more and this makes investment less desirable and profitable. This stems from the erroneous belief that the government has to borrow in order to run a deficit. The is obviously incorrect because the government isnt revenue constrained in ANY capacity. It spends by simply issuing currency.
> 
> The story then continues and the end result of borrowing and spending is that reserves are withdrawn from the banking system. Borrowing does remove reserves but spending puts then right back again. This reserve deficiency would increase the interest rate. Wrong, wrong and wrong down the line. The interest rate is held in a constant state and is a policy which is set by the FED.
> 
> ...



Well, if you are going back to University level though on crowding out, then you should know that crowding out is consistent with higher private sector savings. What is being crowded out are the investments. Technically, the government can fund itself without issuing bonds or raising taxes at all. It can just spend what it needs to spend. The cost of government waste would come in the form of inflation. 

If the deficits are due to tax cuts rather than spending, then this gives deficit-finance lump sum tax rebate.  This generally causes tax payers to save more in order to prepare for the higher taxes in the later future. And normally, government deficits up upwards pressure on interest rates, not downward. The excess reserves in banks are mainly due to a portion in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Section 128 of this act allows the Federal Reserve to pay high interest rates to depository institutions for their reserve requirements.





Here is the actual statute in regards to reserve requirements regulated by the Fed:

12 USC § 461 - Reserve requirements | Title 12 - Banks and Banking | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

If we take this market distorting regulation out of the equation, deficits puts upward pressure on interests rates and increase demand for loanable funds. This further pushes interest higher than they would otherwise be. If interest rates are higher than they would normally be, it makes it very expensive to borrow, therefore private businesses invest less money. As a result of this, government has shifted some private sector savings away from the private sector of which would have otherwise gone to private investment. Most likely, it would have gone to Government Spending (G), not Investment (I).

The data can easily be seen as thus:




I've used GDP pre-revision data, but I don't really think it makes much of a difference in this particular case. The top line is private investment as a share of GDP. The bottom line is Net Government Savings as a share of GDP, otherwise known as the Government Budget as a share of GDP. But notice how they move very close to one another. When Government deficits shrink, private investment increases. When deficits skyrocket, investment falls.

Even MMTers understand the bad spending and the shifting preferences when it comes to deficit spending. Thus, government cannot spend recklessly. The extra dollars in the system will chase too few goods and drive up prices. If the government spends too much and taxes too little, it will create mal-investment and inflation.

Also, to address Japan, their situation is rather unique. Their situation is one of demographics, not economics. The Japanese population has aged and their birth rate has fallen. The population has drawn down on savings as there are more people retiring than there are entering the labour force. As a result, you don't have the same crowding out effect there as you do in America.



> The US doesnt borrow. It doesnt have to borrow its own fiat. Anybody purchasing US paper is doing so with dollars that have already been spent into existence. It can be the dollars in our checking accounts or dollars sitting in reserve accounts account over at the FED. Personally, I'd like to see the day when we get rid of bonds. They aren't even operationally a requirement at this point in the game.
> 
> You have it backwards and youre putting the cart before the horse. First if of all, there isnt some fixed pool of savings out there. Savings is a byproduct of national income. When we have increasing national income, we have increased savings. If the government spends to stimulate aggregate demand, and this increases national income and GDP, savings will also increase. Savings simply cannot be a source of finance at any aggregate level.
> 
> Regardless of GDP levels there is a trade-off between (I) and (C). Any changes in GDP levels are related to changes in (I) and (C). If GDP is increased, we know one of its components must have changed at some point as well. For example, lets say Y = C + I and (Y) has an increase from 200 units to 220 units  we must realize that total sum of changes in (C) and (I) is equal to 20 units. We would then see increased total level of both (C) and (I). This isnt rocket science, but just a result of how we calculate components of GDP. Basically, income is the total sum of all its working parts so speak. Any increased income levels must translate into increased (C) and/or (I). Its increased income which translates to high levels of savings and consumption.



If the private sector can only save as much as the government spends, then there is a fixed amount of savings. The general fallacy is that you define 'savings' as net financial assets, rather than the final consumption of goods and services. Without the government issuing it's own liabilities, supposedly public sector cannot save.

The private sector can save just as much with surpluses as it can with deficits. Perhaps even more so without the use of government creating it's own liabilities. 



> Bonds primary function is to drain excess reserves from the banking system. This is the only way the FED can guarantee there isnt competitive pressure in the FEDs target interest rate.
> 
> Also, MMT rejects the money multiplier. We can get into that if you like.



Yes, but this does not explain how Bonds are created _after_ the fact. The government runs a deficit, it sells a bond. The bonds are purchased from private individuals. The private individuals who have no intention of holding the bond to term then sells the bond to the Federal Reserve and the Fed credits the private individual. I don't see how the Bond comes into the equate _after._ In fact, this is a very simple explanation of how the bond _leaves_ the equation.

And I guess you can tell me how MMT rejects the money multiplier. I'm into hearing all points of view, so long as I haven't heard it all before.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> In economics, regardless of the textbook, we can define investment as the purchase of goods that will used at some future date to create wealth. Investments aren't immediately consumed.



Depends on what you mean by immediately and consumed. For that matter it depends on what you mean by investment.

The idea that the term investment should be applied in the same manner to govt. as is with private businesses is laughable. Study after study has shown that the govt. is a black hole with little to no concern for return on investment. The only reason the post office even succeeded for so long was because of the semi-monopoly and the economies of scale. Of course, even they have decided that they need a bigger chew of the carrot and to be less efficient now.

Immediate? If I buy inventory and sell it right after, then is that immediate? Perhaps you're referring to R&D. Little of that is an 'investment' though. Govt. has presumed the regulator role in which profit or return on investment is not a chief concern.

Earlier you errantly used the idea that liabilities create steady assets. That is not the case. Depreciation and waste are livid realities that affect the real consumers (us) and not them so much as they have a near bottomless supply of money.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Might as well ask what is an investment first.



Good point.  First an observation:  this has turned into a first-year graduate level discussion, where the name-calling has at least temporarily stopped, we are using the same basic economic toolkit, and brains are engaged.  Who'da thunk it could happen on USMB?

Generally there are two definitions of "investment" used in economics and it causes a lot of confusion.  The first is financial investment, which refers to the acquisition of financial assets representing wealth, such as bank deposits including CD's, shares of stock, partnership interests, and so forth.  In looking at the real economy, we call this "savings".  

The second is "real" investment:  real estate, plant and equipment, tangible personal property, and so forth.  When held for the purpose of engaging in a business or similar economic activity (like renting apartments) we call them capital assets.  This is generally considered private physical capital.

There are other kinds of capital as well.  Human capital is the education and training, work habits and discipline, and the value of having a labor force assembled and in place.  Intangible capital is property such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and research results.  Physical infrastructure is the physical capital owned by primarily government, but also some non-governmental organizations and individuals which is held for the common good.  This includes public buildings like schools and libraries, public hospitals and office buildings, roads and bridges, airports and seaports, parks and zoos, aircraft carriers, M1A1 tanks, F-35 fighter jets, public landfills, water treatment plants and sewage plants, and on and on and on.  Lastly there is something called "social overhead capital" which includes a legal system which can resolve commercial and civil disputes, a body of law and regulation necessary for industry and commerce (such as defining weights and measures, environmental controls, labor relations, regulation of airspace, and a myriad of similar necessary (or at least useful) measures.

Now all of this put together is the capital stock of a nation.  Modern growth theory generally holds that the productive capacity of an economy at a point in time is limited by the availability of factors of production, which are traditionally land (including natural resources), labor, capital as enumerated above, perhaps entrepreneurship (or management and/or risk-taking), a stock of financial assets and institutions which can form markets that determine time-preference, and "technological advance".  The last three are hard to define, harder to measure, left out of most models, and account for most economic growth over longer periods!  

Not that time plays a big part and that you have to constantly keep stocks concepts and flow concepts separate.  Capital stock is a stock concept.  Investment is a flow concept, and addition to the capital stock.  There is also a constant reduction (depreciation) of the capital stock due to tangible property breaking or wearing out or being destroyed in the next hurricane,   things becoming obsolete due to changes in consumer preferences or technological change, or similar processes.  So there is a "replacement level" of investment needed just to keep the capital stock at the same level!  

I have not commented on a lot of posts which I would like to due to time considerations, but I'll try to work them in.  

I am very proud of everyone for proving that it is possible to have a high level economic discussion on USMB and hope everyone continues to participate!


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 12, 2013)

A meaningful economic discussion is always possibly, so long as you can take the children and the cheerleaders out of the room.

Pathetic to see how far people can take online discussions.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > > Again, you are wrong.  You are purposefully mixing the FED and the Federal Government. They are two completely different things.  The US most certainly does borrow. What do you think a US T-Bill is, if not a loan instrument?
> ...


----------



## Kimura (Aug 12, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Well, if you are going back to University level though on crowding out, then you should know that crowding out is consistent with higher private sector savings. What is being crowded out are the investments. Technically, the government can fund itself without issuing bonds or raising taxes at all. It can just spend what it needs to spend. The cost of government waste would come in the form of inflation.
> 
> If the deficits are due to tax cuts rather than spending, then this gives deficit-finance lump sum tax rebate.  This generally causes tax payers to save more in order to prepare for the higher taxes in the later future. And normally, government deficits up upwards pressure on interest rates, not downward. The excess reserves in banks are mainly due to a portion in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Section 128 of this act allows the Federal Reserve to pay high interest rates to depository institutions for their reserve requirements.
> 
> If we take this market distorting regulation out of the equation, deficits puts upward pressure on interests rates and increase demand for loanable funds. This further pushes interest higher than they would otherwise be. If interest rates are higher than they would normally be, it makes it very expensive to borrow, therefore private businesses invest less money. As a result of this, government has shifted some private sector savings away from the private sector of which would have otherwise gone to private investment. Most likely, it would have gone to Government Spending (G), not Investment (I).



I'd like to address some of the misconceptions surrounding loanable funds before we address the money multiplier. 

We need to differentiate between real crowding out and the myth found in mainstream econ texts at universities. 

At the the very center of this misconception is the loanable funds theory, which is an aggregate simulation of how financial markets are supposed to work according to orthodox macroeconomic theory. The whole premise being how aggregate demand could never fall shy of aggregate supply due to interest rate adjustments constantly yielding equal savings and investment.

The epicenter of this erroneous hypothesis is a distorted view of financial markets. The loanable funds market is the brainchild of orthodox economists as a way to mediate investment and savings through interest rate variations.

The was all before JM Keynes and was a major component of the classical model where flexible prices give us market-clearing aggregate markets. If consumption decreased, the saving would increase and this would prevent an oversupply of goods because capital goods production would increase in tandem with saving.

The supply of funds (saving) is throught of as a positive mechanism of the real interest rate because increasing rates will increase costs of consumption and encourage savings. Investment then decreases with the interest rate due to the cost of funds to in invest increases.

According to this batshit theory, if there&#8217;s an increasing budget deficit, it will result in rising demand which puts pressure on savings, which is where the alleged need to borrow by the government sector comes from. This allegedly will nudge interest rates clear out the loanable funds market, thus resulting in decreased investment spending.

The government then allegedly borrows to finance its budget deficit, thus crowding out any private borrowers also trying to finance some investment. Then orthodox economists tell us this is decreasing national saving and increase interest rates.

This all relies on various myths which has prevalent in the public for years where it&#8217;s acceptable as a fact.

This basic flaws in the orthodox story is that the government has to borrow back its own net financial assets that it creates as a function of the nature of government spending. It&#8217;s a crock of shit. I have no other way to describe it.

This erroneous line of thought continues by saying that savings are finite and the governments are constrained by spending which is why government must source funding to meet its fiscal needs. However, government spending will increase income which will increase savings.

This type of erroneous nation of crowding out needs to relegated to the dustbin of history. 

In MMT, however, we do realize we have to avoid real crowding which is caused by not enough real resource being able to satisfy nominal demands. 

Under the aforementioned scenario, this will result in inflationary pressures and decreased demand which is what would be needed to get nominal demand growth on par with real output capacity. 

Real crowding out boils down to politics in my estimation. If the economy is at full capacity, and the government wants full employment output, then it would have to crowd out the private sector in a very real way. We can to this through our tax laws, but again, we&#8217;re dealing with a political decision as opposed to a financial one.

By the way, now that I&#8217;ve got the cobwebs dusted out, I&#8217;m going to put together an in-depth analysis regarding deficits over this weekend.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 12, 2013)

OK, since now is later, let's talk about the crowding out effect.  This is related to something called Ricardian equivalence and has been around classical economics for a long time.  The problem is that it dates from the period economists ASSUMED full employment of resources.  



AmazonTania said:


> however, it's pretty difficult to deny that there is a crowding out effect. Again, going back to the equation:
> 
> G &#8722; T = S &#8722; I​
> Again, if we take the foreign sector out of the equation and just focus on the domestic side. If government spending increases (G) while tax revenue (T) remains the same, then the left side of the equation gets bigger. Basic accounting (calculus rather) tells us that the right side of the equation must increase as well. It means people must cut down on consumption and save more, but this can also cause private sector investment to decrease.



Remember that this is an accounting identity and not a function.  It describes the equilibrium _post facto_ equivalence after the market effects have worked themselves out, not what happens in getting to that equilibrium.  So the argument is that if we start from a full-employment equilibrium of all factors of production and increase government spending in a two-sector model, savings must go up by an equal amount in the next equilibrium, by definition.  This is true.  

The usual was to explain the MECHANISM is that the government increases the supply of government securities to fund the deficit, which drives prices down in the bond market, effectively raising interest rates.  Confronted with higher interest rates, the household sector will find savings relatively more attractive and consumption slightly less and adjust their behavior to a new equilibrium involving less consumption and more saving.  The process only stops when an interest rate is reached at which the additional saving enticed from the household sector matches the increased government spending.  

Have I stated this fairly?



AmazonTania said:


> Regardless of what sort of budget the government decides to run, any individual in the private sector can adjust his or her savings according to their consumption ratio. This would leave net savings unchanged.
> 
> Income = Y = C+I+G
> 
> ...



This is where the sticky part is.  When interest rates increase, households will adjust their "consumption ratio" downward.  Most of this effect will probably be consumers who cannot afford to borrow as much and thus lower plans for consumption, which is why consumer durables are more volatile than food or clothing, the mechanism is not on the consumer wants side, it is on the consumer capacity side of household optimization.  Households are to some extent income-constrained.  

But all of this rests on the initial assumption of full employment of all factors of production.  Suppose this is not true.  In linear programming terms the "shadow cost" of the partially unused resource is zero.  Economists would say the opportunity cost of that resource was zero.  Both mean that we can utilize more of that resource because it is "free".  But while the resource may have a marginal productivity of zero, it is still likely to be paid a traditional price for that resource.  Where I work the woods are full of half empty commercial space whose asking rents have not fallen the last five years.  Combine sticky resource prices and excess capacity and you set up a new possibility.  The government spending immediately injects income into the household sector (labor is paid wages and property owners start receiving rent on formerly vacant space).  They are no longer as income-constrained as they were before, and can increase both consumption and savings!  

I leave it to you to explain how this gives rise to the multiplier effect.  In summary, the closer we are to full utilization of resources (which is reflected in markets by price inflation), the more "crowding-out" we will observe.  The more unused resources in an economy (high unemployment rates and commercial vacancy rates), the  less "crowding-out" and the higher the multiplier.  Both descriptions of an economy are correct given they are applied to the appropriate set of circumstances.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 12, 2013)

oldfart said:


> OK, since now is later, let's talk about the crowding out effect.  This is related to something called Ricardian equivalence and has been around classical economics for a long time.  The problem is that it dates from the period economists ASSUMED full employment of resources.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Damn.  Had not thought of Ricardian equivalence for YEARS.  And hearing and seeing the definition just made me go to my calender looking to see if I could (hopefully) find a forgotten appointment for a root canal.  Yeah, I get it, but the concept is so far from eligent imho that it is a pain to discuss.  But, as usual, nice job, oldfart.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 12, 2013)

I agree with you for economies with less than full employment.  See my previous post and I'll try to tidy this up.  



Kimura said:


> According to this batshit theory, if theres an increasing budget deficit, it will result in rising demand which puts pressure on savings, which is where the alleged need to borrow by the government sector comes from. This allegedly will nudge interest rates clear out the loanable funds market, thus resulting in decreased investment spending.



I finessed this point.  Savings equals investment as an accounting identity in a two sector model only as a description of how things end up in the new equilibrium; it is not a description of the mechanism that gets them there!



Kimura said:


> The government then allegedly borrows to finance its budget deficit, thus crowding out any private borrowers also trying to finance some investment. Then orthodox economists tell us this is decreasing national saving and increase interest rates.



In classical economics the interest rate is the mechanism in the financial markets that decreases consumption and increases savings.  As I noted, this is mostly because the household sector is income-constrained, not because the households are avaricious to get higher rates of return!



Kimura said:


> This erroneous line of thought continues by saying that savings are finite and the governments are constrained by spending which is why government must source funding to meet its fiscal needs. However, government spending will increase income which will increase savings.



We're on the same page here. 



Kimura said:


> In MMT, however, we do realize we have to avoid real crowding which is caused by not enough real resource being able to satisfy nominal demands.



True, AS WE APPROACH FULL EMPLOYMENT.



Kimura said:


> Under the aforementioned scenario, this will result in inflationary pressures and decreased demand which is what would be needed to get nominal demand growth on par with real output capacity.
> 
> Real crowding out boils down to politics in my estimation. If the economy is at full capacity, and the government wants full employment output, then it would have to crowd out the private sector in a very real way. We can to this through our tax laws, but again, were dealing with a political decision as opposed to a financial one.



The key is that full employment and price stability are not exactly competing goals.  Richard Nixon was able to achieve low growth, high inflation, and rising unemployment at the same time!  To the extent there is a trade-off the relevant questions are:

1.  What is the elasticity of that function in the current neighborhood (i.e. how much additional inflation will be generated by policies we expect to reduce unemployment to say, 6%?

2.  What level of real percapita GDP growth would be associated with those policies?

At that point the decision is indeed political (or a proper subject for welfare economics if Congress could understand Pareto-optimality in Walrasian general equilibrium!).  




Kimura said:


> By the way, now that Ive got the cobwebs dusted out, Im going to put together an in-depth analysis regarding deficits over this weekend.



I look forward to reading it!


----------



## oldfart (Aug 12, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Damn.  Had not thought of Ricardian equivalence for YEARS.  And hearing and seeing the definition just made me go to my calender looking to see if I could (hopefully) find a forgotten appointment for a root canal.  Yeah, I get it, but the concept is so far from eligent imho that it is a pain to discuss.  But, as usual, nice job, oldfart.



Thanks.  What's really elegant is a proof that some coefficient of "crowding-out" times the multiplier must equal one.  How's that for Grand Unification Theory?


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 12, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> A meaningful economic discussion is always possibly, so long as you can take the children and the cheerleaders out of the room.
> 
> Pathetic to see how far people can take online discussions.



Well, that didn't last long...


----------



## Kimura (Aug 12, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > A meaningful economic discussion is always possibly, so long as you can take the children and the cheerleaders out of the room.
> ...



I enjoy a good debate.  But yeah, hurling insults really doesn't add any meaningful insight.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



Yeah. Well, I'm tired. I guess I'll get back to my responses tomorrow afternoon. Wanna devout the rest of my night to something enjoyable. Maybe check my positions before bedtime.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 12, 2013)

Kimura said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


Kimura, perhaps you can explain what is being discussed in this last post of yours.  I had seen no disrespectful posts, but mine was close to the time of this post of yours when you were responding to Amazon.  If you thought that my post was disrespectful, let me know.  It was meant to be light of heart, and perhaps a bit of a shot at the subject when it has come up in the past.  In my experience, mostly in regard to the subject of revenue generation relative to borrowing or taxing.  No disrespect to anyone was meant AT ALL.


----------



## whynot (Aug 12, 2013)

Back on topic 
How is austerity doing in Europe?

Its working but very slowly and very painfully in my view.
We are not out of the woods yet and I personally fear it will get much worse before things really improve.
From an Irish point of view we had a lovely boom for over a decade with low unemployment rates high GDP growth figures, a very high export surplus and virtually 0% government debt to GDP ratio. Most did not see the crash coming and to be fair it all happen so fast it was just unbelievable to most. 

It turned out that a large portion of the GDP growth was from the accumulation of debt by the public at large. Money via banks had been flooding into the country and had the net result of increasing the number of jobs and also tax revenue. When this flow of money finally stopped we found out the hard way the real cost of it. The unemployment rate skyrocketed and the tax revenue plummeted.
Overnight we went form country with budget surplus to a double digit deficit. Each year since 2008 this deficit figure has been reduced as a result of austerity, by 2015 it should finally be back under control provided there is not a global economic collapse


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 12, 2013)

whynot said:


> Back on topic
> How is austerity doing in Europe?
> 
> Its working but very slowly and very painfully in my view.
> ...


How do the people of Ireland feel about the austerity measures there??
What does the population believe was the cause of the economic downturn?
From what I have seen, the austerity measures seem not to have done well there.  Perhaps you can comment on what you feel that austerity has accomplished.

What I have seen are articles saying the austerity has not been successful at all.  Here is a sample:
"A former senior IMF official has warned that austerity must end for the economy to grow while a Labour Party paper has said more welfare cuts &#8220;may not be politically deliverable&#8221;.
Austerity was a &#8220;potentially self-defeating policy&#8221; because of the lack of growth and no reduction in debt levels it had resulted in, said former IMF chief of mission to Ireland Ashoka Mody.
&#8220;We have to ask ourselves why Ireland is not growing . . . It&#8217;s hard for me to believe that austerity is not contributing to this,&#8221; he told RTÉ&#8217;s This Week."
Former IMF official warns austerity could be ?self-defeating? for Ireland - Business News | Latest News Stories | The Irish Times - Sun, Jul 21, 2013

But it is true that unemployment has dropped, by about 1.4% over the past year or so.  Still a couple of points higher that the eu average ue rate.  
So, in my estimation, pretty much a mixed bag.  Not terrible, but far from good.  And with predictions that austerity is likely at close to an end there.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Congress regulates the FED by statute. The FED is subject to oversight by Congress and they can alter their responsibilities through legislation and statute.
> 
> Also, the POTUS, through the Secretary of the Treasury, regulates fiscal policy related to the FED. The FED is "independent within government" as opposed to "independent of government".
> 
> I never said the FED and Treasury were one in the same. I said monetary operations should be viewed through the consolidated government model.



Congress does not regulate anything. That's not their job. Frankly, nobody regulates the Fed and that's the f'ing problem at the end of the day. The FED is a group of banks who have effectively paid the politicians big bucks to leave them the f alone; and yes that includes the president.


----------



## whynot (Aug 13, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> whynot said:
> 
> 
> > Back on topic
> ...






Rshermr said:


> How do the people of Ireland feel about the austerity measures there??



There is a general acceptance of the situation. There have been no real protests over the whole thing. The main focus of the debates has been on how the austerity should be implemented e.g. who should be taxed more than the other. 



Rshermr said:


> What does the population believe was the cause of the economic downturn?



The majority blame the banks and developers. The banks were deregulated and allowed to do whatever they wanted which they did. 
Because of the euro we in Ireland had access to cheap credit for the first time and this devalued money for most people and let house prices going mad. When we had our own currency interest rates of 15% or more on mortgages were not unheard of so interest rates 3-4% was new. The government of the day should have controlled the housing market more. They did all the wrong things for personal gain. 




Rshermr said:


> From what I have seen, the austerity measures seem not to have done well there. Perhaps you can comment on what you feel that austerity has accomplished.


Austerity has significantly reduced our budget deficit and I believe it is now at 7.5%. Apparently anything below 3% is sustainable so not too far off now. So with some more cuts and hopefully a good bit of growth by 2015 Ireland will be in the sustainable zone.
Austerity does have major drawbacks please dont get me wrong it feels like every other day my taxes are going up. I have not gone on a holiday in 2 years as I just cant afford it. But thankfully I still have a job and there is an end in sight.  On the plus side it forces the government to make the harder choices that should leave the country more competitive in the long run. With the route of printing more money its hard to keep the political wiliness to make changes which means the fundamental issues that created the problem dont get fixed. 
Im looking at the UK which has not gone down the austerity road and I cant see that any progress has been made over there. (I am open to correction on that)



Rshermr said:


> But it is true that unemployment has dropped, by about 1.4% over the past year or so.


Yes I think thats sounds about right but it is hard to tell if its from job creation or people emigrating. There are new jobs being created all the time but also some been lost so its hard to call.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 13, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



Neither did I. Everyone was generally being cordial. Now I'm confused, lol.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Congress regulates the FED by statute. The FED is subject to oversight by Congress and they can alter their responsibilities through legislation and statute.
> 
> Also, the POTUS, through the Secretary of the Treasury, regulates fiscal policy related to the FED. The FED is "independent within government" as opposed to "independent of government".
> 
> I never said the FED and Treasury were one in the same. I said monetary operations should be viewed through the consolidated government model.



Yes, Congress is supposed to provide for regulation management and oversight of the fed and they can alter their responsibilities through legislation and statute. 

However, as with most of their useful jobs they refuse to do it.  As such the operations of the FED are kept almost entirely secret.

The POTUS, through the Secretary of the Treasury, is supposed to regulate fiscal policy related to the FED.  However, as with most of their useful jobs they refuse to do it.

>>> The FED is "independent within government" as opposed to "independent of government".

No, the fed for all intents and purposes is completely and entirely independent from government.  The FED board is selected by the POTUS and approved by congress and provides annual reports to the secretary and congress.  However, the cartel of banks that is the fed is entirely independent of almost all government control.  They do have to act like banks and thus are regulated as any other bank would be.  But that does not mean the fed cartel operates "within" government.  Nor does it mean the FED board operates within government.  I could see the argument that the fed board "should" operate as an independent agency within government and that the chairman should be in the POTUS' cabinet or report directly to the Dept of the Treasury, but that is not the case.  It's more like the fed operates as an independent group much like the SCOTUS operates only it has no group auditing it or watching what it does.  They get to operate in secret, and Congress is just dandy with that.

>>> I said monetary operations should be viewed through the consolidated government model.

Like I said. You are intentionally "mixing" the Treasury's system of taxing and spending, with the fed system for managing the monetary policy.  Your justification, apparently, to view both together through a consolidated model that you call your government model.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 13, 2013)

> However, as with most of their useful jobs they refuse to do it.  As such the operations of the FED are kept almost entirely secret.





> No, the fed for all intents and purposes is completely and entirely independent from government.  The FED board is selected by the POTUS and approved by congress and provides annual reports to the secretary and congress.  However, the cartel of banks that is the fed is entirely independent of almost all government control.  They do have to act like banks and thus are regulated as any other bank would be.  But that does not mean the fed cartel operates "within" government.  Nor does it mean the FED board operates within government.  I could see the argument that the fed board "should" operate as an independent agency within government and that the chairman should be in the POTUS' cabinet or report directly to the Dept of the Treasury, but that is not the case.  It's more like the fed operates as an independent group much like the SCOTUS operates only it has no group auditing it or watching what it does.  They get to operate in secret, and Congress is just dandy with that.



I should have reworded it better. The Board of Governors are independent within the government. This includes the Board of Governors and their staff. Congress can remove executives of the FED if need be.  

The regional FED banks are indeed owned by stockholders (the banks), but their classification is that of instrumentalities of the federal government, which means they must do what Congress and the Board of Governors dictates to them. They have zero input in regards to monetary policy. None. Zip. Nada. Monetary policy is executed by the Board.

They must also submit a percentage of their capital to the bank in return for stock in a regional FED banks. They can also elect members to the regional bank boards. If I&#8217;m not mistaken, they also receive a dividend of six percent on their capital investment in the bank.

They don&#8217;t get to keep any of the Federal Reserve&#8217;s profits, since dividends aren&#8217;t classified as profits. All profits must be remitted to the Treasury every year. They are part of the FED system to serve and support the financial system.

Here&#8217;s a report by the FED freely available to the public:

Click Here

In all honestly, as someone who works in finance, these myths drive me up a wall, especially with morons like Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and every other conspiracy theorist and hard money nut spouting this nonsense. Again, for the umpteenth time, the FED hands over virtually all of its profits to the US government. Maybe you can enlighten me, but I&#8217;m not aware of any business that is forced to do this. There&#8217;s also the fact the FED board members are nominated by POTUS and must be confirmed by Congress. Lastly, the FED was created by an act of Congress!

You&#8217;re entitled to your beliefs so if you&#8217;re into Sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, and Chupacabras, please feel free to add the private FED to your list.



> Like I said. You are intentionally "mixing" the Treasury's system of taxing and spending, with the fed system for managing the monetary policy.  Your justification, apparently, to view both together through a consolidated model that you call your government model.



The consolidated government sector is used for analysis. The FEDs jurisdiction falls under the control of the Treasury. 

We&#8217;re talking accepted accounting practices called group accounting. It&#8217;s how we create consolidated financial statements, such as balances, cash, income, etc. among related entities . If we look at these government relationships, consolidated financial statements make complete sense and show us the actual transactions.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 13, 2013)

Corrections in blue.



Kimura said:


> > However, as with most of their useful jobs they refuse to do it.  As such the operations of the FED are kept almost entirely secret.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just as you can't group a customer's account with the company the customer purchases an item from, unless the customer is buying from himself.  Your argument that you can group the governments accounts with the accounts of the private citizens of this country is fallacious.  It assumes the incorrect socialist / marxist view that the government owns all assets, therefore all assets can be grouped in one accounting.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Corrections in blue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I&#8217;m not trying to be rude, but you&#8217;re legitimately misinformed. There are many problems with the FED which are open to criticism, such as obvious cronyism, a certain level of incompetence, etc.  Most of the anti-FED conspiracies come from a general misunderstanding about monetary operations or just subscribing to a John Birch Society worldview.

The FED doesn&#8217;t lend money to the government in any capacity, so there&#8217;s no debt slavery or some other conspiracy to take over the world being led by Jews or <insert> nebulous, shadowy group</insert>. As I&#8217;ve tried to explain to you many times, this works a little different than your ordinary commercial bank. The interest on &#8220;debt&#8221; held by the Federal Reserve ends up in two places. They pay themselves out of the interest to cover operating expenses and the remainder of the interest is rebated to the US Treasury. So, for the umpteenth time, despite the Ron Paul and John Birch Kool Aid, the Federal Reserve doesn&#8217;t sell us into debt slavery, nor does it own or control the government in any capacity.

I&#8217;m legitimately trying to clear up any confusion you have.

Many of the FED critics obsess over the fact that the FED is a private corporation that&#8217;s partially governed by private banks as opposed to an alphabet soup agency of sorts. Who cares? This isn&#8217;t any different than the US Postal Service or fucking Amtrak. Sure, they can be run by a bunch of schmucks at certain times, but this is hardly a global conspiracy. 

There&#8217;s also the erroneous belief that the FED is literally independent or private. It&#8217;s actually a partially public entity. The Federal Reserve, like every other central bank in the industrialized world, is independent within government, which means its daily operations aren&#8217;t overseen by Uncle Sam. The Chairman of the Board of Governors is appointed by POTUS and subject to oversight by Congress. Its mandate is also determined by Congress. It&#8217;s also audited by the GAO which is available to the public online.

The way the banks control the FED system is that they are technically in an ownership role, but not the same way that shareholders own Cisco or Google. The FED was created by Congress, so it&#8217;s organizationally different than a regular corporation. These shareholder banks have zero voting power, and ALL decisions are made by the publicly appointed Board of Governors. These banks have zero say about monetary policy. This power resides with the Board of Governors. Actually, compared to most other government agencies, the FED runs like a well-oiled machine.

All of this information could have been covered by an Intro to Money and Banking course at your local community college. 

Lastly, I never said the government owns ALL assets. I simply stated the obvious: deficit spending by the government creates net financial assets for the non-government sector.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Corrections in blue.
> ...


Nice job.  But you did not get anything into RKM's head.  I see him now pounding his ears with both hands while saying NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.......   Along with all of the others who want to believe what RKM believes. 
But, your information is clear, and correct.  Again, nice job.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I was referring to the consistent brown nosing and constant ass kissing quite apparent. Makes debating pointless if people are going to treat this as a rigged 2nd grade mini football league where only the parents are allowed to keep score. .


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Then for christ sakes, stop it.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Then for christ sakes, stop it.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 13, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I don't need to stop anything. I'm not talking about me. I'm referring to the ones debating from the backseat. Its bad enough if people are going to throw ad homineims, but they do it in debates which do not involve this person, at the same time offering zero substance to the discussion. 

These people need to grow up, and by these people, I mean you.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


I see.  Well, that would be your opinion.  And you know how much I appreciate your opinion.  But the attack was by you against me.  Get the problem there, me girl.  I am trying to ignore you, not respond to things you say.  And then, you toss an ad hominem attack my way and tell me to stop making ad hominem attacks.  Funny.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 13, 2013)

Corrections in blue


Kimura said:


> I&#8217;m not trying to be rude, but you&#8217;re legitimately misinformed. There are many problems with the FED which are open to criticism, such as obvious cronyism, a certain level of incompetence, etc.  Most of the anti-FED conspiracies come from a general misunderstanding about monetary operations or just subscribing to a John Birch Society worldview.  My only point made, that is even remotely near such conspiracy discussions was to the decided lack of auditing by Congress of the FED activities. A requirement that Congress has ignored. That you continue to ignore "what I said" and instead make "blanket" accusations about conspiracy theories does not support your accusation.
> 
> The FED doesn&#8217;t lend money to the government in any capacity  [I provided you with a link where the fed most certainly did do just that during this recession.  You are correct in saying that it's not supposed to do this.  ]
> 
> ...


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 13, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Congratulations, you've used your own over-used catchphrase. You waste zero time being unoriginal. The attack wasn't on just you, but anyone who feels the need to back seat debate without offering nothing of value to the discussion. If you feel this was initially targeted to you from the beginning, then then you are the cause of the problem.

Just stop. 



> And then, you toss ban ad hominem attack my way and tell me to stop making ad hominem attacks.  Funny.



I haven't made any ad hominems attacks, and I doesn't surprise me that you cant understand the difference. Ad hominem attacks are when you are not attacking the argument, but the person instead. This is all you've done, while offering nothing to the initial discussion but your sad pandering, like here: 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/281130-how-is-austerity-doing-in-europe-79.html#post7681173

Maybe you weren't paying attention, but we are trying to have a high level economic discussion. The discussion is between Kimura and RKMBrown. If you don't have any meaningful to add, butt out. Kimura arguments aren't so bad that he needs anyone coddling him or propping him up. It makes you seem desperate for attention and acceptance, and it makes the side you are advocating for particularly weak that it cannot convey its thoughts correctly that it needs a cheerleader.

Just stop.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


Just stop??  I did.  How about you return the favor?  
And, me girl, to the best of my knowledge, I have as much right to post here as you.  As a matter of fact, it is a thread I started.  So, as best I understand you have every right to respond as do I. 

Interesting that you think there is a MY SIDE.  So by definition, I guess you must believe there is a YOUR SIDE.  But in my opinion, this is not about "sides".  Kimura to the best of my knowledge has no "side".  At least, I have not seen a side.  He is interested in truth.  As am I.  If Kimura is wrong, I would be glad to point it out.  If I am wrong, I welcome his effort to point that out.  But it is you who said you have an agenda.  And here, you admit you have a "side".  Discussion is not about sides, or agenda, imho.  It should be about the facts.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 13, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Discussion is not about sides, or agenda, imho.  It should be about the facts.


Speed is a clever and witty servant. (William Shakespeare)  But, quick is the fool who is assured that he has all of the facts readily at his disposal. (RKMBrown)  

I thought the cheerleader poke was apropos.  Why not inject something meaningful into the discussion?  I'm not one of those that is easily convinced based on consensus votes.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 13, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I'm putting you on notice. That's all. The last thing we really need is anyone getting a big head, not because someone said anything coherent, but we decided to incorporate mascots in our discussion.

Just stop.



> And, me girl, to the best of my knowledge, I have as much right to post here as you.  As a matter of fact, it is a thread I started.  So, as best I understand you have every right to respond as do I.



If you want your thread to be a joke, be my guest. But for majority of the few hours when meaningful discourse was going on was when you said nothing. If you really cared about such discourse, you would continue to say nothing and only add something of value to the conversation.

Just stop.



> Interesting that you think there is a MY SIDE.  So by definition, I guess you must believe there is a YOUR SIDE.  But in my opinion, this is not about "sides".



I don't know exactly who you think you are fooling, but majority of your cheers are directed to a few people, and 100% of what they are saying is not exactly correct. I've never seen you point out anything that was wrong. I know this because I read everything. The only thing I've seen are very prudent examples of d-ride fever... And also:



Rshermr said:


> Nice job.  But you did not get anything into RKM's head.  I see him now pounding his ears with both hands while saying NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.......   A*long with all of the others who want to believe what RKM believes. *
> But, your information is clear, and correct.  Again, nice job.





Rshermr said:


> no, me poor ignorant con tool.





Rshermr said:


> Try again, me poor ignorant con tool.



Again, you have a distinct bias. It's not very difficult to see. You're not fooling anyone by pretending you don't have a horse in this race. 

Just stop.



> Kimura to the best of my knowledge has no "side".  At least, I have not seen a side.  He is interested in truth.  As am I.  If Kimura is wrong, I would be glad to point it out.  If I am wrong, I welcome his effort to point that out.



Apparently, your head was so far up his ass than you couldn't near the positions of a Chartalist and an advocate of the Modern Monetary Theory when you heard it. Or maybe your economic knowledge was so limited that you thought all economist advocated such inane Monetary theories. 

Chartalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are not the arbiter or the facts, nor credible nor knowledgeable to determine what the facts are. You are not the moderator. If we really needed one, we could do much better than you. You must obviously know this.

Just stop.



> But it is you who said you have an agenda.  And here, you admit you have a "side".  Discussion is not about sides, or agenda, imho.  It should be about the facts.



All I did was made a sarcastic remark which flew over that empty vessel you call head. Your bias and warped sense of logic makes you believe everyone who doesn't see things your way has an agenda, and if they don't see things your way, then they are a con tool. Clearly, you're not objective, and you do have a side. 

As for whether or not you have a side, I don't care. That's why a debate is. A debate is what happens when opposing sides argue best for their side using the evidence presented. You obviously can't understand how this works, which is why you are such a terrible person to debate with. You can be on all the sides you'd like. Just don't jump into decisions with zero to add to the discussion, spouting Ad hominem and claiming the only thing you are after is the true. It just makes you sound intellectually dishonest.

Just stop.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 13, 2013)

whynot said:


> Back on topic
> How is austerity doing in Europe?



Didn't mean to ignore you!  This thread does have a tendency to wander.  



whynot said:


> Its working but very slowly and very painfully in my view.
> We are not out of the woods yet and I personally fear it will get much worse before things really improve.



There seem to be three main schools of thought here.  First is the position that "true" austerity has not been tried anywhere because that entails returning to the gold standard, cutting public expenditures sufficiently to create a government surplus, and apparently reducing taxes and taking unspecified measures to be determined later.  I believe that this is basically and insincere attempt to avoid having to admit failure, as the only purpose seems to be to deny accountability.  

Second, there is a group which claims success for austerity based on cherry-picking (usually small) countries that show some upturn (Ireland and Latvia come to mind).  These cases on closer examination turn out to not be as represented.

The final group, of which I am a part, believe that austerity has, as it did in 1928--1933, made things worse.   



whynot said:


> From an Irish point of view we had a lovely boom for over a decade with low unemployment rates high GDP growth figures, a very high export surplus and virtually 0% government debt to GDP ratio. Most did not see the crash coming and to be fair it all happen so fast it was just unbelievable to most.



The question logically arises as to what caused the boom and export surplus in the first place.  It all begins about 1995 (I'm going from memory here so I could be off on the date) when Ireland adopted a strategy to attract multi-nationals by becoming a low tax haven.  Big Pharma was a major part of this.  The problem with pharmaceuticals is that the industry is extremely capital intensive and most of its production is for the export market.  This seriously distorted the Irish economy and skewed the economic statistics on Ireland so that they gave an impression of the Irish economy that was misleading.  

For example, because pharma is a capital intensive industry owned by foreign corporations, it makes export growth look very high while very little of those earnings pass through to the rest of the Irish economy.  I've seen a figure that it takes $100 of gross Irish pharma sales to generate the same impact as $4 spent by tourists visiting Ireland!  

Add to this the "hot" money flowing into the country for tax avoidance reasons.  It settled into the Irish banking system which, like all good bankers tried to lend it out.  The result was one of the biggest real estate bubbles in Europe.  I understand that part of the government's response is to bulldoze more than 100,000 completed but unsold housing units in tracts where public services and utilities had been planned but never built!  



whynot said:


> It turned out that a large portion of the GDP growth was from the accumulation of debt by the public at large. Money via banks had been flooding into the country and had the net result of increasing the number of jobs and also tax revenue. When this flow of money finally stopped we found out the hard way the real cost of it. The unemployment rate skyrocketed and the tax revenue plummeted.
> Overnight we went form country with budget surplus to a double digit deficit. Each year since 2008 this deficit figure has been reduced as a result of austerity, by 2015 it should finally be back under control provided there is not a global economic collapse



I certainly hope Ireland has a shining recovery.  But to prevent another debacle, Ireland will have to wean itself off of the tax haven model of economic development and develop an economy based more on domestic demand than export growth.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Discussion is not about sides, or agenda, imho.  It should be about the facts.
> ...



There, I put my twitter on my signature. 3,200 + people follow me. Now I know everything I say is right... Consensus is grand, ain't it.

Which reminds me, instead of responding to whatever I was going to, I need to post my thoughts.

Until then, this circus is all yours.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 13, 2013)

Usually the rhetoric approach to debating is based on a history of beating ones' head against the wall to no avail.  I'm willing to learn new things. I'm willing to agree when I'm wrong.  I don't think he's expecting that. Fundamentally, I just don't see the argument that the sum total of ever larger deficits of a government (US or Europe) and unlimited expansion of credit are both a necessary and efficient means for managing growth of private assets.  I see these things more as a means for redistributing wealth.  In the case of expansion of credit, we redistribute wealth to the folks who take the risk of borrowing into growth, and the bankers profit through the management of the easy money to be made in lending said with safe instruments that have a higher return than fairy dust backed money.  In the case of govco debt, the taxpayer foots the bill, thus anyone that refuses to participate in the taxable items benefits over the people who have no choice but to get punished for their insolence in being in a position to be taxed.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Usually the rhetoric approach to debating is based on a history of beating ones' head against the wall to no avail.  I'm willing to learn new things. I'm willing to agree when I'm wrong.  I don't think he's expecting that. Fundamentally, I just don't see the argument that the sum total of ever larger deficits of a government (US or Europe) and unlimited expansion of credit are both a necessary and efficient means for managing growth of private assets.  I see these things more as a means for redistributing wealth.  In the case of expansion of credit, we redistribute wealth to the folks who take the risk of borrowing into growth, and the bankers profit through the management of the easy money to be made in lending said with safe instruments that have a higher return than fairy dust backed money.  In the case of govco debt, the taxpayer foots the bill, thus anyone that refuses to participate in the taxable items benefits over the people who have no choice but to get punished for their insolence in being in a position to be taxed.


Again, you seem to be arguing for lower taxes.  We are close now to the lowest taxes since the early 50's.  Can you show a time when, during high unemployment the lowering of income taxes has improved the economy??
Again, let me know how the wealthy are getting hurt by the supposed higher taxes that you are talking about if you would be so kind.  I am missing it.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 13, 2013)

> [That may be true, but that does not mean you are listening.  You may be assuming that my terms are terms out of your 30year old liberal arts textbook.  No.  My terms are the terms used by Private Citizens, Bankers, Stock traders, Business owners....  Having personally written many software packages for many industries I'm somewhat familiar with most areas of finance and accounting, albeit not from the, forgive me, myopic perspective of an Economics expert. ][/COLOR]





> Well oiled machine... lol  Grease is the word alright. Again you ignore the fact that these guys in the cartel get exclusive access to nearly unlimited funds.  All they have to do to pay the prior years funds is take more each year.  It's a joke.  Unlimited expansion, into their pocket.  You are focused on profit.  ROFL Who cares about the FED profit?  The real money isn't in the interest paid to the FED for the unlimited funds, the real money is in USING THE UNLIMITED FUNDS to make a higher rate of return than that charged by the FED.  The delta between year two's sales of the FED instruments and year one's sales of the FED instruments minus interest is "float" that the banks can use recursively to do whatever they like.



^^^^^^^

See......this is what I mean by not understanding monetary operations. I didn't ignore your statements, but there's only a certain amount of times I can explain the same thing a different way.



> My only point made, that is even remotely near such conspiracy discussions was to the decided lack of auditing by Congress of the FED activities. A requirement that Congress has ignored. That you continue to ignore "what I said" and instead make "blanket" accusations about conspiracy theories does not support your accusation.
> 
> [I provided you with a link where the fed most certainly did do just that during this recession.  You are correct in saying that it's not supposed to do this.  ]





> I've skimmed over the so called audit.  It's more a summary report than any audit report I've ever read.  They've only done one correct? Or can you point to a complete audit other than the one at this link GAO Fed Investigation ?



Here are the independent auditors' reports:

2009

2010

2011

2012


----------



## Kimura (Aug 13, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



When my best friend started his company, he bought like a thousand Twitter followers and like two thousand Facebook likes. I'd say he qualifies for Douche Of The Year.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Spending money on followers and likes is the way to go apparently. It must be if the State Department spent $630,000 of taxpayer money on Facebook likes. I'm pretty sure most of mine are real. Haven't been losing too many followers. Just mostly due to inactivity.

Speaking of which, need to get back to my responses. Hopefully I can respond to both before bed...


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 13, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Usually the rhetoric approach to debating is based on a history of beating ones' head against the wall to no avail.  I'm willing to learn new things. I'm willing to agree when I'm wrong.  I don't think he's expecting that. Fundamentally, I just don't see the argument that the sum total of ever larger deficits of a government (US or Europe) and unlimited expansion of credit are both a necessary and efficient means for managing growth of private assets.  I see these things more as a means for redistributing wealth.  In the case of expansion of credit, we redistribute wealth to the folks who take the risk of borrowing into growth, and the bankers profit through the management of the easy money to be made in lending said with safe instruments that have a higher return than fairy dust backed money.  In the case of govco debt, the taxpayer foots the bill, thus anyone that refuses to participate in the taxable items benefits over the people who have no choice but to get punished for their insolence in being in a position to be taxed.
> ...


I don't care much where the tax rate is.  What I do care for is that we all pay the same rate for taxes.  I don't appreciate the idea that some folks are forced to pay my way and others gain the benefit of paying no taxes.  What I despise is having to hear my daughter (nurse) decry the despicable leeches that steal from the tax payer every day by forcing the hospitals to get them high on the taxpayer's dime.  What I really despise is seeing good people not work for years while they leach on the taxpayer's dime using disability and unemployment and food stamps and and and and ... to pay their way through life.  

It sucks to know you are the mark and not be able to do a single thing about it.  It sucks even more to know that half the friggin country does not give a shit because it's not their tax money that's being pissed away.  Stealing GM from it's owners to give it to the Union...OMG.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 13, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



His company has social proof now. It seems like a viable way to go. I'm debating whether or not to start a blog and go the Twitter route. 

Have a good night....errr morning in the UK.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 13, 2013)

Kimura said:


> See......this is what I mean by not understanding monetary operations. I didn't ignore your statements, but there's only a certain amount of times I can explain the same thing a different way.



You'll note, or not, that I did not have a single problem agreeing with the other economists that were posting remarks on this subject.  Only you.  Funny how that is, huh?  Maybe I have it out for you.  Or... maybe they said what they said in a different way.  Maybe ... just maybe there are a few significant differences between what you said and what they said.  Maybe, just maybe the problem isn't me not understanding, it's your statements?  Or maybe it's your knee jerk reaction to my response to the differences, vs. their response to the differences.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Stealing gm to give to the union???  Not sure I have ever read about that.  Maybe you can flesh that out for me, and others.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > See......this is what I mean by not understanding monetary operations. I didn't ignore your statements, but there's only a certain amount of times I can explain the same thing a different way.
> ...



I probably should have prefaced our deficit discussion in a better way, such as differentiating between financial assets vs real assets, inside wealth and outside wealth, and a better overall explanation of stock and flow concepts (of income and/or spending) within the sectoral balances approach. It wasn't my agenda to engage in knee jerk reactions if that's how I came across.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 14, 2013)

oldfart said:


> OK, since now is later, let's talk about the crowding out effect.  This is related to something called Ricardian equivalence and has been around classical economics for a long time.  The problem is that it dates from the period economists ASSUMED full employment of resources.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No complaints so far.



> This is where the sticky part is.  When interest rates increase, households will adjust their "consumption ratio" downward.  Most of this effect will probably be consumers who cannot afford to borrow as much and thus lower plans for consumption, which is why consumer durables are more volatile than food or clothing, the mechanism is not on the consumer wants side, it is on the consumer capacity side of household optimization.  Households are to some extent income-constrained.
> 
> But all of this rests on the initial assumption of full employment of all factors of production.  Suppose this is not true.  In linear programming terms the "shadow cost" of the partially unused resource is zero.  Economists would say the opportunity cost of that resource was zero.  Both mean that we can utilize more of that resource because it is "free".  But while the resource may have a marginal productivity of zero, it is still likely to be paid a traditional price for that resource.  Where I work the woods are full of half empty commercial space whose asking rents have not fallen the last five years.  Combine sticky resource prices and excess capacity and you set up a new possibility.  The government spending immediately injects income into the household sector (labor is paid wages and property owners start receiving rent on formerly vacant space).  They are no longer as income-constrained as they were before, and can increase both consumption and savings!



All you've done was explain what effects idle resources can do for other people. Not necessarily analysis the benefits relative to the cost. This is where I take the time to mention another component of classical economics called Bastiat's Fable. What? I thought we were just mentioning economist at random...

The problem with those who concur that there is no crowding out is largely due to the assumption that there are idle resources. This also has to do with the distinction between wealth and employment. Even if you do believe that government would spend in a way which would only involve unemployed resources, the measure would result in a harmful solution which would make a particular area poorer.

Shadow cost are 0 to someone else, which always come at a cost to another person. At zero prices, there is always greater demand than supply. Some people tend to assume that scarcity does not exist in some sectors of the economy. Goods are free by nature, but inappropriate institutional arrangements have led to scarcity. Free resources utilised in one sector can always be utilised in another sector which is more productive. There is really no such thing as a Free resource, not in the Government sector or Private Sector.

For example, the issue is what is the best outlet for all of these idle resources. Does the final mix output satisfy consumer desires? How can we be sure that channeling these resources into sector X won't actually do more harm than good? In practice, the market economy does a fanasitc job of doing this called a profit-and-loss calculation, which are conveyed in the form of market prices. Anyone can use an example of anyone who was currently laid-off as a result of the financial crisis. Me in particular, while we are still employing personal anecdotes. 

This Wall Street Broker isn't doing anybody a service by cranking out models that give mortgage-backed securities a gold star for safety. What do I do with my degree? Should I go and teach other how to trade in the markets or was my education a complete was, in which given the economic opportunities, provide services at Wal-Mart. No one knows the answers to these questions, but what eventually happens in the recovery process as the unemployed initially looks for another job with the same salary as before. As the months pass, she realizes that this is unrealistic, and she begins lowering his minimum price. Eventually, he finds an employer with compatible desires, and the two agree to a mutually beneficial arrangement.

In this scenario, idle unemployment serves as a real function in the marketplace, but they're never truly idle. They're always assumed uses for resources which can be put to better uses. When government spends money and runs up deficits, all it means is that it is forcing taxpayers to spend money on projects that the market wouldn't normally fund, and for more often than not a very good reason.

For example, video game developer 38 studios going into bankruptcy, the state department purchasing 2,500 kindles, the bankruptcy of A123 Systems, and others. Now, I can give these examples all day, and I'm sure someone else would love that. But regardless at the extent at the government is using that money, whether for investment or for current government expenditures, it is not available for other people. The key thing to remember it's not whether or not investors are being crowded out. It's the fact that they could be investing into other economic activity, which could be more productive than government debt, given that the government activity is not very productive. The question of whether or not Government Spending is going to be less productive than Private Spending is ultimately an empirical one.

This is because in principle, we expect this to be the case. If you are spending your own money on yourself you are going to spend very carefully. If you are also spending someone else's money on yourself, you're still going to spend it with some reasonable amount of concern, but ultimately very carefully. However, if you are spending someone else's money on someone else (which is what is the case with government), then you have no real incentive to actually use that money effectively or efficiently. This is simply an economic reality. Ultimately, government spending frees up another income and produces savings at the expense of constraining anther's income and savings. 



> I leave it to you to explain how this gives rise to the multiplier effect.  In summary, the closer we are to full utilization of resources (which is reflected in markets by price inflation), the more "crowding-out" we will observe.  The more unused resources in an economy (high unemployment rates and commercial vacancy rates), the  less "crowding-out" and the higher the multiplier.  Both descriptions of an economy are correct given they are applied to the appropriate set of circumstances.



Again, all this has very much to do with scarcity, and the assumption that there is none. Depending on the economic sector your are referring to. If deficits are financed by the public, then it causes a diversion of savings into government projects. If deficits are financed by bank inflation, then the diversion is indirect and the crowding out takes place by the printing of new money for government, competing for resources with the old money saved by the public sector.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 14, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...


Same here... cheers.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Stealing gm to give to the union???  Not sure I have ever read about that.  Maybe you can flesh that out for me, and others.


Still living under a rock?  GM and the Truth About One of America's Biggest Bankruptcies


----------



## Kimura (Aug 14, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > OK, since now is later, let's talk about the crowding out effect.  This is related to something called Ricardian equivalence and has been around classical economics for a long time.  The problem is that it dates from the period economists ASSUMED full employment of resources.
> ...



This is all very New Keynesian in my estimation.  This is where I have a bone of contention. By the way, I think every econ and finance major should intern as a staffer at the FED &#8211; or BoE in the case of the UK - as to clear some of this up. Even interning at a bond desk for one the primary dealers would help in my opinion.

I know I&#8217;ve said governments don&#8217;t spend under a fiat system by &#8220;printing money&#8221;. This is still the truth; they spend by deposit creation in the banking system. Obviously, there&#8217;s dollars in circulation which were clearly printed but this is an entirely different process from flows of spending and/or taxation. I never mentioned where these credits and debits emanate from. They basically come from nowhere. I&#8217;m working on a Photoshop diagram to illustrate this.  Any bond issuance by the government has nothing to do with &#8220;financing&#8221;. They function as a reserve drain to alleviate any competitive pressure on the target interest rate. Central banks cannot control the money supply. All they can control is the target interest rate by managing the liquidity in these reserves.

For example, let&#8217;s say the government spends $500 million dollars. The Treasury basically debits one of its cash accounts by $500 million and this means its reserve account at the FED declines by the same amount. The recipient then deposits the check for $500 million in their private bank accounts and its reserves increase by that amount.

Taxation works in the opposite fashion. Private bank accounts receive a debit (private reserves decrease) and the government accounts receive a credit and reserve increase. All this based on basic accounting entries. The taxation doesn&#8217;t really end up anywhere. It&#8217;s not stored in a vault, nor does it finance deficit spending in any capacity. The non-government sector can&#8217;t pay any of its tax obligations until the government has spent. We should ultimately view taxes as draining excess liquidity from the non-government sector. It demonstrates the government sector&#8217;s desire for that particular sector to have decreased spending capacity.

I&#8217;d like to reinforce my points. Let&#8217;s say the economy consists of two people on a tropical island. One person is the government sector and the other is the non-government sector. If the government runs a balanced budget (say spends $400 and taxes $400) then non-government sector accumulation of currency is zero (no net savings) in that time period and the budget is &#8220;balanced&#8221;.

If the government sector spends $500 and taxes remain at $400, then non-government sector (private) saving is $100 dollars which can accrue as financial assets. These $100 notes have issued by the government sector is pay for its added expenses. The government may even decide to issue bond to entice saving but operationally doesn&#8217;t have to do this to finance its deficits. The government deficit of $100 is private savings of $100 down to the last penny.

If the government continued to do this, all the accrued private savings would be equal to all the accumulated budget deficits. In the event the government ran a surplus (for example, it spends $400 and taxes $500) the private sector would be in debt &#8211; or would owe the government sector &#8211; a tax payment of $100 dollars. It would have to sell something to the government to obtain the required funds. The idea being that the government purchases back a portion of the bonds it sells. The net funding requirements of the non-government sector created this response from the government in the form of interest rate signaling so to speak.

These examples should help people realize that currency and the monetary base (reserves) and outstanding government financial securities comprise the total net financial assets of the non-government sector. It becomes a matter of basic accounting that the government provides the funds to the non-government sector for its desire to net save and for tax payments.

The classical claims about crowding are not based on any coherent mechanism. In point of fact, they repeatedly state that there&#8217;s a fixed pool of savings and that government spending is constrained from and financial standpoint. In other words, a currency issuer must source funding to carry out fiscal policy. The end result is competition for some finite pool of savings is interest rates increase and affect private spending. This is what we learned as financial crowding out. 

An related theory is IS-LM theory from macro. It also erroneous assumes the FED &#8211; or BoE - or any central bank can exogenously control the supply of money. The increasing income from deficits increases the demand for money and increases interest rates to clear out the money market so to speak. This is retardo Keynesian theory of financial crowding out.

Both of these concepts aren&#8217;t even based in reality since it&#8217;s not connected to the fact that central banks increase interest rates because they should control inflation and these rate increases will decrease aggregate demand.

Real crowding out is very real, but financial crowding is largely an erroneous miscalculation.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Stealing gm to give to the union???  Not sure I have ever read about that.  Maybe you can flesh that out for me, and others.
> ...


Jesus, RKM.  I wondered who in the world was nuts enough to pay any attention to this guy.  I mean, there are nut case right and left.  But this guy is the nut case for nut cases only:
"Porter Stansberry, the financial publisher known as much for his viral, ominous 2010 video *"The End of America"* as he is for his run-ins with the Security Exchange Commission, is back with another foreboding video, titled *"The End of Barack Obama?"*

[READ:* Stansberry Claims Obama Secretly Seeking Third Term*]

In the video, which runs more than an hour in length, Stansberry warns listeners that a major crisis is coming that will "shake the very foundation" of the country and could "bring our country and way of life to a grinding halt."
Financial Publisher Who Defrauded Public Investors Is Back With Another Ominous Video - Washington Whispers (usnews.com).

So, is this it?  Your "proof" that the gm rescue was a gift to the union???  Really.
I have seen this guy's adds for his drivel many times.  Always wondered who was stupid enough to pay any attention.  Sorry, but there is no other way to say it.  You have to be in the nut case of nut cases category to actually pay any attention to this guy.

Maybe it was just a joke?  Maybe you are just trying to kid us???

Here is another description:
"There&#8217;s a website you have to get on and watch a video. Well, after months and months of seeing the commercial, I finally clicked on NewAmerica5.com. No need to watch it, unless you have nothing better to do for the next hour. Seriously, this video is an hour long with rather primitive graphics and so scary that by the end, you&#8217;re ready to start dishing out money to the guy in charge, convicted felon, Porter Stansberry.

&#8220;What was he convicted of,&#8221; you ask? Stock fraud. Stansberry was ordered to pay restitution and a fine of 1.5 million dollars.

Five minutes into the video you know Stansberry is on the far right of the political spectrum when he condemns government and regulations&#8212;and slams President Obama, claiming he&#8217;s bringing on European-style Socialism. 

He easily blends a few truths with his political ideology, coming up with a solution only he can solve for you for the right price. He says everyone in the financial services industry agrees with him, even George Soros, the notorious left wing financier who backs every socialist cause in the world!
The Wages of Boredom - Left Coast Logic
A far, far, far, far right wing nut case.  And a felon to boot.  Great.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


You asked for a link.  So I googled and pasted you the first link.  Yeah I thought it was funny.  Though what Obama did was not funny.  The facts are still there ... Obama skipped the bankrupcy process and "provided" the union with the lion share of the company, thus "stealing" the company away from the shareholders and "redistributing" it to his democrat buddies in the union.  I'm to lazy to find the appropriate data.  I'm going by memory of the "recent" event.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


So you don't have a rational, impartial source.  Thought so.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 14, 2013)

First, thanks for a thoughtful post!  I think we are getting into some of the good stuff here.  



AmazonTania said:


> All you've done was explain what effects idle resources can do for other people. Not necessarily analysis the benefits relative to the cost. This is where I take the time to mention another component of classical economics called Bastiat's Fable. What? I thought we were just mentioning economist at random...



Sorry for the inside joke about Pareto and Walras.  You had to be forced to sit through welfare economics to appreciate the irony.  



AmazonTania said:


> The problem with those who concur that there is no crowding out is largely due to the assumption that there are idle resources. This also has to do with the distinction between wealth and employment. Even if you do believe that government would spend in a way which would only involve unemployed resources, the measure would result in a harmful solution which would make a particular area poorer.



I try to be careful here.  I do not deny that there is a "crowding-out effect", but I contend that it is mostly a property of economies near full employment, just as Keynesian multiplier effects are more pronounced when there are lots of underutilitzed resources.  Which one is dominant depends on the state of the economy at the moment.  Suppose we look at warehouse space.  In a major downturn the warehouse is often less than half full.  If the company gears up production and needs more warehouse space, it's already there sitting unused.  Warehouse space in this situation is not a constraint on production and to the firm it is essentially free.  At the same time if the company next door offers to sell the firm another warehouse, the firm will probably pass.  Why pay for space that only increases the amount of unused warehouse?  The marginal productivity of the added space is zero.  

Now most production processes involve multiple inputs, not all of which are underutilized.   Things get complicated pretty fast and in practice two or three sector models become basically worthless and input-output models become the shining stars.  This is the kind of stuff I worked on the first year of graduate school studying the Soviet economy.  Bringing an unused resource into production normally requires also increasing use of resources that are not in surplus.  Using more warehouse space, for example will often increase utility consumption for climate control, increase labor for additional workers, and repairs and depreciation for loading equipment.  So even though a given resource is free, that doesn't mean that there is no marginal cost in utilizing more of it.  

My point is that this is all on a continuum.  Near full employment most other factors of production are in short supply, and increasing output has significant inflationary potential.  Conversely surplus resources in one area caused by decreased demand usually are coupled with surplus resources of other kinds.  As we move from one position to another issues such as bottlenecks have to be dealt with and the additional output balanced against the inflationary pressures.  

I think that there is very little the government can do that only utilizes surplus resources, so that spending has to matched to what resources we are targeting to increase utilization.  I'm not understanding what "harmful solution" you are concerned with here.  Perhaps an example would help?  



AmazonTania said:


> Shadow cost are 0 to someone else, which always come at a cost to another person. At zero prices, there is always greater demand than supply. Some people tend to assume that scarcity does not exist in some sectors of the economy. Goods are free by nature, but inappropriate institutional arrangements have led to scarcity. Free resources utilized in one sector can always be utilized in another sector which is more productive. There is really no such thing as a Free resource, not in the Government sector or Private Sector.


 
I believe that externalities give rise to markets with negative goods with negative prices.  Think of waste disposal.  When a process has multiple outputs, one or more of which must be disposed of, the firm will pay for that disposal.  Profit maximization rewards the most cost effective method of disposal and wonderfully market mechanisms handle the problem just fine. 



AmazonTania said:


> For example, the issue is what is the best outlet for all of these idle resources. Does the final mix output satisfy consumer desires?



Frankly this is a weak point of economic theory in general.  That applies to both market mechanisms and to directive measures.  I'll defer discussing theory of consumer demand until I can spend some more time on it.  



AmazonTania said:


> How can we be sure that channeling these resources into sector X won't actually do more harm than good?



Again, what kind of harm are you concerned with here?



AmazonTania said:


> In practice, the market economy does a fantastic job of doing this called a profit-and-loss calculation, which are conveyed in the form of market prices.



I would agree with two caveats.  First the market does not do a good job of handling externalities unless they are factored in by either subsidies or fines.  Second, there are some perverse price effects in consumer behavior that are problematical.  



AmazonTania said:


> This Wall Street Broker isn't doing anybody a service by cranking out models that give mortgage-backed securities a gold star for safety.



Agreed.  



AmazonTania said:


> What do I do with my degree? Should I go and teach other how to trade in the markets or was my education a complete was, in which given the economic opportunities, provide services at Wal-Mart. No one knows the answers to these questions, but what eventually happens in the recovery process as the unemployed initially looks for another job with the same salary as before. As the months pass, she realizes that this is unrealistic, and she begins lowering his minimum price. Eventually, he finds an employer with compatible desires, and the two agree to a mutually beneficial arrangement.



This is a very simplified view of how labor markets work.  Generally labor markets work better when there is more geographical mobility, occupational mobility, as well as compensation mobility.  Highly specialized professionals are a particular problem (think medical research today, aerospace engineering in the past, PhD level scientists in just about anything), because when industry demand slackens there are usually no good places those people can find employment that keeps their specialized skills current.  I think this is a good case for targeted government spending to maintain the research and technological infrastructure the economy will eventually need again.  




AmazonTania said:


> In this scenario, idle unemployment serves as a real function in the marketplace, but they're never truly idle. They're always assumed uses for resources which can be put to better uses. When government spends money and runs up deficits, all it means is that it is forcing taxpayers to spend money on projects that the market wouldn't normally fund, and for more often than not a very good reason.



A think this is a good example of where absolute arguments break down on both sides.  Markets are not very good at producing certain goods and services, like basic research or infrastructure.  You can argue these issues intelligently project by project.  For example, I would oppose a government plan to subsidize agricultural lime production (yes, some states run this industry directly), but I would support a project to upgrade prisons so they are safer for inmates and staff and more effective in reducing recidivism.  I guess that a good project is a good project regardless of how tight the budget is  (i.e. if the projected internal ROI is big, do it anyway) and a bad project is a waste of taxpayer money even when the government runs a surplus.  



AmazonTania said:


> The key thing to remember it's not whether or not investors are being crowded out. It's the fact that they could be investing into other economic activity, which could be more productive than government debt, given that the government activity is not very productive. The question of whether or not Government Spending is going to be less productive than Private Spending is ultimately an empirical one.



I would agree that the question in a lot of cases is an empirical one.  But right now the financial system is sitting on a couple trillion dollars of excess reserves earning 0.25% interest from the Fed, while not generating any economic activity through increased business lending.  It seems to me that bank hoarding is crowding out business investment!  And we are terminating hundreds of NIH research grants for the purpose of.....where again is this demand for medical research being replaced?  Where are the resources being allocated to?  



AmazonTania said:


> However, if you are spending someone else's money on someone else (which is what is the case with government), then you have no real incentive to actually use that money effectively or efficiently.



The same argument could be used to pillory the financial services industry!  Most people paid to do a job try to do it well, and this is as true in the government sector as in the private sector.


----------



## Toro (Aug 14, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Sorry for the inside joke about Pareto and Walras.  You had to be forced to sit through welfare economics to appreciate the irony.
> 
> .



That reminds me of another joke. 

What's the definition of an economist?


An accountant without the personality!

lol

Carry on. 


Long silver for a trade, Amazonia.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 14, 2013)

oldfart said:


> First, thanks for a thoughtful post!  I think we are getting into some of the good stuff here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd like to add my take on this...

It&#8217;s clear that during any period of time we have real finite resources for production. New resources are located, produced, and the previous stock moved around through better productivity and education. The goal of production is to utilize resources to produce real goods and services people desire by public or private distribution.

By its very definition, any sectoral claim through spending on real resources decreases the availability for other individuals. We always have opportunity costs in real terms when one part of spending rises relative to another.

Of course, people can always support the radical side of mainstream econ that supports Ricardian equivalence, which tell us there&#8217;s such a thing as one hundred percent crowding out in the financial markets. If you don&#8217;t then you&#8217;ll agree that increasing deficits as a percentage of GDP will increase aggregate demand so long as the economy can handle the production of increased real goods and services. The increase in overall public demand will lead to more public access to real goods and services.

Some people may be wondering why this even matters if the economy is at full capacity. Under these circumstances an increasing public percentage of GDP must push real utilization by the non-government sector which may increase as the economy tries to bleed out the nominal demand through real output.

We could also say that deficits may increase as a percentage of GDP due to a direct consequence of decreases in private spending which should kick in automatic stabilizers. This would tell us we have too many idle resources. This is within the realm of possibility, but doesn't change the fact that public claims on resources have increased. We have a situation where opportunity costs are low due to all the excess capacity.

The questions remains if we can differentiate between real crowding out or the myth of financial crowding out that&#8217;s erroneously drilled into our skulls as undergraduates. The epicenter of this macro error is the loanable funds theory which is sort of like an aggregate simulation of how financial markets behave. This whole enchilada is pre-Keynesian and is still attached to the classical model so to speak.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So you don't have a rational, impartial source.  Thought so.



What "source" would you consider to be a "rational, impartial source?"

How about General Motors CEO, Dan Akerson?

Akerson Admits GM Bankruptcy Not Well Thought Out | National Legal and Policy Center


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 14, 2013)

How about the wiki? General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kimura (Aug 14, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't have a rational, impartial source.  Thought so.
> ...



It's almost funny that the Obama Administration didn't make Wall Street go through wage restructuring before they could get bailed out. This has been the story for the past thirty years while Labor takes it in the ass. I'm glad the UAW received some compensation. The past thirty years have been a smorgasbord of deregulation, free trade, and stagnant wages. Thank you Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush The Retard, and now Obama!


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 14, 2013)

Kimura said:


> We should ultimately view taxes as draining excess liquidity from the non-government sector.



Except, that's not what the government does. They print excess money, depreciate the value of the dollar and then demand the lion's share back.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 14, 2013)

Kimura said:


> This is all very New Keynesian in my estimation.  This is where I have a bone of contention. By the way, I think every econ and finance major should intern as a staffer at the FED  or BoE in the case of the UK - as to clear some of this up. Even interning at a bond desk for one the primary dealers would help in my opinion.



I don't see how it's New Keynesian at all. The general premise of the Neo-Keynesian position on crowding out is that the effects are minimal with very high unemployment, as the government spending allocates freed up idle resources. The question Neo-Keynasians tend not to ask, 'why are these resources freed up in the first place.' Ignores that these freed up resources can have more efficient uses.

And I really don't see the point in a Finance or Econ major interning at the Fed. Not all Central Banks operate similarly.



> I know Ive said governments dont spend under a fiat system by printing money. This is still the truth; they spend by deposit creation in the banking system. Obviously, theres dollars in circulation which were clearly printed but this is an entirely different process from flows of spending and/or taxation. I never mentioned where these credits and debits emanate from. They basically come from nowhere. Im working on a Photoshop diagram to illustrate this. Any bond issuance by the government has nothing to do with financing. They function as a reserve drain to alleviate any competitive pressure on the target interest rate. Central banks cannot control the money supply. All they can control is the target interest rate by managing the liquidity in these reserves.



Much of the money used for QE1, 3 & 4 has already financed a good portion of previous deficits. I'll look through the Flow of Funds statistics and see for myself. Other than that, I don't disagree that the Federal Government has to issue bonds or tax. It can spend what it needs to spend, but the Government does issue bonds to finance government deficit outlays. MMT just feels as if the Government doesn't need to orchestrate it that way.

The Government issues bonds creating a 'financial asset' in the private sector, the private sector flips the bond to the Federal Reserve and the Fed receives the principal + interest on Government IOUs. Most likely from other bonds it sells. The General Fund of the Treasury just receives remittances funds from the Federal Reserve through these treasures, and interest from depository loans, foreign securities, etc.

And I'm not sure about your last point. Are you saying that the Central Bank _doesn't_ control the money supply, or rather, can't control the money supply. The Fed can influence the money supply by setting reserve requirements, OR by lowering/raising the discount rate, OR by conducting OMO. So, your last point is a bit of circular logic, and I just entertained a fallacy by talking about it... Bollocks...



> For example, lets say the government spends $500 million dollars. The Treasury basically debits one of its cash accounts by $500 million and this means its reserve account at the FED declines by the same amount. The recipient then deposits the check for $500 million in their private bank accounts and its reserves increase by that amount.
> 
> Taxation works in the opposite fashion. Private bank accounts receive a debit (private reserves decrease) and the government accounts receive a credit and reserve increase. All this based on basic accounting entries. The taxation doesnt really end up anywhere. Its not stored in a vault, nor does it finance deficit spending in any capacity. The non-government sector cant pay any of its tax obligations until the government has spent. We should ultimately view taxes as draining excess liquidity from the non-government sector. It demonstrates the government sectors desire for that particular sector to have decreased spending capacity.



Taxes aren't meant to finance deficit spending. A deficit is what you have accumulated if your outlays exceed your revenues. An individual receives a debit and the government receives a credit. The money is then spent the way Congress wants to spend it.  That's all that we can really think of taxes. They're not draining excess liquidity. All it's doing is shifting liquidity from one sector of the economy to another. Whether or not we can determine whether the new uses of the liquidity are more useful than what it was previously being used for is merely empirical. Either way, you are limiting spending capacity of one sector.



> Id like to reinforce my points. Lets say the economy consists of two people on a tropical island. One person is the government sector and the other is the non-government sector. If the government runs a balanced budget (say spends $400 and taxes $400) then non-government sector accumulation of currency is zero (no net savings) in that time period and the budget is balanced.
> 
> If the government sector spends $500 and taxes remain at $400, then non-government sector (private) saving is $100 dollars which can accrue as financial assets. These $100 notes have issued by the government sector is pay for its added expenses. The government may even decide to issue bond to entice saving but operationally doesnt have to do this to finance its deficits. The government deficit of $100 is private savings of $100 down to the last penny.



You are once again skipping the bond auctioning process in assuming that the Bond comes it after the fact. I can understand if the private sector has held on to private savings it has accrued from it's previously held financial asset. 

Again, two people on an island: The Private Sector and the Government Sector. The government receives $400 dollars in receipts and has $400 in outlays. The Government is running a balanced budget. The following fiscal year, the government deceives to spend $500 dollars, although it receives the same $400 dollars in receipts as before. Where exactly is the government going to get the extra revenue for the $100 deficit? The private sector, as the private sector is the only other person on the island. The private sector invest $100 dollars into the a government security. The private sector has a financial asset, and the government sector has $100 dollars.

The following year, the security matures. The private sector has $100 + interest which is now consisted 'net private sector savings.' Meanwhile, the Government sector decides to spend the same budget outlays of $500 dollars and same tax receipts of $400. 

I can understand how my previous explanations  of how the Government funds without issuing securities makes sense, but this scenario is a tad bonkers. Even if you believe the Government's deficit is financed through government savings, it has to obtain these savings somehow. The laws of equivalent exchange command this.



> If the government continued to do this, all the accrued private savings would be equal to all the accumulated budget deficits. In the event the government ran a surplus (for example, it spends $400 and taxes $500) the private sector would be in debt  or would owe the government sector  a tax payment of $100 dollars. It would have to sell something to the government to obtain the required funds. The idea being that the government purchases back a portion of the bonds it sells. The net funding requirements of the non-government sector created this response from the government in the form of interest rate signaling so to speak.



Not true at all. Again, let's say that the Government is tax receipts consist of $400 dollars, but let's also assume that the Government decides to spend only $300 this fiscal year. This means that the Government is running a budget surplus.  How you assume the private sector would be in debt, I haven't the foggiest. But a budget surplus would allow the Government to invest in the actual economy. It can purchase equities from major corporations. It can invest in real estate. It can invest in money market instruments, or whatever investments it decides to take on. These investments net out the same way if the government sector were to run deficits. Most of all, it still free's up resources from the general economy.



> These examples should help people realize that currency and the monetary base (reserves) and outstanding government financial securities comprise the total net financial assets of the non-government sector. It becomes a matter of basic accounting that the government provides the funds to the non-government sector for its desire to net save and for tax payments.



That's the general problem. National accounting is not a good indicator of how to utlise resources in the economy efficiently. The ignores the behavioral process entirely, which for the sake of the discussion I haven't really discuss why the only person in the private sector would choose to invest in the government sector, unless the government sector was offering a good interest rate. Economics is not accounting.



> The classical claims about crowding are not based on any coherent mechanism. In point of fact, they repeatedly state that theres a fixed pool of savings and that government spending is constrained from and financial standpoint. In other words, a currency issuer must source funding to carry out fiscal policy. The end result is competition for some finite pool of savings is interest rates increase and affect private spending. This is what we learned as financial crowding out.
> 
> An related theory is IS-LM theory from macro. It also erroneous assumes the FED  or BoE - or any central bank can exogenously control the supply of money. The increasing income from deficits increases the demand for money and increases interest rates to clear out the money market so to speak. This is retardo Keynesian theory of financial crowding out.



No one is really saying that there is a fixed pool of savings except for MMT. If the private sector can only save as much as the government sector, that is a fixed pool of savings. The classical claims about crowding out are that resources are not always directed efficiently. It's not suppose to be based on a mechanism. Bases everything on an accounting metric is simply bad economics. If anything, crowding out is more behavioral than anything.

The loanable funds of the marketplace are where the supply of savings are translated into 'investment.' Savings are mostly determined by the time preference of individuals.



> Both of these concepts arent even based in reality since its not connected to the fact that central banks increase interest rates because they should control inflation and these rate increases will decrease aggregate demand.
> 
> Real crowding out is very real, but financial crowding is largely an erroneous miscalculation.



Maybe, but it does happen more often that you think.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 14, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > We should ultimately view taxes as draining excess liquidity from the non-government sector.
> ...



From an accounting standpoint, its correct that an increase in government spending will also include an increase in taxes, an increase in base money (reserves and cash), and/or an increase in public debt. But this doesnt mean than bonds or taxes finance the deficit. As a matter of fact, they do no such thing. 

The government of the United States isnt financially constrained. However, the US still issues debt to control liquidity outcomes in the private sector. Deficit spending and the purchasing of bonds by the FED increases liquidity while taxes and the sales of bonds drain this private liquidity. These operations affects the cash position on a macro level daily. Deficits create surpluses (excess reserves) across the entire banking system.

The government must first spend by crediting private bank accounts before it can debit private bank accounts which we call taxation. Government spending is where the private sector acquires the funds it needs to save and pay its tax obligations.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 14, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



While I don't really see where the de-regulations are and the free trade America is supposedly having, but you must know that this the GM bailout and UAW compensation is an example of crowding out. In some ways, it's also financial. The purpose of bankruptcy is not to reward or repay creditors. Actually, bankruptcy prevents this from taking place. Bankruptcy is meant to free up resources and allocate them to more efficient uses. These resources may have been put in the hands of people who understand how to use it better. Employee would have been allocated to a much more efficient automobile maker. GM would have ultimately went in the hands of individuals who would have ran it better.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 14, 2013)

> I don't see how it's New Keynesian at all. The general premise of the Neo-Keynesian position on crowding out is that the effects are minimal with very high unemployment, as the government spending allocates freed up idle resources. The question Neo-Keynasians tend not to ask, 'why are these resources freed up in the first place.' Ignores that these freed up resources can have more efficient uses.



New Keynesians. I meant New Keynesians.

They erroneously believe the following: 

A) The government has to borrow to fund its spending needs - False
B) Government borrowing from some fixed pool of savings drives up interest rates from completion - False
C) There's a fixed pool of savings at available at any point time - False



> And I really don't see the point in a Finance or Econ major interning at the Fed. Not all Central Banks operate similarly.



It would clear up a ton of things, whether it's the FED, BoE, or RBA.




> Much of the money used for QE1, 3 & 4 has already financed a good portion of previous deficits. I'll look through the Flow of Funds statistics and see for myself. Other than that, I don't disagree that the Federal Government has to issue bonds or tax. It can spend what it needs to spend, but the Government does issue bonds to finance government deficit outlays. MMT just feels as if the Government doesn't need to orchestrate it that way.



MMT is correctly pointing out that bond issuance, operationally, functions as a reserve drain, not a financing mechanism. 



> The Government issues bonds creating a 'financial asset' in the private sector, the private sector flips the bond to the Federal Reserve and the Fed receives the principal + interest on Government IOUs. Most likely from other bonds it sells. The General Fund of the Treasury just receives remittances funds from the Federal Reserve through these treasures, and interest from depository loans, foreign securities, etc.
> 
> And I'm not sure about your last point. Are you saying that the Central Bank _doesn't_ control the money supply, or rather, can't control the money supply. The Fed can influence the money supply by setting reserve requirements, OR by lowering/raising the discount rate, OR by conducting OMO. So, your last point is a bit of circular logic, and I just entertained a fallacy by talking about it... Bollocks...



You&#8217;re still using that textbook explanation about how the government buys and sells bonds to control the demand for money relative to the overall supply.

Central banks_ cannot _control the money supply. They haven&#8217;t tried in close to thirty years. Monetary targeting isn't given any serious consideration at this point. Central banks can only control the interest rate. This is done by maintaining liquidity in the overnight cash markets.




> You are once again skipping the bond auctioning process in assuming that the Bond comes it after the fact. I can understand if the private sector has held on to private savings it has accrued from it's previously held financial asset.



I'm not skipping the bond auctioning process. 

We always here how the FED can print money. The FED cannot &#8220;print&#8221;. If you read the FED Act, the only thing the FED can do is make a loan or discount something. It&#8217;ll take a something from the public, such as a bond, and exchange it for a reserve balance in the banking system. If I take $2million in Treasury bonds from you, and give you $2 million in cash, your net worth hasn&#8217;t changed. You really haven't increased your net financial assets. 



> Taxes aren't meant to finance deficit spending. A deficit is what you have accumulated if your outlays exceed your revenues. An individual receives a debit and the government receives a credit. The money is then spent the way Congress wants to spend it.  That's all that we can really think of taxes. They're not draining excess liquidity. All it's doing is shifting liquidity from one sector of the economy to another. Whether or not we can determine whether the new uses of the liquidity are more useful than what it was previously being used for is merely empirical. Either way, you are limiting spending capacity of one sector.





> Again, two people on an island: The Private Sector and the Government Sector. The government receives $400 dollars in receipts and has $400 in outlays. The Government is running a balanced budget. The following fiscal year, the government deceives to spend $500 dollars, although it receives the same $400 dollars in receipts as before. _Where exactly is the government going to get the extra revenue for the $100 deficit? The private sector, as the private sector is the only other person on the island. The private sector invest $100 dollars into the a government security. The private sector has a financial asset, and the government sector has $100 dollars._
> 
> The following year, the security matures. The private sector has $100 + interest which is now consisted 'net private sector savings.' Meanwhile, the Government sector decides to spend the same budget outlays of $500 dollars and same tax receipts of $400.
> 
> I can understand how my previous explanations  of how the Government funds without issuing securities makes sense, but this scenario is a tad bonkers. Even if you believe the Government's deficit is financed through government savings, it has to obtain these savings somehow. The laws of equivalent exchange command this.



This additional $100 is created through a deficit. Its liability is an asset on the other side of the ledger.



> Not true at all. Again, let's say that the Government is tax receipts consist of $400 dollars, but let's also assume that the Government decides to spend only $300 this fiscal year. This means that the Government is running a budget surplus.  How you assume the private sector would be in debt, I haven't the foggiest. But a budget surplus would allow the Government to invest in the actual economy. It can purchase equities from major corporations. It can invest in real estate. It can invest in money market instruments, or whatever investments it decides to take on. These investments net out the same way if the government sector were to run deficits. Most of all, it still free's up resources from the general economy.



Think in terms of stock variables. In order for one sector to accrue net financial wealth, another sector must increase its debt. A financial asset must have an equal and offsetting financial liability.

By the way, what&#8217;s a budget deficit? What happens when government deficit spends? Here&#8217;s what happens in the money markets: the government purchases something from the private sector. The manufacturer gets their payment and their employees are paid. A whole cascade of transactions occur from the government purchase. These transactions find their way into reserves of the banks on a daily basis.  Mostly, reserves just sit there and collect zero interest for the banks. Banks will try to get rid of excess reserves which will decrease the interest rate in the interbank market. This is why budget deficits decrease interest rates, not increase them. This is the opposite of what many economists tell us, despite record low interest rates and extremely large deficits.  Food for thought&#8230;.



> That's the general problem. National accounting is not a good indicator of how to utlise resources in the economy efficiently. The ignores the behavioral process entirely, which for the sake of the discussion I haven't really discuss why the only person in the private sector would choose to invest in the government sector, unless the government sector was offering a good interest rate. Economics is not accounting.



National accounting and macroeconomics go hand in hand.




> No one is really saying that there is a fixed pool of savings except for MMT. If the private sector can only save as much as the government sector, that is a fixed pool of savings. The classical claims about crowding out are that resources are not always directed efficiently. It's not suppose to be based on a mechanism. Bases everything on an accounting metric is simply bad economics. If anything, crowding out is more behavioral than anything.



MMT doesn't day there is fixed pool is of savings. It's the New Keynesians that are selling us the Kool Aid. 



> The loanable funds of the marketplace are where the supply of savings are translated into 'investment.' Savings are mostly determined by the time preference of individuals.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 14, 2013)

Kimura, your philosophies are based upon massive expansion of the money supply. The problem with that is that the dollar is constantly being devalued and the incentive to save is constantly being undermined. Reckless spending is the result instead of the magical equilibrium that you describe.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 14, 2013)

Kimura said:


>



You're understanding of economic principles are based upon what you want to see and not reality. Social security and medicare are not effectively a ledger system like you pretend. It's basically a ponzi scheme that only artificially increases the cost of (retirement and) health care. If the govt. is taking mandatory money from everyone; they or health care providers have no motivation to decrease costs. Haven't you noticed that seniors are still required to pay for big health care plans even after all they've spent. And the costs are plenty high still. That is not how private life insurance and annuities work because private companies are accountable for every dollar. That's why Dems were throwing a shit fit when Bush was talking about privatizing just a bit of social security. It was going to allow for more accountability and that's the last thing the government mafia wants.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 14, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Kimura, your philosophies are based upon massive expansion of the money supply. The problem with that is that the dollar is constantly being devalued and the incentive to save is constantly being undermined. Reckless spending is the result instead of the magical equilibrium that you describe.



Not at all, not in the least. I'm simply pointing out the fallacies in some of these inane arguments regarding the money supply, deficits, and inflation. The only real constraint is inflation when it comes to spending. _I've NEVER said the government could endlessly spend._ I'm saying that, given our current employment numbers and excess capacity, cutting spending shouldn't even be part of the conversation. It's an insane suggestion under the current climate. As long as the money supply increases in tandem with real goods and services, I wouldn't lose sleep over spending, the deficit, inflation, and these other nonsensical arguments being peddled by ideologues and economic illiterates. On a personal level, when I see these people on television, it makes me physically nauseous. We have a President that actually said we're running out of fiat! This is one the most retarded things I've heard a President say in my 36 years on this planet.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 14, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



SS isn't a ponzi scheme. Social security also isn't savings or an investment. We can fix the SS issue through legislation, just like Medicare, to fund these programs into perpetuity.

SS is a well-run program with exceeding low administrative costs that provides Americans with decent retirement income. Old age in this country used to mean relegating 50% or so of seniors to abject poverty.



> If the govt. is taking mandatory money from everyone; they or health care providers have no motivation to decrease costs. Haven't you noticed that seniors are still required to pay for big health care plans even after all they've spent. And the costs are plenty high still. That is not how private life insurance and annuities work because private companies are accountable for every dollar. That's why Dems were throwing a shit fit when Bush was talking about privatizing just a bit of social security. It was going to allow for more accountability and that's the last thing the government mafia wants.



What? We can fix health care as well. Simply make Medicare available to everyone. I just solved the problem with a single payer system that has low administrative costs compared to private insurers. It also works, we can even expend services by increasing the pool to include all Americans.

At the end of the day, all we have to do is make sure we can produce the real goods and services  needed for seniors need to retire, such as food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc. There isn't a nominal crisis with SS or Medicare.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...





> Bankruptcy is meant to free up resources and allocate them to more efficient uses. These resources may have been put in the hands of people who understand how to use it better.


So, your saying with certainty that gm would have been put in the hands of someone, presumably another company, who could better run the company.  Problem with this is,it was tried.  And NO ONE wanted GM.



> Employee would have been allocated to a much more efficient automobile maker.


  Not sure what that sentense is trying to convey.  Either you think another auto maker would have purchased gm. That was not in the cards.  Or, you think that employees would have been allocated to other auto makers.  But, of course, that makes no sense.  Employees are not allocated.  They would have been out of a job.  They would have had to move.  They would have had to be needed.  


> GM would have ultimately went in the hands of individuals who would have ran it better.


You are taking the stance that GM would have survived bankruptcy.  The facts were obvious.  They would not have.  Though the other auto makers would have been quite happy.  And those companies would have been foreign companies.  Chrysler had no chance of surviving.  And the ceo of Ford is on record as having said he did not believe ford would have survived had there been no auto bailout.

So, the issue was that we would have seen a major unemployment hit, estimated at being in the neighborhood of 1M employees.  We would likely have lost one of our largest industries.  And, based it would have happened at a time of very difficult economic times, with the possibliity that we may have seen the country slip into a true depression.

This is typical of the rational analysis of the auto bailout":
"But many auto industry experts, including the Obama administration's former car czar, Steven Rattner, a Democrat, and former GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, a Republican, say there was no private-sector financing available in 2009 and the bailout was the only way to keep the companies alive.
"He thinks we didn't try to borrow money from the banks?" Lutz told the Detroit Free Press in February. "The banks were even more broke than we were. Who had the money?"
Without financing during bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler would have had to go out of business, taking down many suppliers. That would have likely caused bankruptcies at the healthier automakers such Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500), who would not have been able to get the parts they needed to build cars. That is why Ford went to Capitol Hill in late 2008 pushing for the rescue of its rivals.
The Center for Automotive Research, a well-respected Michigan think tank estimates that the bailout therefore saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs by keeping GM, Chrysler and the companies that depended on them in business."
3 answers to the auto bailout debate - Sep. 6, 2012
Latest estimates for the total cost to taxpayers is likely to end up being under $15B.   Wash this against not having lost and industry, not having gone into a depression, and not increasing the unemployment rate by over 1M persons.  
Hell, we spent that in iraq in a couple months.  Looks to me like a much better deal than blowing holes in the desert.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 14, 2013)

oldfart said:


> First, thanks for a thoughtful post!  I think we are getting into some of the good stuff here.
> 
> Sorry for the inside joke about Pareto and Walras.  You had to be forced to sit through welfare economics to appreciate the irony.
> 
> ...



Well, let's just say that an industry goes bottom up and is about to fail, it's just say movie rentals. This industry is granted a loan through a subsidy, bailout, or whatever. What good does it do exactly to keep these resources in a dying industry? Sure, you can spend money subsidising these employees, but the market is saying that these employees should have lost their jobs already. If these employees were not employed in an unproductive sector of the economy, they could be doing something which is productive. It would mean this workers would lose their jobs, but people have to lose their jobs in order for them to be employed in the right type of jobs.

Get what I'm saying?



> Again, what kind of harm are you concerned with here?



I'm not really concerned about the best ways to allocate resources. I'm concerned that resources are not allocated efficiently. Even if you agree that subsiding something is a net benefit for society, there may be a good reason to oppose it. If private individuals are not willing to pay for good or service with their own funds, then it means they do not value this particular good or service, as oppose to other goods or services which could have been developed. 

Through government spending, we will get more goods and services, but they'll be worth less to people than the cost to produce.



> I would agree with two caveats.  First the market does not do a good job of handling externalities unless they are factored in by either subsidies or fines.  Second, there are some perverse price effects in consumer behavior that are problematical.



Are you referring to negative externalities? No, not all markets are good with externalities. The question what is the best way to handle these externalities: Taxation, Regulation or Property Rights. Taxation and Regulation can be market distorting.




> A think this is a good example of where absolute arguments break down on both sides.  Markets are not very good at producing certain goods and services, like basic research or infrastructure.  You can argue these issues intelligently project by project.  For example, I would oppose a government plan to subsidize agricultural lime production (yes, some states run this industry directly), but I would support a project to upgrade prisons so they are safer for inmates and staff and more effective in reducing recidivism.  I guess that a good project is a good project regardless of how tight the budget is  (i.e. if the projected internal ROI is big, do it anyway) and a bad project is a waste of taxpayer money even when the government runs a surplus.



It may be true that it can't produce everything, but it can make everything better. The internet began as a typical government program called ARPANET which was for military use. Sure, the internet owes it's very existence to government funding. But until, 1981 private use of the ARPA communications protocol &#8212; what is now called "TCP/IP" &#8212; far exceeded military use. Both the design and implementation of the internet was funded with mostly Government Dollars. Packet-switching has serious implications on how the internet can really work. While packet-switching is great for emails, file transfers and web browsing, it's not so great for everything the internet has become today, search as video, audio feeds, real-time applications, server-based applications like webmail, Google earth and Google spreadsheet. Not to mention, today's internet would not have been possible without private companies like Xerox, Apple and Microsoft.




> I would agree that the question in a lot of cases is an empirical one.  But right now the financial system is sitting on a couple trillion dollars of excess reserves earning 0.25% interest from the Fed, while not generating any economic activity through increased business lending.  It seems to me that bank hoarding is crowding out business investment!  And we are terminating hundreds of NIH research grants for the purpose of.....where again is this demand for medical research being replaced?  Where are the resources being allocated to?



Banks are hoarding cash because of the uncertainty and because it's profitable for them to do so. The Fed pays banks a huge interest not to lend money, at the same time it pays the average citizen next to zero to keep your money in the same depository institution. Effectively, the Federal Reserve market operation involves crowding in average citizens into financial markets because it's the only place where they will be able to yield any decent return.

So long as the US medical system runs for profit, there will always be demand for medical research in America. A decade ago, two-thirds of all drug research was conducted in Europe. Now 60% of it is conducted in the United states.



> The same argument could be used to pillory the financial services industry!  Most people paid to do a job try to do it well, and this is as true in the government sector as in the private sector.



Yes, but the Government does not operate for a profit. What metric is there to determine whether or not your institution is doing a good job without the role of profits? With no incentive to economise, Governments can really mis-allocate resources. 

Not to mention the Government cannot be sued, and it cannot go out of business. It's really easy for someone to be sued or fined for the most trivial things in the financial industry. It really hurts the bottom line. While the Government Sector may supposedly care about it's bottom line, we've rarely seen that to be the case.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 14, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The deregulation of the finance sector started under Carter, went into warp under Reagan, and climaxed with Bush and Clinton. I don't even know where to start. We could start with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. This was one of more retarded things we've done as a country.

The bankruptcy of GM hasn't benefited the people of Michigan or the Unites States. There aren't many people that can manufacture in a more efficient manner than Americans. Maybe the Germans and Japanese, but that's still a tall order, even though their workers are paid substantially more than their American counterparts, yet remain very competitive. It sort of makes these anti-labor arguments look ridiculous. Then again, in Japan, Germany, Italy, and South Korea, etc. health care costs aren't factored into the marginal cost of production for auto manufacturers in these countries. 

GM was far more important to the American economy than Lehman Brothers or the zombie banks still on life support.

Edit to add:

I just saw this.



> Yes, but the Government does not operate for a profit. What metric is there to determine whether or not your institution is doing a good job without the role of profits? With no incentive to economise, Governments can really mis-allocate resources.
> 
> Not to mention the Government cannot be sued, and it cannot go out of business. It's really easy for someone to be sued or fined for the most trivial things in the financial industry. It really hurts the bottom line. While the Government Sector may supposedly care about it's bottom line, we've rarely seen that to be the case.



The government isn't supposed to be run for profit. It supposed execute public policy.

One of the most efficient organizations in the world is the US military. It has more firepower than everyone else by orders of magnitude. It also has the BEST supply chain and logistics in the world, far surpassing any multinational corporation. This institution - and its employees - aren't run for profit.

You mentioned DARPA. We also had the Human Genome Project. We have the CDC, NIH, NASA, DOE, etc. These are institutions that contribute massively to the betterment of society as a whole. The amount of research by NASA alone means we should increase its funding.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 14, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, your saying with certainty that gm would have been put in the hands of someone, presumably another company, who could better run the company.  Problem with this is,it was tried.  And NO ONE wanted GM.



No one wanted the unions which were attached to GM. Other than that, if no one wanted GM, then it should have failed.



> You are taking the stance that GM would have survived bankruptcy.  The facts were obvious.  They would not have.



Exactly. And their assets would have been sold on the open market. Another automaker which could actually run a auto company would have purchased these assets.



> Though the other auto makers would have been quite happy.  And those companies would have been foreign companies.  Chrysler had no chance of surviving.  And the ceo of Ford is on record as having said he did not believe ford would have survived had there been no auto bailout.



GM and Chrysler took bailout money, and filed for bankruptcy anyway. Which is what should have happened from the very beginning. 



> So, the issue was that we would have seen a major unemployment hit, estimated at being in the neighborhood of 1M employees.  We would likely have lost one of our largest industries.  And, based it would have happened at a time of very difficult economic times, with the possibliity that we may have seen the country slip into a true depression.



And?



> This is typical of the rational analysis of the auto bailout":
> "But many auto industry experts, including the Obama administration's former car czar, Steven Rattner, a Democrat, and former GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, a Republican, say there was no private-sector financing available in 2009 and the bailout was the only way to keep the companies alive.
> "He thinks we didn't try to borrow money from the banks?" Lutz told the Detroit Free Press in February. "The banks were even more broke than we were. Who had the money?"
> Without financing during bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler would have had to go out of business, taking down many suppliers. That would have likely caused bankruptcies at the healthier automakers such Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500), who would not have been able to get the parts they needed to build cars. That is why Ford went to Capitol Hill in late 2008 pushing for the rescue of its rivals.
> ...



3 years later, the Auto giants are mere shadows of their former selves. GM profits fell 16% in Q2, and it's PE's are below industry average, then again that could be normal for the way the auto industry is today. Investors now are willing to pay 10 bucks for a mere 3 dollars earnings, which GM relatively a steal and I can't tell whether or not it's still experiencing bankruptcy. It's still growing in sales, but it's not any profitable. Looking at the Y/Y figures GM grew sales $1,943 M, or 9% in 2013 compared to 2012. Y/Y income grew 4.5%,  but it's down 16% Q/Q. Sub prime credit receivables under 599 grew $1,376 m and made up 70.8% of the increase in GM sales. Receivables under 599 grew 18.9% Y/Y, and the subsection under 540 grew 26.9% Y/Y. So GM is entirely dependent on Subprime lending growth for the entire North American market... I guess some things never change. And these are just the financials for GM. I haven't even dug into Chrysler yet.

Is this the purpose of bailouts? So we can rescue bad companies and they can continue to preform badly?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't have a rational, impartial source.  Thought so.
> ...


Great, a piece inThe National Legal and Policy Center: 

"The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) is a right-leaning 501(c)(3) non-profit group that monitors and reports on the ethics of public officials, supporters of liberal causes, and labor unions in the United States. Among the NLPC's more high-profile targets have been Reverend Al Sharpton, Reverend Jesse Jackson, U.S. Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), U.S. Representative John Murtha (D-PA), U.S. Representative Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) (while she was First Lady), Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). The Center files complaints with government agencies, legally challenges what they view as abuse and corruption, and publishes reports. The NLPC has been praised by right-wing media personalities such as radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh."
The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) is a right-leaning 501(c)(3) non-profit group that monitors and reports on the ethics of public officials, supporters of liberal causes, and labor unions in the United States. Among the NLPC's more high-profile targets have been Reverend Al Sharpton, Reverend Jesse Jackson, U.S. Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), U.S. Representative John Murtha (D-PA), U.S. Representative Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) (while she was First Lady), Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). The Center files complaints with government agencies, legally challenges what they view as abuse and corruption, and publishes reports. The NLPC has been praised by right-wing media personalities such as radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh. 

Yup.  That is impartial.  Like moveon.org.  Great job.  You just do not get it, me boy.  Impartial source.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2013)

What did the uaw give up in the saving of gm??
UAW leaders agreed to the revised contract last week that freezes wages, ends bonuses, eliminates noncompetitive work rules and requires binding arbitration for the next contract if a deal can't be reached. Gettelfinger said there are some conditions under which the union could still strike. The UAW said the cuts* would save GM $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion a year.*

"We very much appreciate the support of our employees and retirees," Diana Tremblay, GM vice president for labor relations, said in a statement. "Their shared sacrifices will enable GM to become a stronger, more viable company that will continue to deliver world-class cars and trucks."
UAW members approve General Motors concessions - USATODAY.com

The UAW gave up a great deal prior to the bankruptcy.  So, if you want to see more, the are many additional concessions.  But, if you want to believe the right wing dogma, no one is saying you can not.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 14, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Well, let's just say that an industry goes bottom up and is about to fail, it's just say movie rentals. This industry is granted a loan through a subsidy, bailout, or whatever. What good does it do exactly to keep these resources in a dying industry? Sure, you can spend money subsidising these employees, but the market is saying that these employees should have lost their jobs already. If these employees were not employed in an unproductive sector of the economy, they could be doing something which is productive. It would mean this workers would lose their jobs, but people have to lose their jobs in order for them to be employed in the right type of jobs.
> 
> Get what I'm saying?



It's a perfectly reasonable argument and generally correct.  I am generally opposed to bailing out failing firms.  I was particularly disgusted with the bailout of financial institutions with virtually no requirements that the funds be used for what the banks represented they would be used for.  

If technological changes or changes in consumer tastes cause a business model or industry to become extinct (as in your example of video rental stores), then I think the best public response is to encourage orderly liquidation and expedite reallocation of resources, especially labor.  



AmazonTania said:


> If private individuals are not willing to pay for good or service with their own funds, then it means they do not value this particular good or service, as oppose to other goods or services which could have been developed.



Positive or negative externalities are almost ubiquitous in a modern economy.  I believe that the best way to deal with this is to foster market and quasi-market solutions (a market for carbon credits for example).  That leaves a class of problems resulting from a combination of positive externalities, risk-avoidance, and long development periods which causes things like long-term basic research and education to be underproduced, unless directly sponsored or supported by government.   



AmazonTania said:


> Are you referring to negative externalities? No, not all markets are good with externalities. The question what is the best way to handle these externalities: Taxation, Regulation or Property Rights. Taxation and Regulation can be market distorting.



By property rights, I assume that you are referring to a tort system.  If Acme Chemical pumps industrial waste into the Gulf, local shrimpers can sue for damage to fisheries.  I basically think that all three alternatives you mention are mediocre at best.  The all add a layer of government bureaucracy and stifle innovative solutions.  I much prefer market and quasi-market solutions. Actors are encouraged to find better solutions.  



AmazonTania said:


> Banks are hoarding cash because of the uncertainty and because it's profitable for them to do so. The Fed pays banks a huge interest not to lend money,



I have a bit different view of the cash hoarding.  The Fed pays 0.25% on excess reserves (are you thinking of the 6% dividend rate on member banks' stock in the regional Feds?)  I believe banks are hoarding cash because they rightly question their own risk management models (given how great they did this in the recent past!), and they are trying to restore their balance sheets (in a large part by draining hundreds of billions in riskless fees from the real economy, a tactic suggested by Larry Summers!).  But ultimately the solution to bad loans is not no loans, but rather good loans.  



AmazonTania said:


> So long as the US medical system runs for profit, there will always be demand for medical research in America. A decade ago, two-thirds of all drug research was conducted in Europe. Now 60% of it is conducted in the United states.



Yes, as long as the payoffs are predictable in the near future!  But basic medical research is dying in the US because sequester is requiring cancellation of NIH grants and Pharma doesn't pay for that kind of research.  



AmazonTania said:


> > The same argument could be used to pillory the financial services industry!  Most people paid to do a job try to do it well, and this is as true in the government sector as in the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Government does not operate for a profit. What metric is there to determine whether or not your institution is doing a good job without the role of profits? With no incentive to economise, Governments can really mis-allocate resources.



I think that all large organizations behave very similarly.  Monopolies function remarkably like governments;  indifferent to consumers, slow to change and hobbled by rule-driven behavior.  The challenge is to make large organizations behave like small organizations which are truly accountable for their performance.  



AmazonTania said:


> It's really easy for someone to be sued or fined for the most trivial things in the financial industry. It really hurts the bottom line.



For many years I held security licenses.  I know what you are referring to.  I think more of that problem than you realize is attributable to the influence of large players in the industry who have captured the regulatory process to protect the largest firms and most egregious behavior while holding the retail end of the business to much higher standards.  

If it's any consolation, as frustrating, unfair, nitpicking, and petty as I found the audits, they were small potatoes compared to the compliance enforcement of the IRS.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 14, 2013)

Kimura said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Statues and regulations have been added to the federal register every year since the Carter administration. You can search within the entire Banking and Financial sectors of the US Code, very few regulations were repealed. Not a single one relating to the US crisis. Over 600 + regulations were added to the federal register relating to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, The FDIC and the Federal Reserve since 1994 to 2008. I only started up to 1994 because this is as far back as the Federal Register will allow me. There was no deregulation. Deregulation is reducing the amount of state regulations. This didn't happen.

Also, Glass Steagall is also irrelevant to the crisis as well. Most of the commercial banks got into trouble because they held large portfolios of mortgage backed securities. Glass-Steagall didn't prohibit banks from investing in securities. The investment banks got in trouble because they also held large portfolios of mortgage-backed securities funded by very short term commercial paper. Glass-Steagall didn't prohibit investment banks from issuing commercial paper or investing in securities. 



> The bankruptcy of GM hasn't benefited the people of Michigan or the Unites States. There aren't many people that can manufacture in a more efficient manner than Americans. Maybe the Germans and Japanese, but that's still a tall order, even though their workers are paid substantially more than their American counterparts, yet remain very competitive. It sort of makes these anti-labor arguments look ridiculous. Then again, in Japan, Germany, Italy, and South Korea, etc. health care costs aren't factored into the marginal cost of production for auto manufacturers in these countries.



If Americans can manufacture and produce in a more efficient manner, then it should have no problem pulling itself up. Part of what makes Germany and Japanese workers higher paid are lower cost of labour. This insures employees working for the wages are highly skilled, and at the same time, makes sure that these high wages can be afforded. There really isn't anything keeping Americans uncompetitive, except Americans.



> GM was far more important to the American economy than Lehman Brothers or the zombie banks still on life support.



The Zombie banks are really more or less the direct a the FED FOMC actions. 

Mazel Tov!



> The government isn't supposed to be run for profit. It supposed execute public policy.



Says who? There are governments with institutions which operate for profit. Now I do not suggest that all governments should function this way, and it doesn't necessarily mean that these governments are good at it. But it does offer government an incentive to economise, and that is good for everyone.



> One of the most efficient organizations in the world is the US military. It has more firepower than everyone else by orders of magnitude. It also has the BEST supply chain and logistics in the world, far surpassing any multinational corporation. This institution - and its employees - aren't run for profit.



Maybe it should. If it is going around keeping the peace and stability of the world, it should be able to get paid for it.



> You mentioned DARPA. We also had the Human Genome Project. We have the CDC, NIH, NASA, DOE, etc. These are institutions that contribute massively to the betterment of society as a whole. The amount of research by NASA alone means we should increase its funding. These organizations are efficient and not run for profit.



NASA and the CDC have made considerable contributions to science. What about the FDA? Has this made a good contribution towards science?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 15, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, your saying with certainty that gm would have been put in the hands of someone, presumably another company, who could better run the company.  Problem with this is,it was tried.  And NO ONE wanted GM.
> ...


So, are you saying that we should let germany, japan, korea, and other countries have the auto business??  We should simply buy from them??  Most do not agree with you, but if that is your opinion, good for you.  
And so it is ok with you that over 1M would be unemployed???  Apparently. Most, happily, disagree with you.

Your assessment of gm is a bit odd.  They are the second largest auto maker in the world, behind Toyota.  You seem really concerned about stock price, but not much interested in profits.  And for the first time in years, they are profitable.  And getting more so.

No one suggests that they are straightened around.  They were pretty well screwed up, no question.  Had been for YEARS.  Well back into the 1960's.  But they are better.  And they will be completely private within 9 months.  Which is a good thing.

But to most, the concept that gm going out of business would have been a good thing is a political statement.  It makes no real sense to most from a national economic standpoint.



> GM and Chrysler took bailout money, and filed for bankruptcy anyway. Which is what should have happened from the very beginning.


I assume you meant that they filed for bankruptcy, then took bailout money.  But your statement is only true if you believe that an additional 1+ million unemployed is not lunacy.  And if you do not believe the cbo statements that without it we may have seen a full fledged depression.  and if you fully believe that no auto industry headquartered in the us is no problem.  Few believe any of these things.

What has happened over the years since the gm bailout occured is that fewer and fewer believe it was a bad idea.  The conservative machine keeps harping on the issue, but are getting less and less traction, according to polls.  So, in a few years, most auto experts believe that the auto bailout will not ba a big deal at all.  And though the old gm was pathetic in many ways, as long as the new gm goes the way of Ford and the direction they seem headed now, no one will be concerned about the bailout.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, are you saying that we should let germany, japan, korea, and other countries have the auto business??



They already have the auto business. 



> We should simply buy from them??  Most do not agree with you, but if that is your opinion, good for you.



The market decides what consumers want and what they do not want. What businesses should fail and what businesses should not fail. If American automakers can produce cars efficiently, affordably than foreign competitors, then it shouldn't be in the business of producing automobiles.  



> And so it is ok with you that over 1M would be unemployed???  Apparently. Most, happily, disagree with you.



Explain the purpose of keeping employees in a dying industry?



> Your assessment of gm is a bit odd.  They are the second largest auto maker in the world, behind Toyota.  You seem really concerned about stock price, but not much interested in profits.  And for the first time in years, they are profitable.  And getting more so.



I really don't understand the point in you responding to me if you're not going to bother comprehending what was written. 



AmazonTania said:


> 3 years later, the Auto giants are mere shadows of their former selves. *GM profits fell 16% in Q2*, and it's PE's are below industry average, then again that could be normal for the way the auto industry is today. Investors now are willing to pay 10 bucks for a mere 3 dollars earnings, which GM relatively a steal and I can't tell whether or not it's still experiencing bankruptcy. It's still growing in sales, but it's not any profitable. *Looking at the Y/Y figures GM grew sales $1,943 M, or 9% in 2013 compared to 2012. Y/Y income grew 4.5%, but it's down 16% Q/Q. Sub prime credit receivables under 599 grew $1,376 m and made up 70.8% of the increase in GM sales. Receivables under 599 grew 18.9% Y/Y, and the subsection under 540 grew 26.9% Y/Y. So GM is entirely dependent on Subprime lending growth for the entire North American market...* I guess some things never change. And these are just the financials for GM. I haven't even dug into Chrysler yet.



Just in case you don't understand what was said, I've used a valuation metric, profit margins, and Y/Y comparisons in sales and net profits. No mention of used at all. Who even determined the performance of a company from stock prices anyway? I really don't even know why you suggested anyone was concerned about the price of GM's stock. That's a mistake only a rookie makes. 

Also, GM is not the second largest auto marker. Not in terms of Market Cap anyway. Maybe revenue, but I doubt that as well. 



> No one suggests that they are straightened around.  They were pretty well screwed up, no question.  Had been for YEARS.  Well back into the 1960's.  But they are better.  And they will be completely private within 9 months.  Which is a good thing.



There are no more profitable being complete private than they were under government control. 



> But to most, the concept that gm going out of business would have been a good thing is a political statement.  It makes no real sense to most from a national economic standpoint.



There is nothing political about it. Resources were badly misused and mis-allocated. As a result, GM failed and therefore needs to go under. It doesn't help the economy to keep directing resources inefficiently.



> I assume you meant that they filed for bankruptcy, then took bailout money.  But your statement is only true if you believe that an additional 1+ million unemployed is not lunacy.



Um, no. Dec. 19th President Bush announced a $13.4 billion emergency bailout for GM and Chrysler to be paid by mid-January 2009. GM and Chrysler submitted their restructuring plans for the next 5 years on Feb 18th. April 30th, Chrysler files for bankruptcy protection. A month later, GM follows suit and files for bankruptcy.

They've filed for bankruptcy after, not before, they've accepted bailout money. 

And there is nothing lunatic about unemployment. Companies are born, they die, capitalism moves forward. Unemployment is just the natural part of the business cycle and a proper allocation of resources. 



> And if you do not believe the cbo statements that without it we may have seen a full fledged depression.  and if you fully believe that no auto industry headquartered in the us is no problem.  Few believe any of these things.



The CBO projected the recession would have been much worse if no action were taken. According to their own projections, if we did nothing the unemployment rate would be where it is now, as oppose to a stimulus plan where the unemployment would only be a few basis points smaller. 

I don't know why you have such reliance on people with such terrible track records. 



> What has happened over the years since the gm bailout occured is that fewer and fewer believe it was a bad idea.  The conservative machine keeps harping on the issue, but are getting less and less traction, according to polls.  So, in a few years, most auto experts believe that the auto bailout will not ba a big deal at all.  And though the old gm was pathetic in many ways, as long as the new gm goes the way of Ford and the direction they seem headed now, no one will be concerned about the bailout.



No one is making this about politics except for you. Park your political bias at the door and discuss business. 

GM's valuations are lousy, their PEs are far too low which indicates there are no expectations for growth anytime soon, they're struggling to make a profit and their sales are completely reliant on the subprime lending market, a key catalyst in the financial collapse. 

This means if and when interest rates rise GM's losses will once again be realised and their financials will be underwater. What are you going to do once this happens? Bail them out again?


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

> Statues and regulations have been added to the federal register every year since the Carter administration. You can search within the entire Banking and Financial sectors of the US Code, very few regulations were repealed. Not a single one relating to the US crisis. Over 600 + regulations were added to the federal register relating to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, The FDIC and the Federal Reserve since 1994 to 2008. I only started up to 1994 because this is as far back as the Federal Register will allow me. There was no deregulation. Deregulation is reducing the amount of state regulations. This didn't happen.
> 
> Also, Glass Steagall is also irrelevant to the crisis as well. Most of the commercial banks got into trouble because they held large portfolios of mortgage backed securities. Glass-Steagall didn't prohibit banks from investing in securities. The investment banks got in trouble because they also held large portfolios of mortgage-backed securities funded by very short term commercial paper. Glass-Steagall didn't prohibit investment banks from issuing commercial paper or investing in securities.



The repeal of Glass-Steagall immensely contributed to the crisis. The only people who say otherwise are Jamie Dimon and his sociopathic and parasitical peers in investment banking. It prevented commercial banks, which were insured by the government, from using bank deposits for speculation by investment firms.

For example, Glass-Steagall would have prevented JPMorgan from its adventures in the electricity business. It also wouldn&#8217;t have allowed banks to speculate with metal storage facilities, oil tankers, power plants, etc. This list goes on and on. Detroit and many other cities wouldn&#8217;t have been solicited swaps from bank-controlled LIBOR rates. We should restore it ASAP. We need a firewall between commercial banks and investment banks. 



> If Americans can manufacture and produce in a more efficient manner, then it should have no problem pulling itself up. Part of what makes Germany and Japanese workers higher paid are lower cost of labour. This insures employees working for the wages are highly skilled, and at the same time, makes sure that these high wages can be afforded. There really isn't anything keeping Americans uncompetitive, except Americans.



Japan and Germany don't have a segment of their political class obsessed with the destruction of labor. We have a whole fascist segment with the American Right obsessed with wage suppression and the destruction of unions.

By the way, in Germany, they have institutions which guarantee excellent working conditions and high wages. Upper management and the unions have a symbiotic relationship. 

In the US, on the other hand, we have an upper management which is hostile to labor almost to a pathological degree. German autoworkers are also paid twice as much as their American counterparts which includes salary and benefits. All of the German auto manufacturers are very profitable and competitive.




> Says who? There are governments with institutions which operate for profit. Now I do not suggest that all governments should function this way, and it doesn't necessarily mean that these governments are good at it. But it does offer government an incentive to economise, and that is good for everyone.



The federal government doesn't face the same constraints as a corporation. I see no reason to economise when dealing with the social safety net, whether it's food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, jobs programs and training, etc. As a society, we get decide what public policies initiates we want the government to provide and execute.



> Maybe it should. If it is going around keeping the peace and stability of the world, it should be able to get paid for it.



I'll trust the defense of my country to guys that grew up in my neighborhood over Academi or any other military contractors. Would you really want to see defense privatized? Yeah, what could possible go wrong. Some of the US military's current problems are privatizing certain aspects of its operations with these outfits like KBR.



> NASA and the CDC have made considerable contributions to science. What about the FDA? Has this made a good contribution towards science?



Yes, I think there should be federal standards for the supplements I take and the medication some of my family members use. Left up to their own devices, pharma and supplement manufactures will cut corners given the chance. Sort of like those "natural" Viagra pills from a few years ago that turned out being spiked with Viagra down in Belize. Yeah, we really don't need that in the United States. I do have gripes with the FDA, but that has more to do with the revolving door between Pharma and regulatory agencies. We see the same thing with the FED, SEC, Treasury Dept, etc.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 15, 2013)

Originally Posted by Rshermr View Post
So, are you saying that we should let germany, japan, korea, and other countries have the auto business??


> They already have the auto business


. 
You are being dishonest again.  You know what my sentence said.  The auto business would indicate all, including OUR auto business.  
Quote:
We should simply buy from them?? Most do not agree with you, but if that is your opinion, good for you.


> The market decides what consumers want and what they do not want. What businesses should fail and what businesses should not fail. If American automakers can produce cars efficiently, affordably than foreign competitors, then it shouldn't be in the business of producing automobiles.


????  

Quote:
And so it is ok with you that over 1M would be unemployed??? Apparently. Most, happily, disagree with you.


> Explain the purpose of keeping employees in a dying industry?


Hardly dying.  People seem to be buying automobiles.  Did you think they had stopped??  The purpose is the same as any reason for keeping people employed.
Quote:
Your assessment of gm is a bit odd. They are the second largest auto maker in the world, behind Toyota. You seem really concerned about stock price, but not much interested in profits. And for the first time in years, they are profitable. And getting more so.


> I really don't understand the point in you responding to me if you're not going to bother comprehending what was written.


And I do not understand why you do not believe that I do not understand what you wrote.  It was really quite simple.  Hardly profound.

Quote: Originally Posted by AmazonTania View Post
3 years later, the Auto giants are mere shadows of their former selves. GM profits fell 16% in Q2, and it's PE's are below industry average, then again that could be normal for the way the auto industry is today. Investors now are willing to pay 10 bucks for a mere 3 dollars earnings, which GM relatively a steal and I can't tell whether or not it's still experiencing bankruptcy. It's still growing in sales, but it's not any profitable. Looking at the Y/Y figures GM grew sales $1,943 M, or 9% in 2013 compared to 2012. Y/Y income grew 4.5%, but it's down 16% Q/Q. Sub prime credit receivables under 599 grew $1,376 m and made up 70.8% of the increase in GM sales. Receivables under 599 grew 18.9% Y/Y, and the subsection under 540 grew 26.9% Y/Y. So GM is entirely dependent on Subprime lending growth for the entire North American market... I guess some things never change. And these are just the financials for GM. I haven't even dug into Chrysler yet.


> Just in case you don't understand what was said, I've used a valuation metric, profit margins, and Y/Y comparisons in sales and net profits. No mention of used at all. Who even determined the performance of a company from stock prices anyway? I really don't even know why you suggested anyone was concerned about the price of GM's stock. That's a mistake only a rookie makes


. 
Wow,  We are getting snarky.  You used selected financial performance metrics, from selected time periods.  Which are not draconian, but are fair.  Which is why their stock prices have increased overall, and why they are expected to do quite well in the near future.  So, you are suggesting based on those metrics that we should not have allowed made the decision  to make the loan.  Got it.  And you are wrong by most people's opinion.  And in the opinion of any financial annalist that I have seen.



> Also, GM is not the second largest auto marker. Not in terms of Market Cap anyway. Maybe revenue, but I doubt that as well.


Market cap?  Not sure why you are so interested in market cap.  But in cars sold and revenue and profit, they are second worldwide, and first in the US.  
"In the first five months of 2013, General Motors Company (GM - Analyst Report) led with a 18.0% market share in the U.S., followed by Ford Motor Co. (F) with a 16.4% market share, Toyota Motors Corp. (TM - Analyst Report) with a 14.2% market share, Chrysler-Fiat with a 11.7% market share, and Honda Motor Co. (HMC - Analyst Report) and Nissan Motor Co. (NSANY) at the last spots with 9.5% and 8.1% market shares, respectively.

Toyota recaptured the sales crown from General Motors by selling 9.75 million vehicles globally in 2012, which exceeded GMs sales of 9.29 million vehicles. Germanys Volkswagen AG (VLKAY) came third with sales of 9.07 million vehicles for the year."
Auto Industry Stock Outlook - June 2013 - June 11, 2013 - Zacks.com


Quote:
No one suggests that they are straightened around. They were pretty well screwed up, no question. Had been for YEARS. Well back into the 1960's. But they are better. And they will be completely private within 9 months. Which is a good thing.


> There are no more profitable being complete private than they were under government control.


??????

Quote:
But to most, the concept that gm going out of business would have been a good thing is a political statement. It makes no real sense to most from a national economic standpoint.


> There is nothing political about it. Resources were badly misused and mis-allocated. As a result, GM failed and therefore needs to go under. It doesn't help the economy to keep directing resources inefficiently.


It was completely political.  Absolutely political.  Either far right conservative sites, or politicians with foreign car companies in their states.  Take those away, and almost no criticism about the bailout.  Even the last repub president and his economic advisers supported the bailout.

Quote:
I assume you meant that they filed for bankruptcy, then took bailout money. But your statement is only true if you believe that an additional 1+ million unemployed is not lunacy.


> Um, no. Dec. 19th President Bush announced a $13.4 billion emergency bailout for GM and Chrysler to be paid by mid-January 2009. GM and Chrysler submitted their restructuring plans for the next 5 years on Feb 18th. April 30th, Chrysler files for bankruptcy protection. A month later, GM follows suit and files for bankruptcy.
> 
> They've filed for bankruptcy after, not before, they've accepted bailout money.


OK.  That is true.  The bush money was a place keeper, only, however.  The main tarp money was approved after the company declared bankrupcy.  $59.5B as I recall.  



> And there is nothing lunatic about unemployment. Companies are born, they die, capitalism moves forward. Unemployment is just the natural part of the business cycle and a proper allocation of resources.


Normally, yes.  That would be the capitalistic economy.  Free market and all that.  But in any economy, only fools let industries die it there is a fair chance that economy can go forward.  Killing your economy for reasons of keeping your economic philosophy  pure is, like allowing people to commit suicide, not a good idea.

Quote:
And if you do not believe the cbo statements that without it we may have seen a full fledged depression. and if you fully believe that no auto industry headquartered in the us is no problem. Few believe any of these things.


> The CBO projected the recession would have been much worse if no action were taken. According to their own projections, if we did nothing the unemployment rate would be where it is now, as oppose to a stimulus plan where the unemployment would only be a few basis points smaller.
> 
> I don't know why you have such reliance on people with such terrible track records.


Hardly.  You do indeed like to misquote the cbo.  But, ok.  You do not believe the cbo.  got it.
Quote:
What has happened over the years since the gm bailout occured is that fewer and fewer believe it was a bad idea. The conservative machine keeps harping on the issue, but are getting less and less traction, according to polls. So, in a few years, most auto experts believe that the auto bailout will not ba a big deal at all. And though the old gm was pathetic in many ways, as long as the new gm goes the way of Ford and the direction they seem headed now, no one will be concerned about the bailout.


> No one is making this about politics except for you. Park your political bias at the door and discuss business.


There we disagree.  See my comment above.


> GM's valuations are lousy, their PEs are far too low which indicates there are no expectations for growth anytime soon, they're struggling to make a profit and their sales are completely reliant on the subprime lending market, a key catalyst in the financial collapse.
> 
> This means if and when interest rates rise GM's losses will once again be realised and their financials will be underwater. What are you going to do once this happens? Bail them out again?


That is your analysis.  I will go with those financial analysts that I have reasonable faith in.  And none have your doom and gloom analysis.  You do not know what is going on operationally with GM.  Or Chrysler.  Makes your analysis pretty empty. 

But in the long run, time will tell.  And over 1M people will remain employed.  And profits from car sales stay in this country.  And gov revenue is increased by the taxes they pay.  And we did not go into a depression.  Seems like a fair trade to me.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> SS isn't a ponzi scheme.  SS is a well-run program with exceeding low administrative costs that provides Americans with decent retirement income. Old age in this country used to mean relegating 50% or so of seniors to abject poverty.



You can't be this blind and naive.  Each subsequent generation has had to pay double what the prior generation had to pay for SS.  SS started out as and continues to be outright theft by current retirees of current income earners wages.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation."

Ayup that is SS in a nutshell.  At best you could argue that it's not "fraudulent" because it's law.  It's good to be the law, you can do anything you want, even run a ponzi that redistributes from peter to pay paul.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > SS isn't a ponzi scheme.  SS is a well-run program with exceeding low administrative costs that provides Americans with decent retirement income. Old age in this country used to mean relegating 50% or so of seniors to abject poverty.
> ...



Social isn't an investment or savings plan. It's social insurance which has benefited Americans immensely.

Here's how we should change it: eliminate FICA and get rid of the trust fund. The trust fund is a magnet for nutty ideologues who obsess whether it's in surplus of deficit. We fund it out of the general revenue. We pass legislation and the problem is solved. I'd also like to see payments increased by at least 30%-40% and/or guarantee yearly COLA increases.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 15, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > SS isn't a ponzi scheme.  SS is a well-run program with exceeding low administrative costs that provides Americans with decent retirement income. Old age in this country used to mean relegating 50% or so of seniors to abject poverty.
> ...



You do realize that by your definition all financial investments including bonds, CD's, and savings accounts are Ponzi schemes?


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 15, 2013)

oldfart said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...


Get an account and fix the wiki then:
Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I realize that it does not describe all of the nuances of investments that are not ponzis.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> It's social insurance which has benefited Americans immensely.



Not in my opinion.  But I can see how a Marxist would believe that.  Why stop at retirement why not just pay everyone from cradle to grave through the same redistribution system?  Why should anyone have to work at all?  Why should anyone have to save at all?


----------



## Toro (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



CBO already says that SS will pay out 75% of what is promised in 30 years so jacking up payments isn't a good idea, particularly with expected soaring Medicare spending. 

SS has been sold as a retirement scheme, not a wealth transfer mechanism.  It is effectively run like a giant commingled bond pool backing the liabilities of the Treasury. 

It should be structured as a real pension fund.  It should be run like a real pension plan like in Canada and Norway, and people should have the option to opt out.


----------



## Toro (Aug 15, 2013)

SS is not a Ponzi Scheme.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > It's social insurance which has benefited Americans immensely.
> ...



I&#8217;m not a Marxist. I&#8217;ve also never advocated that the government control the means of production. 

This whole SS debate is based on how this liability of the federal government is an asset to the public. The corresponding assets are never mentioned during this ridiculous debate. The total SS wealth of the US population is real as the financial liabilities which support it.

SS isn&#8217;t a Ponzi scheme. We&#8217;re talking social insurance for the elderly, disabled, and their families. Before it was implemented, fifty percent or so of the elderly would live in abject poverty. I&#8217;m sorry, this isn&#8217;t the type of country we should regress to as a modern society.

All we need is a funding guarantee from Congress.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

Toro said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Toro,

If we&#8217;re to understand what&#8217;s not Kosher at the macro level, we first have to understand that SS participation is functionally the equivalent of purchasing a government bond.

With our current SS program we give Uncle Sam dollars now, and it gives us back dollars later. This exactly what happens when we purchase a government bond (you know, just like a savings account). We give Uncle Sam our dollars now and we get back dollars and some accumulated interest.

This is what drives me up a fucking wall about SS privatization. SS privatization would reshuffle the ownership of bonds and stocks in the economy &#8211; shifting risky assets held by seniors and safer ones to wealthier people &#8211; without any associated economic effects so to speak.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



>>> I&#8217;m not a Marxist.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Aka. "redistributing" wealth.  If your insurance program were an optional program, I'd be ok with it.  But the act of FORCING me to participate turns it into a redistribution program. I will have been forced against my will to pay ten times what I'll get back out of it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 15, 2013)

corrections



Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It&#8217;s not a redistribution scheme. It boils down to public purpose. The majority of Americans will need SS, that&#8217;s the reality of the situation.

SS benefit payments are done through keystrokes. The whole point being able to move resources to grandpa, so we credit his bank account so he can purchase groceries rather than dumpster dive like good old days before SS. 

Why do we have a payroll tax? It&#8217;s actually not to fund benefits, but rather to discourage workers from purchasing all the available output, which would compete with grandpa&#8217;s small SS checks he uses to buy the minimal amount of real goods and services. If we exhausted capacity, then we would have inflation.

The only thing that should concern us would be real resources. The idea is about having sufficient capacity to satisfy grandpa, grandma, average workers, disabled people, and their family members who receive Social Security. We don&#8217;t have a problem with real resources today, and we haven&#8217;t had a problem since the WWII era when half of production went to the war effort.

The US has operated way under capacity. In point of fact, our economy would perform much better if we paid all of our grandpas more SS benefits. This would increase aggregate demand, increase employment, and give businesses a chance to sell more stuff, so then can increase profits which translated into increased investment and capacity.

If people like Paul Ryan and nuts like Ron Paul get their way, each generation of workers will to increasing set aside more savings. This is so they can avoid eating dog food or reduced to dumpster diving or living with their children who probably rent that fact the mom and dad are living with them. Basically, consumption from wages will not be sufficient for firm to recover their costs. It creates a vicious cycle. Savings would be lower since enticement to innovate and invest would be much lower, etc. Attempting to save more doesn&#8217;t mean you&#8217;ll save more; we call this Paradox of Thrift. We&#8217;d have to have trade surpluses or budget deficits increase to make up for the gap of decreased investment. We then end up with much less savings with having to support seniors and others kicked out of the SS safety net.

Historically, we know that workers really never acquire enough savings. Take a look at the 193s before SS. It was fucking deplorable. Surveys tell us the elderly had no means of support and were relegated to fighting with stray animals for food and living in poor houses. 

Thanks&#8230;.but no thanks.  This why Americans contribute to SS. Or we can go back to the glorious days of the 19th century and early 20th century.

Edit to add:

Personally, I&#8217;ve always been vehemently opposed to the payroll tax, since it's a shitty way to ensure that overall demand doesn&#8217;t outstrip our ability to produce. We&#8217;re better off with a progressive tax for everyone. Payroll taxes decrease the incentive to work so to speak. This is the exact opposite of what's needed if the problem is decreased production.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Heh... you realize of course that you are trying to convince me that redistributing my income by force is not redistributing my income.  It does not matter that the purpose of the redistribution was intended to be good for society.  It's still redistribution.  When it started out it was for a very few people, and the cost was but a very very very small fraction of the current cost.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It's not redistribution when you really look at it.

The point is that the SS solvency crisis is detached from reality. It boils down to Congress, what they can do vs what the original Congress did that wrote the SS Act.  Specifically, that it would be paid for with revenues from FICA and placed in a trust fund rather than making payments from the general revenues. All Congress has to do is make a decision between today and 2037, to automatically fund SS benefits through general revenue, sort of the same way the government pays for SMI (Supplementary Medical Insurance). Problem solved.

At the end of the day, funding boils down to a political choice. All we have to do is look at the Annual Report of the Trustees. All the funding problems boil down to there being no provisions under current law which would enable payments once the funds are tapped out in the &#8220;Trust Fund&#8221;. It also states SMI is solvent because there are laws in place to guarantee funding.

It&#8217;s that ridiculous. SS is in trouble because the government has made a commitment to payments. On the other hand, SMI is flush with funds because government will always make payments.

The perceived SS problems aren&#8217;t based in reality.

Fantasy Problem:  We can&#8217;t afford SS because the costs will someday surpass payroll tax receipts

Real Problem: We aren&#8217;t capable of producing the real goods and services required by the elderly to keep them clothed, fed, and with a roof over their heads.

The fantasy problem is about the amount of dollars. The US is the monopoly issuer of the currency. We&#8217;re off the gold standard and on a floating exchange rate. This means any and all availability of dollars is merely a political issue. Out tax revenue aren&#8217;t needed, borrowing isn&#8217;t needed. It all boils down to Congress and any constraints they wish to employ. 

Would you support funding via the general revenue and the elimination of FICA? Just curious....


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Would you support funding via the general revenue and the elimination of FICA? Just curious....



No.  I prefer the current system of funding SS through a flat income tax percentage and with the outlays measured, in part, by the amount you put in.  I don't want to turn SS, even further, into a progressively taxed welfare program.  If that was your question.

The inequity in the system is bad enough right now. What you propose would only increase the inequity by orders magnitude.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 15, 2013)

The way to fix SS and improve our economy at the same time. Is to continue to increase the age of retirement.  The SS system was originally created to be a supplement beyond typical life expectancy.  Now it is an early retirement low bar.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 15, 2013)

oldfart said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



CD's, Savings Accounts and Bonds are merely tools. The plan itself, social security, is the ponzi scheme. There is really nothing wrong with investing in a bond, and being paid with the reoccurring interest income. However, if I'm investing in a bond and my returns are merely earnings received from the money from other investments, why isn't that a ponzi scheme? It's not like the Government has an other legitimate forms of income.

The US Bond Market is just one giant ponzi scheme.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Would you support funding via the general revenue and the elimination of FICA? Just curious....
> ...




Americans, whatever cards theyve been dealt, make contributions to American society during their lifetime. We cant measure contributions in a monetary sense all the time. Since theyre Americans, and have made contributions, they deserve a dignified retirement and old age by the country in the form of SS and Medicare.

The money required to fund these things doesn't come from taxes, but from government through constitutional authority. Its not money taken from you or I or the guy down the block, nor is it redistributed, once you understand our monetary system. Its not from a limited supply of gold in a vault or coming out of my pocket so to speak. This money obtains its value from real wealth produced by American society, which is the result of present and past production by everyone, and the sum total of the all capacity that we as Americans have produced and will create in the future.

We don't have to the right to share this wealth equally, and theres no right for the disabled, sick, elderly or children to make younger people sacrifice opportunity or go without. Our society is wealthy enough that it can provide for the elderly a lifestyle that doesnt consist of fear or need.

FDR completely understood this and its why he put it on his 2nd Bill of Rights. But FDR had enemies, such as the Hooverians. We call then neo-liberals or austerians nowadays. Whatever we call them, the message is the same: money is limited, that when we give it some, we must take it from others. Its inherently preposterous.

Austerity is anti-American and not part of our outlook. We know money isnt a limited resource and that our constitution allows us to create enough of it to create the economy we all want. Real resources are limited. We also know that real wealth  and the stock of real goods and services  is increasing all the time as a combination of capital, knowledge, and overall human effort  which will change as society changes. Real wealth can be increased and mobilized through nominal wealth so to speak. This isnt some zero sum game where you either have to win or lose.

At the end of the day, we dont have to take anything away from the elderly, because of some phony fiscal crisis. We can easily keep SS and other entitlements; even increase their benefits at no cost to you or me. All we need to do is fix some laws to guarantee funding through the general funds, and eliminate any and all trust funds.

How old are you, btw? Just curious.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Current SS participation is functionally the same as buying a government bond.

LOL @ the US bond market.


----------



## Toro (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



You are correct that SS essentially works like a fund that is invested 100% in government bonds.  That's why I think it should be broader.  I don't know of a single pension fund or annuity pool that is invested in 100% government debt.  (If there is, let me know.  MM funds don't count.)  Countries like Canada and Norway invest their pension systems across a variety of asset classes to achieve higher returns.  The US should do the same.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 15, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > It's social insurance which has benefited Americans immensely.
> ...


Do you always call people who do not agree with you marxists?  Do you know how stupid that is?  Do you recognize that sucking noise?  That is what happens when you pull your head out of your ass.  Marxists.  What a dipshit you are.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 15, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> The way to fix SS and improve our economy at the same time. Is to continue to increase the age of retirement.  The SS system was originally created to be a supplement beyond typical life expectancy.  Now it is an early retirement low bar.



If the system was more efficient; people would be retiring at 55 or 60; not 68. You want that? Get the government out of the business of social security and let the private markets do what they do.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 15, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Yep, Wall Street is so anxious to get all that Soc. Sec. money.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Just turned 50.  I got the letter for the SS Administration congratulating me on being fully funded for the max payout for SS checks when I was 32.  Whether you know it or not, admit it or not, your views that we should redistribute based on need and ability are Marxian.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



It's not a "social insurance" program in the way you put it. Individuals have to make money at various levels to get various reimbursements. It is much more an individual retirement account than a societal safety net. But, the government is not strictly accountable in the ways they administer those funds on our behalfs. Idiots like you support it b/c....Well frankly I don't give a fuck what your reasons are. I just know you're an idiot.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Nope.  Just the ones that advocate progressive taxation to fund monetary distributions based on need.  It's pure marx.  No denying it.  You can dance all you like, but you can't get away from the facts.  Distributing wealth from those that have the means to those that have the need, is marx.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 15, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Uh, let me unerstand you.  You suggest that I pay in to ss all my life.  Then I take out ss when I retire.  And so I am a Marxist?  Or am I a marxist because I approve of ss.

And since you are against redistribution of wealth, then I guess you are against the wealthy who have been becoming more and more wealthy while the middle class has no new gains.  Or are you ok with the rich getting larger and larger portions of income and wealth causing redistribution of both to the wealthy?  Because if you are, by your definition, you are a marxist.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 15, 2013)

^^^
If you want the govt. to take other people's monies and redistribute it to lower income classes; you're a Marxian. It's not  difficult dude.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 15, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Good.  So now it is clear.  You do hate the wealthy, and the politicians they own, and the con tools.  Uh, carefull there, me boy.  You will be hating yourself.  And you are, again, all marxist because you 
ARE for redistribution of wealth.  Yup, and you can not dance around it.  You are a marxist.  Damned commie.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> .
> You are being dishonest again.  You know what my sentence said.  The auto business would indicate all, including OUR auto business.



Maybe you should have phrased it better. If you believed no one wanted GM, then you would have nothing to worry about. Other than that, there are plenty of small time Automakers which would have loved the opportunity to take their places. Callaway, Anteros, DeLorean, etc. Losing GM and Chrysler wouldn't have been the end of the Auto Industry. Smaller up and coming automakers would have taken their places. 



> Hardly dying.  People seem to be buying automobiles.  Did you think they had stopped??  The purpose is the same as any reason for keeping people employed.



They're buying automobiles with borrowed money. Majority of GM sales is through sub-prime lending. Americans can't afford these cars. When the bottom fails out the of the market again, the industry will fail again.



> And I do not understand why you do not believe that I do not understand what you wrote.  It was really quite simple.  Hardly profound.



Then why would you write that I'm only concerned about stock prices. Nothing in my response was related to the face value GM's stock.
. 


> Wow,  We are getting snarky.  You used selected financial performance metrics, from selected time periods.  Which are not draconian, but are fair.  Which is why their stock prices have increased overall, and why they are expected to do quite well in the near future.  So, you are suggesting based on those metrics that we should not have allowed made the decision  to make the loan.  Got it.  And you are wrong by most people's opinion.  And in the opinion of any financial annalist that I have seen.



I'm saying based on these metrics, GM is not any more profitable today than when it was going to the restructure process. Profits fell 16%, but it was still higher than street expectations. Then again, how high can expectations possibly be? And these profits were solely due to the cost cutting in the European division. And that fine financial analyst disagree with me. There is really no one rushing to invest back into the company. The company is cheap, which makes it attractive valuation wise, but it's not a good investment unless you're planning on going long. 



> Market cap?  Not sure why you are so interested in market cap.  But in cars sold and revenue and profit, they are second worldwide, and first in the US.
> "In the first five months of 2013, General Motors Company (GM - Analyst Report) led with a 18.0% market share in the U.S., followed by Ford Motor Co. (F) with a 16.4% market share, Toyota Motors Corp. (TM - Analyst Report) with a 14.2% market share, Chrysler-Fiat with a 11.7% market share, and Honda Motor Co. (HMC - Analyst Report) and Nissan Motor Co. (NSANY) at the last spots with 9.5% and 8.1% market shares, respectively.
> 
> Toyota recaptured the sales crown from General Motors by selling 9.75 million vehicles globally in 2012, which exceeded GM&#8217;s sales of 9.29 million vehicles. Germany&#8217;s Volkswagen AG (VLKAY) came third with sales of 9.07 million vehicles for the year."
> Auto Industry Stock Outlook - June 2013 - June 11, 2013 - Zacks.com




Market capitalisation is what investors use to determine a company's size, as oppose to revenue and total asset figures. Market share doesn't tell you how large a company is. It only tells you the distribution of sales in a particular area, among a particular demographic. And the reason why I care about market capitalisation is because companies with a low market cap are considered to be higher risked companies to invest in.

And GM is third when it comes to annual net income, not second.



> It was completely political.  Absolutely political.  Either far right conservative sites, or politicians with foreign car companies in their states.  Take those away, and almost no criticism about the bailout.  Even the last repub president and his economic advisers supported the bailout.



So what if the last Republican President supported it. Look where it got you today... No one supported the bailout, left or right. It's bad from a business standpoint, as if gives businesses the idea that they are too big to fail. It's bad from a moral standpoint, as it teaches companies no matter what, businesses will never have to own up to their failures. It's bad from an economical standpoint, as badly misallocated resources are stuck in the same sector, when these resources could be used in more efficient ways. It was all around a bad idea.

The only types of people who support the bailouts are politicians and political hacks who care far too much about how this makes them look, rather than doing the right thing.



> Normally, yes.  That would be the capitalistic economy.  Free market and all that.  But in any economy, only fools let industries die it there is a fair chance that economy can go forward.  Killing your economy for reasons of keeping your economic philosophy  pure is, like allowing people to commit suicide, not a good idea.



Careless people fail to position their shorts to cover their long positions. Reckless people take a prominent, successful business and run it into the ground. The only real fools are those who give them money so they can do it all over again.. No one had any problem reaping the rewards when times were good. All of a sudden now times are bad, no one wants any part of the risk which are attached to the rewards. Capitalism is all about profits and loss. If you bailout the losers, there is no end to the cost. 

The losers must be allowed to lose. This ensures companies are run efficiently. Otherwise, you have half baked, inefficient companies all across the economy. This does not benefit consumers, or producers.



> Hardly.  You do indeed like to misquote the cbo.  But, ok.  You do not believe the cbo.  got it.



It's not about liking the CBO. It's about understanding that the organization is prone to mishaps, miscalculations and inaccuracies from time to time.

For example, the CBO is made up of intellectuals, which is an occupational category who's end product is ideas. And the only external mechaism for determining whether or not these ideas are good is whether or not other intellectuals like these ideas. This is distinguishable from other occupational professions such as engineering and scientist. These individuals actually engage in intellectual pursuits, but actually have real world mechanisms for determining whether or not they are good at their professions. 

For example, if an engineer designs a bridge and the bridge falls, there's an external mechanism to judging whether or not the engineer is a good or bad at his profession, same as a doctor or a scientist. However, the end product of intellectuals are ideas, and these professions never have to experience the consequences of their ideas, such as an a politician or an economist, or a group of economist like the CBO. 

The Stimulus Impact on unemployment was a good example of this. Everyone uses the CBO to some degree. I've never use it at all. All the CBO does is convey ideas and there is no external mechanism to determine whether or not their ideas are good or bad. People just use their analysis to prove a point. If they can be so wrong about other things, why couldn't they be wrong about many more? They're supposedly non-partisan, but so what? That's never kept anyone from being wrong before.



> That is your analysis.  I will go with those financial analysts that I have reasonable faith in.  And none have your doom and gloom analysis.  You do not know what is going on operationally with GM.  Or Chrysler.  Makes your analysis pretty empty.



GM and Chrysler releases monthly and quarterly shareholder reports and financial statements as well as proxy statements and shareholder meetings. Everyone and anyone can find out what is going on operationally with GM or Chiseler. I don't know what you think is happening, but nothing is behind closed doors. You are very ill-informed and very closed-minded.

http://www.gm.com/content/dam/gmcom..._Information/PDFs/2013_GM_Proxy_Statement.pdf

http://media.gm.com/content/dam/Media/gmcom/investor/2013/q2/GM-2013-Q2-Financial-Highlights.pdf

http://www.gm.com/content/dam/gmcom...er_Information/PDFs/2012_GM_Annual_Report.pdf



> But in the long run, time will tell.  And over 1M people will remain employed.  And profits from car sales stay in this country.  And gov revenue is increased by the taxes they pay.  And we did not go into a depression.  Seems like a fair trade to me.[/COLOR]



Someone had to lose money in order for an autoworker to have a job. Even more people had to lose money just so these auto companies can continue to run poorly. And these sales/profits are made, not with any actual income Americans are making, but with in the sub-prime lending market, which means people with terrible credit histories and very low collateral is now borrowing someone else's money to purchased one of these overpriced cars.

That's a funny example of 'fair trade.'


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 15, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ^^^
> If you want the govt. to take other people's monies and redistribute it to lower income classes; you're a Marxian. It's not  difficult dude.


So, let me see if I understand the rules.  It is fine if it is distributed more heavily to the wealthy, but marxist if the poor get  a few dribbles?  Got it.  

What is the it, you ask??  That you are an idiot, obviously.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Uh, let me unerstand you.  You suggest that I pay in to ss all my life.  Then I take out ss when I retire.  And so I am a Marxist?  Or am I a marxist because I approve of ss.
> 
> And since you are against redistribution of wealth, then I guess you are against the wealthy who have been becoming more and more wealthy while the middle class has no new gains.  Or are you ok with the rich getting larger and larger portions of income and wealth causing redistribution of both to the wealthy?  Because if you are, by your definition, you are a marxist.



Do you have a reading disability that we should know about or are you just mentally challenged?


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


^ Empty headed Troll.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



Yep, which is exactly why it's a giant ponzi scheme.



> LOL @ the US bond market.



Instead of throwing Bernie Madoff in jail, you should have actually made him Secretary of the Treasury.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 15, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



Why would we want YOUR Social Security money when the Government already gives us $45 Billion a month...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 15, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



 By his own logic, Bernie is good for the economy.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...





> LOL @ the US bond market.



Okie dokie...



> Instead of throwing Bernie Madoff in jail, you should have actually made him Secretary of the Treasury.



Madoff is a piker compared to the real criminals at the big investment banks.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



That's easy...It would yield upwards of an additional $300 billion in commissions for brokers every year.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Cool. I was just curious, not being nosy. I'm 36 and hopefully I'll call it quits in my field when I'm 40.  I'm just trying to figure out what else I can do. 

I'm not advocating redistribution. Like I've tried to explain many times our taxes, operationally, don't fund expenditures of the federal government. States taxes, yes, they are used to generate revenue, but federal taxes do no such thing. Either way, the federal government will cut SS checks, and they'll never bounce. 

If you want to talk why we tax the very wealthy, it has more to do with them being an inflation risk relative to the general population. And it also deals with what type of society we want to live in.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> The repeal of Glass-Steagall immensely contributed to the crisis. The only people who say otherwise are Jamie Dimon and his sociopathic and parasitical peers in investment banking. It prevented commercial banks, which were insured by the government, from using bank deposits for speculation by investment firms.



There are a good portion of people who believe Glass-Steagall is really irrelevant. Probably not as many as the people who believe it was a contributing factor, but most people who believe it contributed do not understand the difference between de-regulation, mis-regulation, and no regulation at all. Any form of de-regulation is bad, regardless of how harmful or meaningless the regulation is. And bad regulation isn't mis-regulation, we just didn't 'do enough.'

And also, Glass Steagall is still in the US Code under the Banking Act of 1933. Only the provision you are referring to is missing, but otherwise, still in tact.

12 USC § 227 - ?Banking Act of 1933? | Title 12 - Banks and Banking | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

But really, nothing prevented banks from speculating in MBS. Banks were always able to invest in securities, they were just never able to underwrite or deal in any securities themselves. These banks didn't speculate in MBS because they were reckless (well, actually they were reckless). They invested in these securities because they thought they were good investments and still had large parts of them in their portfolios. 



> For example, Glass-Steagall would have prevented JPMorgan from its adventures in the electricity business. It also wouldnt have allowed banks to speculate with metal storage facilities, oil tankers, power plants, etc. This list goes on and on. Detroit and many other cities wouldnt have been solicited swaps from bank-controlled LIBOR rates. We should restore it ASAP. We need a firewall between commercial banks and investment banks.



I don't really see why JPMorgans financial troubles had to do with speculating in these other sectors. Chase has always been investing in projects as far as I know. The problems weren't caused by JPMorgans pet projects, but it's involvement and leverage regarding MBS.

Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merill Lynch are all defuct. Most of all, these were all pure investment banks which never operated on commercial soil and never merged with any commercial banks. Goldman Sachs was the only luck one which made it, but still never merged or look any deposits. What about AIG? That's an insurance company. No Glass Steagall there. What about New Century Financial? That's a real estate investment trust. No Glass Steagall there. Wachovia and Washington mutual had many banking divisions. Although they were bank holding companies, they got into trouble the old fashion way: giving people loans who couldn't afford them. Bank of America nearly met the same fate, but not because it squired an investment bank but because both Countrywide Financial, a vanilla-variety mortgage lender.

Merging banks were the ones who got in as much trouble as the ones which stayed separate. I really don't see what good this firewall has done. This piece of regulation is a constant, not a variable. The US packaged these securities all of the world. It doesn't really explain why countries with the same exposure in the MBS without such regulations fared the crisis just fine.



> Japan and Germany don't have a segment of their political class obsessed with the destruction of labor. We have a whole fascist segment with the American Right obsessed with wage suppression and the destruction of unions.



Work is increasingly individualised today. More and more, we discover we no longer need unions in the same way we did in the past. The decrease in union participation is a global phenomenon, except in Scandinavia. Do you really want to use Scandinavia as an excuse of why anything is good?



> By the way, in Germany, they have institutions which guarantee excellent working conditions and high wages. Upper management and the unions have a symbiotic relationship.
> 
> In the US, on the other hand, we have an upper management which is hostile to labor almost to a pathological degree. German autoworkers are also paid twice as much as their American counterparts which includes salary and benefits. All of the German auto manufacturers are very profitable and competitive.



There are many things which can attribute to this. Germany for example has no minimum wage, except for construction workers, electrical workers, janitors, roofers, painters, and letter carriers. Employees and employers negotiate the terms of their own employment and contract, which is what the labour force should be like.

In America, you have so much litigation involved with the workplace. The work environment today makes it very easy for your employee to sue you for any possible reason. Employers today try their best to make as much money as possible, with as little employees. There are so many regulations devoted to employee rights, which makes employee/employer relationships impossible. Thank you Lilly Ledbetter



> The federal government doesn't face the same constraints as a corporation. I see no reason to economise when dealing with the social safety net, whether it's food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, jobs programs and training, etc. As a society, we get decide what public policies initiates we want the government to provide and execute.



Most of the incentive against economising is merely due to the fact that doing so is not politically popular. How would you go about making sure these programs are efficient?



> I'll trust the defense of my country to guys that grew up in my neighborhood over Academi or any other military contractors. Would you really want to see defense privatized? Yeah, what could possible go wrong. Some of the US military's current problems are privatizing certain aspects of its operations with these outfits like KBR.



There are privatized militarizes, but I wouldn't know what would be the difference to be honest. The government is really only good at killing people and breaking things. Why not get some money from liberating, over throwing dicators and being the world's police?



> Yes, I think there should be federal standards for the supplements I take and the medication some of my family members use. Left up to their own devices, pharma and supplement manufactures will cut corners given the chance. Sort of like those "natural" Viagra pills from a few years ago that turned out being spiked with Viagra down in Belize. Yeah, we really don't need that in the United States. I do have gripes with the FDA, but that has more to do with the revolving door between Pharma and regulatory agencies. We see the same thing with the FED, SEC, Treasury Dept, etc.



Long ago investing into a company which had a decent cure for Alzheimer's which really worked. The company conducted many trials with the FDA and paid tens of millions of dollars in fees to compute these trials. The drug passed two different trials and the drug didn't seem to produce any side-effects or harmful byproducts, but the FDA found these trials inconclusive. They just simply wanted more and more trials. After a while, the company went bankrupt and they couldn't provide any more trials to produce the drug.

My issue with the FDA, aside from the fact that it does a lousy job of what it was enacted to do, it merely works as a defacto protectionism to create economies of scale for big pharmaceutical companies to ward off smaller up-and-coming companies.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



That's interesting, because according to him the real criminals are at the US Treasury. Although, that is kind of conflicting, a criminal calling someone else a criminal.

Bernie Madoff may not have much credibility, but he does when it comes to ponzi schemes...

Madoff: 'Whole government is a Ponzi scheme' - Business - US business | NBC News


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 15, 2013)

So, Tania says:


> there are plenty of small time Automakers which would have loved the opportunity to take their places. Callaway, Anteros, DeLorean, etc. Losing GM and Chrysler wouldn't have been the end of the Auto Industry. Smaller up and coming automakers would have taken their places.


 .

That's it.  The auto industry puts a place marker where GM used to be.  A new and upcoming car company then takes their place.  Now, in the last 70 years, there has not been a single major new auto company.  Couple of small ones who went out of business.  But nothing like gm, or even chrysler.  But, you say it will happen.  Must be true, then.
And toyota, and vw, and honda, and nisan, and on and on.  All of theose other companies, that take their profits back to their countries will not take over and fill the gap for gm, because of the place marker.  Should we call it the Tanya place marker.  

And certainly there is no need to believe the ceo of ford when he said they would also be out of business.  So, there would be NO us auto industry.  Good deal. 

Then, Tania says:


> They're buying automobiles with borrowed money. Majority of GM sales is through sub-prime lending. Americans can't afford these cars. When the bottom fails out the of the market again, the industry will fail again



 Uh oh.  Americans are buying automobiles with borrowed money.  Now that is a change from????  Actually, it is not a change.  Always have been doing so.  It is often called auto financing.  Part of the installment loan business.  

Next, Tania says:


> I'm saying based on these metrics, GM is not any more profitable today than when it was going to the restructure process. Profits fell 16%, but it was still higher than street expectations. Then again, how high can expectations possibly be? And these profits were solely due to the cost cutting in the European division. And that fine financial analyst disagree with me. There is really no one rushing to invest back into the company. The company is cheap, which makes it attractive valuation wise, but it's not a good investment unless you're planning on going long.


Got it.  It is, in your opinion, a bad investment.  So, we should have let it go bankrupt.  Perfect.  1.5M out of work, a new depression.  All to make tania happy about getting rid of her list of bad investments.  Maybe we should just go ahead and shut down the entire list.  

Then, she adds:


> Market capitalisation is what investors use to determine a company's size, as oppose to revenue and total asset figures. Market share doesn't tell you how large a company is. It only tells you the distribution of sales in a particular area, among a particular demographic. And the reason why I care about market capitalisation is because companies with a low market cap are considered to be higher risked companies to invest in.



Ah.  That is true.  Not profound.  But true.  So analysts do not care about gross sales, profits, and internals, right??  Ok.  Others seem to care.  But if you say so.

Then, Tania, the political expert, says:



> So what if the last Republican President supported it. Look where it got you today... No one supported the bailout, left or right. It's bad from a business standpoint, as if gives businesses the idea that they are too big to fail. It's bad from a moral standpoint, as it teaches companies no matter what, businesses will never have to own up to their failures. It's bad from an economical standpoint, as badly misallocated resources are stuck in the same sector, when these resources could be used in more efficient ways. It was all around a bad idea.
> 
> The only types of people who support the bailouts are politicians and political hacks who care far too much about how this makes them look, rather than doing the right thing



The auto bailout was part of TARP.  Every politician able to vote against it did, but never with any possibility that it was going to fail.  You see, politicians were scared shitless (a technical term) of what was going to happen next.  Whatever it took to get TARP passed was what it was going to get.  But if they did not have to vote for it, they did not.  But a majority did indeed vote for it.  And yes, we know.  It would have been much better to have a new national economic depression than to have had temporary ownership of gm by the gov.  We know you believe that.  Got it. 



Then she said:



> Someone had to lose money in order for an autoworker to have a job



Not as much as they would have lost if gm had gone out of business.  


> Even more people had to lose money just so these auto companies can continue to run poorly


That is your opinion that they are running poorly.  Perhaps you have a link???  Didn't think so.   


> And these sales/profits are made, not with any actual income Americans are making, but with in the sub-prime lending market, which means people with terrible credit histories and very low collateral is now borrowing someone else's money to purchased one of these overpriced cars


So, only the people with poor credit are buying the cars, and the smart people are not???  Sounds a little unlikely.  Which is why you probably do not have any proof.



> That's a funny example of 'fair trade.


Yup.  Bastards should stop buying those gm cars.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 15, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Now, don't be so hard on yourself. But then, you are indeed empty headed. And you seem to admit you are a troll. good. that is a start toward a cure.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

> There are a good portion of people who believe Glass-Steagall is really irrelevant. Probably not as many as the people who believe it was a contributing factor, but most people who believe it contributed do not understand the difference between de-regulation, mis-regulation, and no regulation at all. Any form of de-regulation is bad, regardless of how harmful or meaningless the regulation is. And bad regulation isn't mis-regulation, we just didn't 'do enough.



You're right, there are people who believe what you said. Anyone marginally on the periphery of finance - or in finance - will tell you they're either delusional or lying twats.



> And also, Glass Steagall is still in the US Code under the Banking Act of 1933. Only the provision you are referring to is missing, but otherwise, still in tact.
> 
> 12 USC § 227 - ?Banking Act of 1933? | Title 12 - Banks and Banking | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> ...



I went over Glass-Stegall in a broad sense. The basic components of it in the least boring way possible. 

In terms of the commercial banks, the idea was banks would restrict loans to have edposit guarantees. These loans would be made for less risky, such as small biz loans, mortgages, car loans and very cut and dry types of credit. We need these types of restrictions, because of banks customers know their dough is guaranteed. The governent must be able to act and discipline commercial bank behavior because the market is simply incapable of doing so when deposits are insured. 

Investment banks were able to engage in any type of risky and shady behavior they felt like doing. Let me be clear, I sort of gave you an incorrect description of the Glass-Steagall Act. Investment banks raised money borrowing or issuing bonds. Theoretically, yeah, if they failed, it shouldn't have the a massive risk factor for affecting the overall economy. 

When Glass-Seagall was completed repealed, and the commercial banks and investment banks had the firewall removed, it increased the possibility that banks would gamble with risky investments with deposits. In theory, if I remember correctly, banks were still supposed to firewall commercial and investment banking activity, but this boiled down to the regulatory institutions actually practicing enforcement.

One of the main problems with crisis in 2008 was that these banks were too interconnected and too big too fail. (not really, we could have done what the Swedes did in the 90s, but there was no political will to do so). These mergers made it even worse.

Btw, going forward:

GS=Glass Steagall
IV= Investment bank
CB = Commercial Bank 





> There are many things which can attribute to this. Germany for example has no minimum wage, except for construction workers, electrical workers, janitors, roofers, painters, and letter carriers. Employees and employers negotiate the terms of their own employment and contract, which is what the labour force should be like.



Yeah, I know, it has a minimum wage within various sectors. They're on the verge of passing a nationwide minimum wage. The debate is how much.  It would actually help the German government. Having done an inordinate amount of work in labor theory, I'm generally not a fan the way Germany does this currently. It causes certain problems within the labor market.



> In America, you have so much litigation involved with the workplace. The work environment today makes it very easy for your employee to sue you for any possible reason. Employers today try their best to make as much money as possible, with as little employees. There are so many regulations devoted to employee rights, which makes employee/employer relationships impossible. Thank you Lilly Ledbetter



It depends. I fully support being about to sue an employer or employee for valid reasons. But yeah, some laws are ridiculous. 



> Most of the incentive against economising is merely due to the fact that doing so is not politically popular. How would you go about making sure these programs are efficient?



I would define efficient as helping as many people in need as possible. That's my metric for executing policy for the public good.



> There are privatized militarizes, but I wouldn't know what would be the difference to be honest. The government is really only good at killing people and breaking things. Why not get some money from liberating, over throwing dicators and being the world's police?



Um, they're called mercenaries. And they have no allegiance to a country. Personally, I'd like to see less of a military footprint overseas, but any decreases in spending will have result in increased spending elsewhere in government.




> Long ago investing into a company which had a decent cure for Alzheimer's which really worked. The company conducted many trials with the FDA and paid tens of millions of dollars in fees to compute these trials. The drug passed two different trials and the drug didn't seem to produce any side-effects or harmful byproducts, but the FDA found these trials inconclusive. They just simply wanted more and more trials. After a while, the company went bankrupt and they couldn't provide any more trials to produce the drug.
> 
> My issue with the FDA, aside from the fact that it does a lousy job of what it was enacted to do, it merely works as a defacto protectionism to create economies of scale for big pharmaceutical companies to ward off smaller up-and-coming companies.



I actually don't disagree with you. One of my beefs is with the repetitive trials. But this gets in the pharma lobby and access.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 15, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



Madoff is such a **** of a human being. 

First of all, the US government isn't a ponzi scheme. It's not Amway, nor is it run for profit and it doesn't require investments to obtain money. It's the currency issuer, the referee on the pitch.

The only reason guys like Jaimie Dimon aren't doing the perp walk is the Holder Justice Dept refuses to prosecute. It's a disgrace and insult to the rule of law and any type of justice.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 15, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> It's not about liking the CBO. It's about understanding that the organization is prone to mishaps, miscalculations and inaccuracies from time to time.
> 
> For example, the CBO is made up of intellectuals, which is an occupational category who's end product is ideas. And the only external mechaism for determining whether or not these ideas are good is whether or not other intellectuals like these ideas. This is distinguishable from other occupational professions such as engineering and scientist. These individuals actually engage in intellectual pursuits, but actually have real world mechanisms for determining whether or not they are good at their professions.
> 
> ...



Somehow I'm not surprised you don't use CBO projections.  What macro shop do you use?


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> That's it.  The auto industry puts a place marker where GM used to be.  A new and upcoming car company then takes their place.  Now, in the last 70 years, there has not been a single major new auto company.  Couple of small ones who went out of business.  But nothing like gm, or even chrysler.



Um, you do realise that the three major automakers merely aquire smaller automakers and adds their auto designs to their catalog, correct? Where exactly do you think all the names of these cars originate from. There is really no reason why these smaller companies can do the same thing as well, and thanks to the bailout, these companies will probably never get the opportunity.

The list of minor automobile companies have been around for decades. DeLorean Motor Company has been around since 1975. Panoz Auto Development has been around since 1989. Carroll Shelby International has been around since 1992. You've even had an automobile developed and named after an American economist: Warren Mosler. Any one of these companies were capable of filling the void. 



> But, you say it will happen.  Must be true, then.



It's not because I said it will happen. This is basically the case when it comes to business. We literally have a century's worth of examples, and not just in the US, but global.


F. W. Woolworth Company became the largest chain store in the world by 1979. F. W. Woolworth Company files for bankruptcy in the 1990's. It's assets were sold to competitor, Wal-Mart. F. W. Woolworth Company emerges as a sport footwear chain known today as 'Footlocker.'

Atari Inc. was American video game and home computer company and the producer of the popular video game console Atari 2600, Atari 5200 with and the popular pong console. The video game crash of 1983 virtually led to the downfall of video game developers, including the most popular Atari Inc. It's assets were sold to competitor  Commodore International and Namco.

Rolls-Royce Limited was a well known automobile manufacturer which also specialised in engine manufacturing. Financial problems ultimately led to the nationalisation of the company and assets were sold to competitors.



> And toyota, and vw, and honda, and nisan, and on and on.  All of theose other companies, that take their profits back to their countries will not take over and fill the gap for gm, because of the place marker.  Should we call it the Tanya place marker.



Foreign competitors already have a place in American markets, as globalisation allows foreign producers to sell anywhere in the world without physically being there. If they wanted to purchase freed up resources, they could, but they're not doing this for any other defuct automakers. 



> And certainly there is no need to believe the ceo of ford when he said they would also be out of business.  So, there would be NO us auto industry.  Good deal.



Ford was actually the only Automaker which didn't receive bailout money. It's possible systemic risk would have occurred if GM and Chrysler would were not rescued due to the lack of parts being produced, taking Ford down with it. Then again, you have many automobile manufactures which could have offset the losses these part manufacturers have sustained. We will never know.



> Uh oh.  Americans are buying automobiles with borrowed money.  Now that is a change from????  Actually, it is not a change.  Always have been doing so.  It is often called auto financing.  Part of the installment loan business.



Not just any borrowed money, high-risk sub prime lending. Most of the increases in GM sales consist of these financing metric, which means in terms of realised profits, GM is probably less profitable on paper.



> Got it.  It is, in your opinion, a bad investment.  So, we should have let it go bankrupt.  Perfect.  1.5M out of work, a new depression.  All to make tania happy about getting rid of her list of bad investments.  Maybe we should just go ahead and shut down the entire list.



There is no such thing as a bad investment. There is a such thing as a bad company, and GM was a poorly run company which needed to fail. It wouldn't have made me happy to see it defunct, but that doesn't change the fact that it's what needed to happen.



> Ah.  That is true.  Not profound.  But true.  So analysts do not care about gross sales, profits, and internals, right??  Ok.  Others seem to care.  But if you say so.



No one is making that claim up you. There are a few ways investors can determine the size of a company. Sales are one of them. Profits are not.



> The auto bailout was part of TARP.  Every politician able to vote against it did, but never with any possibility that it was going to fail.  You see, politicians were scared shitless (a technical term) of what was going to happen next.  Whatever it took to get TARP passed was what it was going to get.  But if they did not have to vote for it, they did not.  But a majority did indeed vote for it.  And yes, we know.  It would have been much better to have a new national economic depression than to have had temporary ownership of gm by the gov.  We know you believe that.  Got it.



The economy is already in a state of a depression. It ultimately would have been better to take a painful recession and have a much stronger recovery. What is happening now cannot be synonymous with a recovery. All indicators points to an economy which is contracting, which is being masked by a cheap stimulus high.

And contrary to popular belief, recessions are normal. They're also a natural part of the business cycle, along with business failures. A recession is the economy's way of ridding all the malinvestment and allocating the resources efficiently. It's no different from checking into rehab for a drug problem and you start detoxing. The detox isn't not suppose to feel good, but it's necessary for a strong recovery. Of course we can become like you and give our patients bailout stimulus drugs. You'll probably run the most popular rehab clinic, but your patients aren't going to get much better...



> Not as much as they would have lost if gm had gone out of business.



They would have lost nothing. It's GM that would have lost. Now taxpayers are still waiting to be made whole, while they are still contractually obligated to prop up a lousy company.



> That is your opinion that they are running poorly.  Perhaps you have a link???  Didn't think so.



I don't need a link and I don't need anyone to tell me the company's condition. I'm experienced enough to know whether or not a company's fundamentals are sound enough to invest or when it's fundamentals are deteriorating. It's all in the financials. Again, just because you cannot understand the data doesn't mean the data is wrong.

GM General Motors Co XNYS:GM Stock Quote Price News


> So, only the people with poor credit are buying the cars, and the smart people are not???  Sounds a little unlikely.  Which is why you probably do not have any proof.



Sooner or later, you'll learn not to underestimate my researching skills.

View Filing Data

If it doesn't open to the proper page, simply click on Note to Financial Statements and Finance Receivables, Net. There you will find all the information you need. And just so you won't accuse anyone of lying, I took the liberty of producing a screenshot.




Auto Financed cars are purchased using sub prime lending, which are used by individuals for a number of reasons, but all of which has to do with bad or weak credit. 70% of the increase in GM sales were attributed to individuals with a FICO score of less than 600, which last time I checked was considered satisfactory.



> Yup.  Bastards should stop buying those gm cars.



I don't care of the market buys GM cars are not. I'm just pointing out that GM sales are merely a function of cheap liquidity. Once this stops, they will fail once more. Which begs the question: Will you bail these companies out again?


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 15, 2013)

oldfart said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > It's not about liking the CBO. It's about understanding that the organization is prone to mishaps, miscalculations and inaccuracies from time to time.
> ...



I really don't use any studies. I read the studies to look at data new data I find interesting, but I've never actually _used_ a study to present an argument.

Most of the studies I do use have zero relation to macroeconomics, because they're not for economics, but other topics.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 15, 2013)

Kimura said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



This may be true, but my dislike a fallacies prevent me from disagreeing with Bernie Madoff simply because he is a '****' of a human being.



> First of all, the US government isn't a ponzi scheme. It's not Amway, nor is it run for profit and it doesn't require investments to obtain money.



Ha! I knew Amway was a Ponzi Scheme. Which was probably easy to see. Those MLM reps don't look like they make money.



> It's the currency issuer, the referee on the pitch.



Sooo, it's the referee and the pitcher?

Look, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but everyone has been openly candid about the plan to stimulate the economy. From the 'we never had to pay the money back' crowd to 'if we don't borrow more money, we're not going to pay our creditors back' morons. 

At least Bernie Madoff learned that the first rule of a Ponzi Scheme is that you don't let anyone in on the fact that you're running one.



> The only reason guys like Jaimie Dimon aren't doing the perp walk is the Holder Justice Dept refuses to prosecute. It's a disgrace and insult to the rule of law and any type of justice.



He's too busy going after S&P for having the nerve to downgrade US sover, er, for failing to downgrade Mortgage Backed Securities.

They gotta pay.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 15, 2013)

Tanya says:  





> he economy is already in a state of a depression. It ultimately would have been better to take a painful recession and have a much stronger recovery. What is happening now cannot be synonymous with a recovery. All indicators points to an economy which is contracting, which is being masked by a cheap stimulus high.



Great.  You just proved your point.  You are a financial analyst, NOT an economist.  Got it.  




> And contrary to popular belief, recessions are normal. They're also a natural part of the business cycle, along with business failures. A recession is the economy's way of ridding all the malinvestment and allocating the resources efficiently. It's no different from checking into rehab for a drug problem and you start detoxing. The detox isn't not suppose to feel good, but it's necessary for a strong recovery. Of course we can become like you and give our patients bailout stimulus drugs. You'll probably run the most popular rehab clinic, but your patients aren't going to get much better...



You need to spend a bit of time researching the difference between depressions, recessions, and business cycles.  Because what you said  had nothing to do with reality. We are not now, nor have we  been since the great depression, in a depression.  We lived through a recession.  That ended in 2009.  Now we have moderately sever unemployment.  No depression.  No recession.  Here.  If you would read this, it would help:
America's recession: It's over | The Economist

And yes, we have had  business cycles forever.  Much different than depressions.   Or recessions.  



> I don't care of the market buys GM cars are not.


 Help me.  What did that sentence attempt to say????


> I'm just proving out that GM sales are merely a function of cheap liquidity.


You 'proved out" nothing.  Taking a six month period and projecting it forward is a bit risky.  And you have no controls for your little proof.  Like, what are the numbers for prior years and other auto companies.  And your statement that all sales are a result of sub prime financing is disproved by your source.  Really, very tacky by a self professed research expert.  


> Once this stops, they will fail once more.


  No they will not, they will SOAR in ECONOMIC SUCCESS BEYOND OUR WILDEST EXPECTATIONS.



> Which begs the question: Will you bail these companies out again?


If I do, so will you.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 15, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that by your definition all financial investments including bonds, CD's, and savings accounts are Ponzi schemes?
> ...



I fail to see how government bonds are "one giant Ponzi scheme" while other bonds, bearing risk premiums assigned by markets, are not.  I think you are letting political cant get in the way of analysis.  This antipathy to government financing is not only intellectually unsound, it is dangerous, as the only threat of default in the bond markets is this kind of political rhetoric.  I thought you knew more about financial markets than to repeat this kind of blather and am disappointed.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Great.  You just proved your point.  You are a financial analyst, NOT an economist.  Got it.



I have never claimed that I was an economist. 



> You need to spend a bit of time researching the difference between depressions, recessions, and business cycles.  Because what you said  had nothing to do with reality. We are not now, nor have we  been since the great depression, in a depression.  We lived through a recession.  That ended in 2009.  Now we have moderately sever unemployment.  No depression.  No recession.  Here.  If you would read this, it would help:
> America's recession: It's over | The Economist
> 
> And yes, we have had  business cycles forever.  Much different than depressions.   Or recessions.



If that article impresses you, then you are probably easily impressed by many things. And you're probably another one of those yahoos who actually believe the economy is getting better. 

And just so you know, a depression is merely a prolonged recession. Unemployment and GDP aren't the only metrics to determine a depression. Its a depression if a different variant of what the US experienced during the1930's, but that doesn't make it any less of a depression. 



> Help me.  What did that sentence attempt to say????



Look, how about you try and figure it out? I can't hold your hand for everything. 



> You 'proved out" nothing.  Taking a six month period and projecting it forward is a bit risky.



When someone uses the term Y/Y (Year over Year), what exactly do you think this means?



> And you have no controls for your little proof.  Like, what are the numbers for prior years and other auto companies.



I've used financials from prior years. As far back as 2008, as this is mostly how far back most company ticker financial sites would take me without having to do the digging myself. I don't see why I would consider the performance of other companies when I'm talking about GM. Its already a given that its performance compared to other companies is behind. It may be good that majority if GM sales are based in the US, its also due to the fact that more of these sales are the result of sub prime. While majority of Ford has more sales overseas than GM, which means Ford is directly contributing to the narrowing of the trade deficit, which may be a good thing. 



> And your statement that all sales are a result of sub prime financing is disproved by your source.  Really, very tacky by a self professed research expert.



I see we've reached the portion of the discussion where your argument breaks down and you make up statements for other people. My statements are that GM is more dependent on subprime lending than ever before. Not all sales consist of subprime, not all auto sales consist of subprime. In fact, I don't not know the distribution of sales of other automakers. I really have not bothered to look.

Why to address what was written, if that's not too difficult. 



> No they will not, they will SOAR in ECONOMIC SUCCESS BEYOND OUR WILDEST EXPECTATIONS.



Not in this era. If anything, between the money the company still has to pay back and the weak fundamentals, a slight spike in interest rates means GM will fail again. 



> If I do, so will you.



I won't be doing anything. Whatever you yanks do to destroy your economy is your business.  Ill be watching the stupidity from afar. But I see you have no problem perpetuating the same type of recklessness which is evident with the last financial crisis.


----------



## Toro (Aug 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Why do you think Dimon should be charged?


----------



## Kimura (Aug 16, 2013)

> This may be true, but my dislike a fallacies prevent me from disagreeing with Bernie Madoff simply because he is a '****' of a human being.



Fair enough. I just thought his statement made no sense at face value. 



> Ha! I knew Amway was a Ponzi Scheme. Which was probably easy to see. Those MLM reps don't look like they make money.



You have them in UK! Let me guess, a friend had a great opportunity to share with you. 


> Sooo, it's the referee and the pitcher?



I meant the playing field, the pitch, were footballers make the magic happen. The referee being tantamount to a scorekeeper.



> Look, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but everyone has been openly candid about the plan to stimulate the economy. From the 'we never had to pay the money back' crowd to 'if we don't borrow more money, we're not going to pay our creditors back' morons.



Well.its fairly simple. Historically, we know what works. Investments in infrastructure, transportation, education, health care, R&D, nuclear power, alternative energy, etc. 
Im a proponent of the Job Guarantee to reach - or come as close as possible  to reaching full employment. We already have this idle capacity in the form of people on unemployment, etc.



> At least Bernie Madoff learned that the first rule of a Ponzi Scheme is that you don't let anyone in on the fact that you're running one.



This sounds eerily similar to the first rue of Fight Club. I actually agree. 



> He's too busy going after S&P for having the nerve to downgrade US sover, er, for failing to downgrade Mortgage Backed Securities.
> 
> They gotta pay.



I deal with people at the ratings agencies all the time. Ive had conversations with them on the phone and at conferences in the past. These are the same people that told us these mortgage-backed securities were AAA.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 16, 2013)

Toro said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



Yeah. From what I can piece together on the periphery, he can probably be charged under RICO and for a litany of SEC violations. We also can't forget about Lloyd Blankfein, Vikram Pandit, and a couple of hundred other actors on the totem pole. The DOJ would have to charge them together under RICO if I'm not mistaken.

What say you?


----------



## Toro (Aug 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I'm not sure what crimes they've committed.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 16, 2013)

Toro said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Securities fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, extortion, and acts of terrorism (financial terrorism, yet terrorism nonetheless).


----------



## Toro (Aug 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Well, maybe the first one and perhaps the second, but I'm not sure about the rest. 

So is your argument that they are heads of criminal enterprises?


----------



## Misty (Aug 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^
> ...



Distributed to the wealthy? In what form?

You mean the GM bailout?


----------



## Kimura (Aug 16, 2013)

Toro said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Yeah, that would be the general idea. The DOJ would have go full tilt. Ultimately, you would want to destroy the CEOs - both legally and financially - and make an example of them with life sentences. This is the only way to have some semblance of justice for the destruction these people caused for millions of people.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Yeah cause it should be criminal to start a company for profit that employs people.  Bunch of stupid jerks these CEOs.  But it would be ok for the government to assign Czars and Union leaders to run the companies, right comrade?


----------



## Kimura (Aug 16, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



We're talking about crimes that make the Cosa Nostra look like amatuer hour. We'd also be doing society a favor by breaking up these too big too fail entities. I work for an Italian bank, pretty high up the food chain, so this has nothing to do with your suggestion that I hate companies. I hate criminals and criminal enterprises. That's what a large portion of these banks have become.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 16, 2013)

Misty said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


This is way to hard to understand for a dipshit like you.  You have to actually be able ro read and think.  If you have been told what you want to hear, and you believe it, ajd therefor yu do so, then what the hell.  Knock yourself out.  Or you could take this and have someone explain it to you:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

In the U.S., the Rich Are Getting Richer While the Poor Get Poorer - ABC News

The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed - Business Insider

State of Working America preview: The rich get richer | Economic Policy Institute

Haves and have nots: America's rich get richer

A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html?_r=0

In This Recovery, the Rich Get Richer | Smart Charts, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

Why the Rich Are Getting Richer | Foreign Affairs


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 16, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Yup.  We commies are trying to make you con tools all nuts so you can believe we are marxists.  Because it is so funny to watch you make a fool of yourself.  Now, toddle on back to the bat shit crazy con web sites so you can reload.


----------



## Toro (Aug 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I thought you worked for a big bank?

Also, if they couldn't make a charge stick against the PMs of the Bear Stearns fund, what makes you think they have a stronger case against the bank CEOs?


----------



## Kimura (Aug 16, 2013)

Toro said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



I work for UniCredit.

As a matter of fact, I go back to the office Monday. I had ankle surgery and I've been working at home for almost three months. The rehab was a bitch. 



> Also, if they couldn't make a charge stick against the PMs of the Bear Stearns fund, what makes you think they have a stronger case against the bank CEOs?



Holder basically said they're refusing to go after these guys. Most investigative and legal efforts to secure indictments  have been impotent. Some state and local DA's, in Texas and Florida, for example, have proposed going after these banks but they have limited resources and capacity as opposed to the federal government.

Once the DOJ and FBI were to move forward with indictments, it curtains for these guys. You know it, I know it, they know it. The DOJ has unlimited resources. They can subpoena everything, such as server dumps, emails, wire info, databases, when these guys bang their mistresses, when they take a dump, etc. The surveillance alone would probably give them all they need in a matter of months.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 16, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Great.  You just proved your point.  You are a financial analyst, NOT an economist.  Got it.
> ...


Yup.  Got it.  The economy is getting worse.  We are in a depression.  Unemployment is not getting better, but rather it is getting worse.  GM is failing and will need to be bailed out again.  Got it.  
So you disagree with the economic world in general.  And they are all wrong.  And your little team of 0 (that would be ZERO) analysts and trained economists have it right, and organizations like the cbo are all wrong.  

Great.  So we have TWO OPTIONS:
1.  All of the above is true:  
      OR
2.  You are simply a con tool posting dogma based on an agenda.

Got it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...


Ah.. ok fair enough.  I also dislike the criminal enterprises and agree we should break up the CEO oligopoly on executive pay, and the criminal activities of CEOs and corporations.  Rule of law, ok sure I'm all for that.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 16, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Finally, we agree on something.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



 We'd probably agree on a lot of things were we to be using the same basis for the discussions.  Alas we all enter these discussions with our own backgrounds and our own emphasis bias.  Break up the monopolies and oligopolies!  But save the right of a person to build and own his own company... that would be a matter of property rights.  That said, most companies are run by executives that did not build the company and are not the primary owner of the company.  Nope, but they do operate as if they are. This is wrong, they work for the legal owners, in this case the shareholders.  The shareholders should have rights.  Esp. the right to set the executive pay structures.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



If they committed actual crimes, then why aren't the already in prison?  The fact is they have not broken any laws.  All they've done is piss off commies like you by retaining their jobs and incomes.

If destruction of people's lives was the standard, then every member of Congress should be in prison.  Congress is nothing more than an organized gang of criminals.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


The real question is why are you not locked up.  And the answer is that there is no place to put you.  Obviously you are nuts, but there is no law against that.  And no help available.  So, what can be said except you are clinically nuts.  Which is not your fault.  Just bad luck.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



They've committed massive financial fraud and numerous SEC violations. The DOJ has admitted they don't want to prosecute. Holder basically said they're above the law if you read between the lines. I find it ironic you would call me a commie for suggesting we prosecute criminals and criminal enterprises. 

Holder&#8217;s remarks on banks &#8216;too large&#8217; to prosecute reignites controversy


----------



## Toro (Aug 16, 2013)

Again, I don't know how you do it. To prove that the investment banks are inherently criminal enterprises is quite a stretch, especially when they have been fairly unsuccessful in their prosecutions thus far. FFS, they're going after SAC for failing to supervise properly. If that's all you can get that firm on, no way can you make a RICO charge stick against a Goldman.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 16, 2013)

Toro said:


> Again, I don't know how you do it. To prove that the investment banks are inherently criminal enterprises is quite a stretch, especially when they have been fairly unsuccessful in their prosecutions thus far. FFS, they're going after SAC for failing to supervise properly. If that's all you can get that firm on, no way can you make a RICO charge stick against a Goldman.



The FBI can use the same approach they used - and continue to use - against the Cosa Nostra. 

You use available evidence (securities fraud and money laundering), then you use surveillance and multiple investigations to build cases. You can assemble a RICO case, especially with the LIBOR scandal. By the way, some people at the FED and Treasury will obviously be implicated at some point in some capacity. I'd go with the immediate securities fraud and money laundering. You can then assemble cases for embezzlement, bribery, etc. There's so many players involved, so many SEC violations, it would take YEARS to sift through.

We're talking about making strong examples of people who glorify this type of behavior and commit financial crimes.


----------



## Toro (Aug 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I don't know how you do it. To prove that the investment banks are inherently criminal enterprises is quite a stretch, especially when they have been fairly unsuccessful in their prosecutions thus far. FFS, they're going after SAC for failing to supervise properly. If that's all you can get that firm on, no way can you make a RICO charge stick against a Goldman.
> ...



I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, you must prove that an organization is a criminal enterprise - meaning it is engaged in significant criminal activity and primarily lives off the avails of crime - and that individuals have committed multiple crimes. Again, not a lawyer, but the first step of proving that financial activity is primarily criminal activity seems like a really high bar.

Google FBI organized crime glossary.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 16, 2013)

Toro said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Same here, nor do I play one on television. 

In order to implement RICO, all the DOJ and state prosecutors would have to do is file charges that are connected to crimes which were committed within a ten year period, as long as a single act is a component of said criminal enterprise which occurred within the past five years.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Yup.  Got it.  The economy is getting worse.  We are in a depression.  Unemployment is not getting better, but rather it is getting worse.  GM is failing and will need to be bailed out again.  Got it.



The unemployment rate is lower and still decreasing. The unemployment situation is not getting any better, though. Labour Force participation is not growing, and record amount of people are still leaving the labour force. Aside from this, majority of the jobs created for this month are part-time. I don't see how this is an indicator of an economy which is synonymous with growth.

Perhaps, in your own words, if you can, maybe you would like to explain why you feel the economy is not experiencing a depression.

P.S: I thought you should also know that General Motors has recently recalled 239,000 Chervolet Cruze cars in the US due to brake defects. Considering that the company is 'supposedly' performing efficiently and better than it was during the restructuring process, this really isn't a good sign.

GM to recall nearly 300,000 Chevrolet Cruze cars - Aug. 16, 2013



> So you disagree with the economic world in general.  And they are all wrong.  And your little team of 0 (that would be ZERO) analysts and trained economists have it right, and organizations like the cbo are all wrong.



Yes, I understand what zero means. I don't know why you would assume the financial community all have the same views on everything. If this is what you believe, then perhaps you don't understand as much as you believe you do.



> Great.  So we have TWO OPTIONS:
> 1.  All of the above is true:
> OR
> 2.  You are simply a con tool posting dogma based on an agenda.
> ...



Figured it would be impossible for you to have a discussion without your bias getting the better of you and spouting baseless accusations. Next time, just start off all of your responses this way so I won't have to waste time and move on to other post on the forum.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 16, 2013)

So, Tania, good you believe unemployment is getting worse.  Rational folks know that is nonsense.  So why would anyone want to bother addressing it AGAIN?


Relative to this little gem of a statement:


> Perhaps, in your own words, if you can, maybe you would like to explain why you feel the economy is not experiencing a depression.


Maybe I just did not really want to make you look that stupid.  I dislike working with non feedback organisms.  And, apparently you did not read the piece from the economist that explains what a depression is. Because you do not know what it is, obviously. So, I am sure you will want to explain why we are in a depression. Now remember, me poor ignorant conservative, that a depression is a more serious downturn than a recession. And the latest recession ended in 2009. So, according to those that understand economics much better than you, we are not in as bad of shape as a recession requires. But go ahead. Oh, by the way those same economists say we never approached that level of downturn that a depression requires, EVER, except during the 1929 depression. But go ahead. You are at this point simply making a fool of yourself.  And it should be interesting watching you try to prove we are in the second depression of our experience in the last 100 years..

Quote:


> P.S: I thought you should also know that General Motors has recently recalled 239,000 Chervolet Cruze cars in the US due to brake defects. Considering that the company is 'supposedly' performing efficiently and better than it was during the restructuring process, this really isn't a good sign.


Yup They did. Always a problem, those recalls. So???
I have a toyota tundra. Just had to take it in for a recall. Should I worry that they are in trouble?? Really, you need to get a grip.  And yes, me dear.  Your agenda does indeed show.  I like truth, which is why I provide sources.  I do not provide unsupported opinion.  That is your thing.  Thing is, you are wasting everyone's time with BLATHER.  And I like most do not appreciate BLATHER.  Or, as I am more apt to say it, DOGMA.  Really tiring.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, Tania, good you believe unemployment is getting worse.  Rational folks know that is nonsense.  So why would anyone want to bother addressing it AGAIN?



Most rational people understand that an improved unemployment rate is not synonymous with an improved unemployment situation.




Labour force participation rate is the lowest it's been since 1980, and unemployment was much higher then than it is now. So why exactly is the unemployment situation getting better?


> Maybe I just did not really want to make you look that stupid.  I dislike working with non feedback organisms.



You couldn't make me look stupid on my worse day. That's no exaggeration.



> And, apparently you did not read the piece from the economist that explains what a depression is. Because you do not know what it is, obviously.



I didn't read it because I want you to explain it in your own words. If you supposedly know what you are talking about, but you can't bother to explain it in a concise manner, then how exactly are you so sure that you know what you are talking about?



> So, I am sure you will want to explain why we are in a depression. Now remember, me poor ignorant conservative, that a depression is a more serious downturn than a recession. And the latest recession ended in 2009. So, according to those that understand economics much better than you, we are not in as bad of shape as a recession requires. But go ahead. Oh, by the way those same economists say we never approached that level of downturn that a depression requires, EVER, except during the 1929 depression. But go ahead. You are at this point simply making a fool of yourself.  And it should be interesting watching you try to prove we are in the second depression of our experience in the last 100 years..



First of all, you're wrong about the definition of a depression. Many different economist define it in different ways. There is no universal agreement on what a depression is, because depressions are generally rare. Secondly, the only indicator which should that the recession ended is the GDP expansion in 2009. GDP is really not the only indicator for determining recessions. Third, many different economist disagree on the duration of a recession. I know I've probably said this already, but you really need to get this drilled in your head:



> A depression is a sustained and severe recession. Where a recession is a normal part of the business cycle, lasting for a period of months, a depression is an extreme fall in economic activity lasting for a number of years. *Economists disagree on the duration of depressions; some economists believe a depression encompasses only the period plagued by declining economic activity. Other economists, however, argue that the depression continues up until the point that most economic activity has returned to normal.*
> 
> Depression Definition | Investopedia



Fourth and foremost, you've already had plenty of economist professing and categorizing the current economic climate as a depression. You've even had two noble laureates who wrote a book about the current depression, and outlined how it should be handled. 

If you weren't so closed-minded, you'd probably be able to understand this better... 



> Yup They did. Always a problem, those recalls. So???
> I have a toyota tundra. Just had to take it in for a recall. Should I worry that they are in trouble?? Really, you need to get a grip.



You do realise that if people want to purchase these cars, they will not be able to, correct? Reports of accidents and malfunctions hurt their bottom line and discourages future business. It's reasons like these people take these things seriously, except for you. You don't seem to understand. You're not really expected to.



> And yes, me dear.  Your agenda does indeed show.



Then what is my agenda? Presenting the facts in a concise manner? Can't have that, can we...



> I like truth, which is why I provide sources.  I do not provide unsupported opinion.



Correction. You like the truth when it supports your world view. That's not the truth. That's called intellectually dishonesty. You've had plenty of chances to explain what the truth is, but somehow, you can never explain it in your own words. Which is why you need to refer the opinions of other people. 



> That is your thing.  Thing is, you are wasting everyone's time with BLATHER.  And I like most do not appreciate BLATHER.  Or, as I am more apt to say it, DOGMA.  Really tiring.



It's really not my fault you can't present a decent argument and have to resort to unsubstantiated rhetoric. If your time is being wasted, move along. You're not exactly convincing anyone you are knowledgeable, or credible.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 16, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, Tania, good you believe unemployment is getting worse.  Rational folks know that is nonsense.  So why would anyone want to bother addressing it AGAIN?
> ...


If you think that saying that we are in an economic depression is presenting a decent argument, great.  I think anyone with any economic understanding would find that amusing.  So, good for you.  We all need to be amused.
Saying that there are plenty of economists saying that we just went through a depression is another of the really interesting statements.  Lets see one.  I can not find him or her.  Find me a single impartial source.  You know, like an economist not owned by the far right.  Hell, even one of those is averse to making that accusation.  You are the first I have seen trying that idea out.  Good luck with that.

And you see, I have no problem with what we actually went through.  I know it was a recession.  If it had been a depression, no issue from my viewpoint, as long as it was truly that.  But only someone with an agenda would try to call the great 2008 recession a depression.  
Tania, you are not presenting facts in a concise way.  You are presenting what you want to present in a concise way.  I missed those economists who you say call the 2008 recession a depression.  For instance.  And I am not making you look like a fool.  You are doing that just fine.  Depression.  Jesus.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> If you think that saying that we are in an economic depression is presenting a decent argument, great.  I think anyone with any economic understanding would find that amusing.  So, good for you.  We all need to be amused.



I haven't just said it, I've shown it. But it's good that you also Keynes amusing. Wasn't the biggest fan of his writing


> _"In particular, it is an outstanding characteristic of the economic system in which we live that, *whilst it is subject to severe fluctuations in respect of output and employment, it is not violently unstable.  Indeed it seems capable of remaining in a chronic condition of sub-normal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or complete collapse."*
> 
> Keynes, John Maynard.  The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.  Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1964._



Sounds very much like what we are experiencing with the US economy today. The parallels are uncanny.



> Saying that there are plenty of economists saying that we just went through a depression is another of the really interesting statements.  Lets see one.  I can not find him or her.  Find me a single impartial source.  You know, like an economist not owned by the far right.  Hell, even one of those is averse to making that accusation.  You are the first I have seen trying that idea out.  Good luck with that.



End This Depression Now! - Paul Krugman - Google Books

You lose. Have fun.



> And you see, I have no problem with what we actually went through.  I know it was a recession.  If it had been a depression, no issue from my viewpoint, as long as it was truly that.  But only someone with an agenda would try to call the great 2008 recession a depression.



And only someone with an agenda actually believes the US isn't experiencing one. Such as basing the strength of the economy merely on the unemployment rate. Only someone with a bad education would make such an inane correlation, or probably someone who is teaching himself.



> Tania, you are not presenting facts in a concise way.  You are presenting what you want to present in a concise way.  I missed those economists who you say call the 2008 recession a depression.  For instance.



I am presenting what I want to present, which is relevant to the topic, which shows exactly what is going on. You can do so too if you wanted, provided that you actually understood the data. 



> And I am not making you look like a fool.  You are doing that just fine.  Depression.  Jesus.



And yet, here you are: ground zero with a piss poor excuse of an argument with nothing less of baseless conjure. You sure showed me...


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 16, 2013)

oldfart said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



The bonds themselves isn't the ponzi scheme. The manner of which the bonds are used is, in fact, the scheme. It's not just the method. It's the sentiment. Everyday, the government has obligations due, which is anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000,000 dollars. These types of bonds are maturing everyday. Many political pressure against increasing the debt ceiling or failure to borrow money means that the US government will default on a tiny 5 million dollar treasury. Which speaks volumes about a country which can't technically default. 

I don't really care if the US Government is running a ponzi scheme or not. However, if those who are actually incharge believe it, that's all I really need to know.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 16, 2013)

So, Tania, gloating, says:


> I haven't just said it, I've shown it. But it's good that you also Keynes amusing. Wasn't the biggest fan of his writing


No  you have not.  So far, you seem to not know what a depression is.
Then an attempt at Keynes:
Quote:
"In particular, it is an outstanding characteristic of the economic system in which we live that, whilst it is subject to severe fluctuations in respect of output and employment, it is not violently unstable. Indeed it seems capable of remaining in a chronic condition of sub-normal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or complete collapse."

Keynes, John Maynard. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1964.


> Sounds very much like what we are experiencing with the US economy today. The parallels are uncanny.


Uh, you are nuts.  He said nothing about the state of economics he was discussing being a depression.  Maybe a little honesty would help.

Then, really wanting to waste everyone's time, she tries krugman.  



> End This Depression Now! - Paul Krugman - Google Books
> 
> You lose. Have fun.



You know, instead of just googling for a word (depression in this case) you should actually see what is being said.  In that book, Krugman never tried to say the then current economic condition was a depression.  The title is tongue in cheek.  You should actually read it.  You may actually learn something.  Though I am not a big fan of the guy.  Funny,  there is that you loose crap again.  You really need to grow up.



> And yet, here you are: ground zero with a piss poor excuse of an argument with nothing less of baseless conjure. You sure showed me...


If it were 5 card stud, then I would have aces, me poor ignorant con.  But go ahead.  Call it a depression.  Not my concern if you want to be an idiot.  

By the way, still waiting for that economist who actually called the recession of 2008 a Depression.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> No  you have not.  So far, you seem to not know what a depression is.



If I refer to your definition, then you are probably right. Generally speaking, every economist has their opinion on what a depression is. You are free to go along with any assessment you choose, and I am free to do the same.



> Uh, you are nuts.  He said nothing about the state of economics he was discussing being a depression.  Maybe a little honesty would help.



Exactly. He wrote the book in 1935 and it was published in 1936. This economic era is known as the Great Depression. You should really get your eyes checked.

_"*In particular, it is an outstanding characteristic of the economic system in which we live that*, whilst it is subject to severe fluctuations in respect of output and employment, it is not violently unstable. *Indeed it seems capable of remaining in a chronic condition of sub-normal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or complete collapse."*_

That is today's US economy, in a nutshell.



> You know, instead of just googling for a word (depression in this case) you should actually see what is being said.  In that book, Krugman never tried to say the then current economic condition was a depression.  The title is tongue in cheek.  You should actually read it.  You may actually learn something.  Though I am not a big fan of the guy.



I have read it actually, and I own the physical copy of the book. I try to balance my economic library as much as I can possibly stand. And no, he isn't being tongue in check about it. He calls it 'A Lesser Depression.' You'd know this if you actually read the book, which you obviously did not. You are wrong, but that's a half decent spin you tried to put on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=0

You should really stop now. I'm running out of clever ways of making you look utterly clueless.



> Funny,  there is that you loose crap again.  You really need to grow up.



What else can I possibly say to someone really believes he is honest enough to admit his own mistakes? Regardless, you're the last person who should be telling anyone else to 'grow up' around here.



> If it were 5 card stud, then I would have aces, me poor ignorant con.  But go ahead.  Call it a depression.  Not my concern if you want to be an idiot.



Maybe if you were the dealer or hiding aces up your sleeve. I can't see any other way of you legitimately getting the better of me. But more Ad hominems, please. It almost conceals the fact that you are very ill-informed and very wrong.



> By the way, still waiting for that economist who actually called the recession of 2008 a Depression.



I've already shown it to you, twice. If you want to be in denial, that is your problem. So much for 'integrity' and admitting when you're wrong and all that jazz you spout on other threads. 'Jesus!'


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 16, 2013)

Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece.  Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
"In fact, policy makers seem determined to perpetuate what I&#8217;ve taken to calling the Lesser Depression, the prolonged era of high unemployment that began with the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and continues to this day, more than two years after the recession supposedly ended."

From YOUR reference.  dipshit.  Not a recession, but "what he has taken to calling "the lesser depression."  Nice try.

As for your quote from Keynes, he was describing a general condition of the capitalistic economy.  Business cycles and all that.  But not the then current depression.  And no, me girl, the condition at that time was nothing like today.  Sorry.

But the real problem with quoting Keynes is that you were looking for an economist who would say that we are currently in a depression.  That was, of course, your statement.  And, me girl, think about it for a bit.  Keynes is and has been dead for some time.  Now, it would be just a bit difficult for him to comment on today's economy.  Do you suppose that is why he did not??  
So, where is that economist that says we are in a depression, me girl.  You seem to be failing.  Keynes is dead, and could not have.  and Krugman did not say it.  Sorry.  But in your vernacular, you loose.  Though what it really means is that you are not able to get your dogma past me.  Sorry.  Anyone with a bit of economics knows that we are not in a depression.  That is just really too stupid.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 16, 2013)

Kimura said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Holder said he didn't want to prosecute banks.  He wasn't talking about individuals.  In fact, he even said it would be better to prosecute individuals.  If that's the case, then were are the indictments?  The fact is, he has no evidence to prosecute anyone with.  You keep talking about fraud and FEC violations, but where's the beef?  Who are the guilty parties?  What crimes did they commit?  You obviously can't name any or provide any specifics.  That's because there are none.

What's ironic about calling you a commie?  Every commie I've ever known thinks making a profit is a crime.  Why wouldn't they want to prosecute bankers?


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 16, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece.  Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
> "In fact, policy makers seem determined to perpetuate what I&#8217;ve taken to calling the Lesser Depression, the prolonged era of high unemployment that began with the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and continues to this day, more than two years after the recession supposedly ended."
> 
> From YOUR reference.  dipshit.  Not a recession, but "what he has taken to calling "the lesser depression."  Nice try.



He calls it a Lesser Depression. Regardless, Krugman already acknowledges that the US economy (in fact, the global economy) is experiencing a depression. You should have tried reading the next sentence which says, "Let&#8217;s talk for a moment about why our economies are (still) so depressed." You can interpret his words anyway you'd like, but his words are very clear.

As far as why he named it the way he did is really irrelevant. You asked for someone who believes the economy is depressed and you got one. You couldn't possibly believe that an economist would believe that the economy is experiencing a depression, much less an noble laureate. Now that you've seen one, you're trying desperately to move to goal post.



> As for your quote from Keynes, he was describing a general condition of the capitalistic economy.  Business cycles and all that.  But not the then current depression.  And no, me girl, the condition at that time was nothing like today.  Sorry.



If that is what you want to believe. I've read the book that paragraph is on page 249-250 and he is describing the conditions about the economy, more specifically, the Great Depression. It's on Chapter 18: The General Theory of Employment Re-Estated. If you haven't read the book, you really should before you start lying and making things up.



> But the real problem with quoting Keynes is that you were looking for an economist who would say that we are currently in a depression.  That was, of course, your statement.  And, me girl, think about it for a bit.  Keynes is and has been dead for some time.  Now, it would be just a bit difficult for him to comment on today's economy.  Do you suppose that is why he did not??



I wasn't using Keynes to show that we are in a depression. I used a quote to show how economist define a depression. They're all different, as the investopdia explanation suggest.



> So, where is that economist that says we are in a depression, me girl.  You seem to be failing.  Keynes is dead, and could not have.  and Krugman did not say it.  Sorry.  But in your vernacular, you loose.  Though what it really means is that you are not able to get your dogma past me.  Sorry.  Anyone with a bit of economics knows that we are not in a depression.  That is just really too stupid.



You spelled 'lose' incorrectly, so you are using my vernacular wrong. You can ignore all you'd like that an economist referred to this economic downturn as a depression, because it reveals that you don't know as much as you think. The fact is, Krugman calls this downturn as a depression. As far as Krugman is concerned, as late as April 5th, 2013, the Depression hasn't ended.

Depression, Not Ended

So, a third example of your ignorance and your denial is inherent. I don't know how many different ways I can prove you wrong, but there really is no point in going on with you any further. You're just too intellectually dishonest and you are moving the goal post too many times. Don't waste your time responding to me, but if you are going to respond anyway, out of pity of your intellectual deficiencies you can still have the last word. Otherwise, we're done here.

Goodnight.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 17, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece.  Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
> ...


So tania says:


> He calls it a Lesser Depression. Regardless, Krugman already acknowledges that the US economy (in fact, the global economy) is experiencing a depression. You should have tried reading the next sentence which says, "Let&#8217;s talk for a moment about why our economies are (still) so depressed." You can interpret his words anyway you'd like, but his words are very clear.
> 
> As far as why he named it the way he did is really irrelevant. You asked for someone who believes the economy is depressed and you got one. You couldn't possibly believe that an economist would believe that the economy is experiencing a depression, much less an noble laureate. Now that you've seen one, you're trying desperately to move to goal post.



A short economics lesson, me girl.  A depressed economy does not mean that we are in a depression.  Just for your knowledge.  
And we are not now.  And we have not been except in the great depression, me girl.   No other ime in the past century.  Sorry about that.  Trying to make a depression because an economist names something a Lesser Depression.  There is no such thing, me girl, as a lesser depression.  
Sorry about that also.  

You spelled 'lose' incorrectly, so you are using my vernacular wrong. You can ignore all you'd like that an economist referred to this economic downturn as a depression, because it reveals that you don't know as much as you think. The fact is, Krugman calls this downturn as a depression. As far as Krugman is concerned, as late as April 5th, 2013, the Depression hasn't ended.

So, you call the Keynesian quote from 1936 when the ue rate was 16% proof that we are in a depression???  But he was not talking about todays economy, because he has been dead for a long, long time.  But the economy was just like today, when the ue rate is half of then???  
Then you try to use the Krugman quote of a lesser depression as proof we are in a depression???  Really.  And you now count that as three economists saying we are now in a depression.

Here is the problem.  As anyone reading this knows, you have found no economists who believe we are in a depression.  Sorry.  But I am happy to see you are done here.  Because you are getting to be way too much of a joke.


----------



## Graphix (Aug 17, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece.  Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
> ...



LMAO!! Epic ending to an already dominating debate. 

'Goodnight' lol.


----------



## Graphix (Aug 17, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece.  Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
> "In fact, policy makers seem determined to perpetuate what Ive taken to calling the Lesser Depression, the prolonged era of high unemployment that began with the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and continues to this day, more than two years after the recession supposedly ended."
> 
> From YOUR reference.  dipshit.  Not a recession, but "what he has taken to calling "the lesser depression."  Nice try.
> ...


----------



## Kimura (Aug 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Making a profit isn't crime, but profiting through breaking the law is a crime. 

They have plenty of evidence. Jaime Dimon basically admitted to fraud while testifying before Congress. They won't go after any these CEOs, whether for obvious securities fraud, money laundering, or LIBOR rigging. Most the convictions have been for smaller actors way down on the totem pole.

Here:

Money-Laundering Banks Still Get a Pass From U.S.


----------



## Toro (Aug 17, 2013)

BTW Amazon, I covered my silver long.


----------



## Toro (Aug 17, 2013)

Kimura said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



They won't go after the CEOs because it's extremely difficult to prove culpability.  The SEC has been going after SAC for years, and the only thing they've charged Cohen with is failing to supervise properly.  Seriously, that's it?  If that's all you can get Cohen with, how are you going to nail Jamie Dimon?


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 17, 2013)

Toro said:


> BTW Amazon, I covered my silver long.



Wise choice. Big moves up in Gold, and ever bigger moves in silver. XAU index up 5% from Thursday and HUI index up 9% from Wednesday. And Gold stocks are up while the market is down and corporate earnings were down. Although, it was a pretty bad week for all financial markets, except for the precious metals market. I think this is going to signal more buying.

Bonds were down, the dollar was down and the stock market was down. Gold & Silver FTW!


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 17, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Fair enough. I just thought his statement made no sense at face value.



It's not the fact that it doesn't make sense. It's just funny to hear people say how Bernie Madoff has no credibility about a fraud which made him so notorious.  



> You have them in UK! Let me guess, a friend had a &#8220;great opportunity&#8221; to share with you.



I actually run into them in NY. They've said they've 'expanded' in the UK and they call it a global company. I was curious and decided to look at their business plan. Sounds really ridiculous. They're simply buying their own products to meet a quota. This one person I've met has a security system he doesn't need, but it helps him reach a quota. 

I couldn't say no fast enough.



> I meant the playing field, the pitch, we&#8217;re footballers make the magic happen. The referee being tantamount to a scorekeeper.



Oh... 



> Well&#8230;.it&#8217;s fairly simple. Historically, we know what works. Investments in infrastructure, transportation, education, health care, R&D, nuclear power, alternative energy, etc.
> I&#8217;m a proponent of the Job Guarantee to reach - or come as close as possible &#8211; to reaching full employment. We already have this idle capacity in the form of people on unemployment, etc.



We don't really need the government investing in most of those. Sure infrastructure and transportation are nice once you've completed the project and you're more productive as a nation. Productivity is really not the problem. Well, it is, but only because the country is so productive at inefficient task. You should be building more factories, not roads.



> I deal with people at the ratings agencies all the time. I&#8217;ve had conversations with them on the phone and at conferences in the past. These are the same people that told us these mortgage-backed securities were AAA.



Do you also deal with Moody's and Fitch? I don't see why these NRSRO have credibility where S&P does not.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 17, 2013)

Toro said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It is, I totally agree. Wasn't the federal government trying to use RICO against SAC?


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 17, 2013)

Graphix said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece.  Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
> ...



Well, good to know some random newbies have gotten a full grasp of exactly what Rshermr does around here: Challenges another to prove something, then when proven wrong moves the goalpost and prays everyone else is to stupid to figure how what he has done.


----------



## Toro (Aug 17, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



I don't know.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 17, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Graphix said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Sorry, me girl  I moved no goal post.  You were wrong from the beginning.  You were wrong in the center.  And you were wrong in the end.  Still waiting for you to find a single economist that says we are in a depression.


----------



## Graphix (Aug 18, 2013)

The Third Depression

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 27, 2010

Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as depressions at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.

Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline  on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.

*We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression.* It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=0


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 18, 2013)

Thanks for being so thoughtful and wasting your time so I don't have to, but you really aren't getting anywhere. Rshermr can wait all he wants, either for a Revelation to emerge or to be struck with the painfully obvious, but the only worse than a fool is the person still willing to talk reason with the fool. But for your sake, don't try too hard. Debates with this person are usually like this:

Debating Rsherme In Under 5 Minutes:​
_Note: All quotes are gathered from their original sources and are snipped for purposes of length only. Highlighted bold and red parts indicated for irony._



Rshermr said:


> Being the economic expert that you are, and having a large staff of economists working for you, I should probably listen to the drivel.  But of course, there is just you, and a few bat shit crazy con sources that you would quote.  _*Or, I could listen to hundreds of economists who have actually been studying the subject.  I think the choice is obvious.*_





Rshermr said:


> But you do so with AGENDA, as do those agenda driven web sites.  Which makes your posts of NO value.  *And which is why people with integrity bring forward articles from sites not agenda driven.  And why economists opinions matter.  And why my opinion, and yours, do not.*





AmazonTania said:


> Perhaps, in your own words, if you can, maybe you would like to explain why you feel the economy is not experiencing a depression.





Rshermr said:


> Now remember, me poor ignorant conservative, that a depression is a more serious downturn than a recession. And the latest recession ended in 2009. So, according to those that understand economics much better than you, we are not in as bad of shape as a recession requires. But go ahead. *Oh, by the way those same economists say we never approached that level of downturn that a depression requires, EVER, except during the 1929 depression.* But go ahead. You are at this point simply making a fool of yourself.  And it should be interesting watching you try to prove we are in the second depression of our experience in the last 100 years..





AmazonTania said:


> You've already had plenty of economist professing and categorizing the current economic climate as a depression. You've even had two noble laureates who wrote a book about the current depression, and outlined how it should be handled.
> 
> If you weren't so closed-minded, you'd probably be able to understand this better...





Rshermr said:


> Saying that there are plenty of economists saying that we just went through a depression is another of the really interesting statements.  Lets see one.  I can not find him or her.  *Find me a single impartial source.  You know, like an economist not owned by the far right.  Hell, even one of those is averse to making that accusation.*  You are the first I have seen trying that idea out.  Good luck with that.





AmazonTania said:


> End This Depression Now! - Paul Krugman - Google Books
> 
> You lose. Have fun.





Rshermr said:


> In that book, Krugman never tried to say the then current economic condition was a depression.  The title is tongue in cheek.  You should actually read it.  You may actually learn something.





			
				Noble Economist Paul Krugman said:
			
		

> Paul Krugman: The Lesser Depression.
> 
> Paul Krugman: The Third Depression
> 
> *Paul Krugman: We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression*





Rshermr said:


> *We are not now.  And we have not been except in the great depression, me girl.*   No other ime in the past century.  Sorry about that.  Trying to make a depression because an economist names something a Lesser Depression.  *There is no such thing, me girl, as a lesser depression.*





Rshermr said:


> *Still waiting for you to find a single economist that says we are in a depression.*



Yeah, dealing with such an ignorant chronic case of self aware really takes it's toll. I especially love how one can explain to you how economist opinions matter, except for when they don't... LMAO.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 18, 2013)

So, though Tania can not find a single economist who says we are in a depression, she thought she had three.  But then she gave up on one, because I suppose not enough people believed in seances.  That would be, of course, JM Keynes.  He never said we were in a depression today, probably because he had been dead a long, long time.  Then, there is Krugman, who she normally does not like, but funny enough he used the word depression and THAT WAS ENOUGH.  Oh, except he was calling the situation with high ue a "lesser depression".  Not a depression.  Totally different things.  So, what is tania to do.  Those two are just not passing the giggle test.  
Why, another person posts a place where krugman said something about depression.  So, what did he say.  He said he *FEAERED* that me may be in the beginning stages of a third depression.  
Now, Krugman, who likes to make a point, was careful.  He did not say we were IN a depression.  Just that he *FEARED* we might be in a start of one.  So, that meant he feared raising ue, and decreasing gdp.  
Now, did Tania mention that that quote from Krugman was from over 3 years ago??  In the worst of the great recession???  Why, NO, she forgot to mention that.  So, we should look.  Has gdp decreased????  Why NO!!  IT HAS NOT!!!  Has the unemployment rate gone up????  Why NO!!  IT HAS NOT!!!  Why, tania forgot to mention that the unemployment rate has gone DOWN from a very nasty 9.5% to under 7.4%.  And GDP has gone to RECORD HIGHS.   

But still, Tania is bound and determined to prove we are in a depression.  Sad display of ignorance on her part.  But it seems to be important for her to prove that she is the smart one, and all of those stupid economists are just wrong.  But, the comedy is good.


----------



## Graphix (Aug 18, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> He said he *FEAERED* that me may be in the beginning stages of a third depression.
> Now, Krugman, who likes to make a point, was careful.  He did not say we were IN a depression.  Just that he *FEARED* we might be in a start of one.



You're reading is very bad, dude. He didn't say might or may. He said 'we are not 'I fear' in. You're clearly making things up lmao. 

*We are now, I fear, in* the early stages of a third depression



> Now, did Tania mention that that quote from Krugman was from over 3 years ago??  In the worst of the great recession???  Why, NO, she forgot to mention that.  So, we should look.  Has gdp decreased????  Why NO!!  IT HAS NOT!!!  Has the unemployment rate gone up????  Why NO!!  IT HAS NOT!!!  Why, tania forgot to mention that the unemployment rate has gone DOWN from a very nasty 9.5% to under 7.4%.  And GDP has gone to RECORD HIGHS.



Krugman explains that already, LMAO!

Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline  on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.




> But still, Tania is bound and determined to prove we are in a depression.  Sad display of ignorance on her part.  But it seems to be important for her to prove that she is the smart one, and all of those stupid economists are just wrong.  But, the comedy is good.



You should give it up already. You're embarrassing  yourself. For your own sake. Lmao!


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 18, 2013)

No, I encourage him to keep going. If you give someone enough rope, they'll eventually hang themselves. My most favourite part of post was this:



Rshermr said:


> Now, did Tania mention that that quote from Krugman was from over 3 years ago??  In the worst of the great recession???  Why, NO, she forgot to mention that.  So, we should look.  Has gdp decreased????  Why NO!!  IT HAS NOT!!!  Has the unemployment rate gone up????  Why NO!!  IT HAS NOT!!!  Why, tania forgot to mention that the unemployment rate has gone DOWN from a very nasty 9.5% to under 7.4%.  And GDP has gone to RECORD HIGHS.
> 
> But still, Tania is bound and determined to prove we are in a depression.



So apparently you're not in a depression if GDP increases or if unemployment falls. Don't think I've ever heard anything so stupid from anyone before about this particular subject. Obviously we are dealing with someone who flunked Econ 101. 

Because, you know, of course there was no Great Depression, because GDP grew:




And unemployment fell:




And within the first four years, GDP has gone to RECORD HIGHS:




So yes, I'm not kidding you, by Rshmer's own definition of what a depression entails, the Great Depression did not happen.

Someone needs to give Rshmrer a noble prize in economist. Of all the increasingly amount of inept individuals who have won this award every year, he truly deserves it. Or if this is not possible, someone should at least give him his own thread in the Flame Zone section of the board where everyone can record his economic illiteracy. Because it seems every week Rshmrer is revealing to himself how little he really knows.


----------



## Graphix (Aug 18, 2013)

eshermr knows more about economics than noble prize economist Krugman lmao!


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 19, 2013)

So, Amazon getting really desperate, says the following:


> So apparently you're not in a depression if GDP increases or if unemployment falls. Don't think I've ever heard anything so stupid from anyone before about this particular subject. Obviously we are dealing with someone who flunked Econ 101.



Well, but then, yes,it was a pretty stupid statement by you.  Because, me dear, I did not say any such thing.  Now this is tough for a con tool to follow, but here goes.  I am going to try to get  you to understand what I said.  Though it was pretty clear:

If at one point in the down economy, unemployment is say 9.5% and you are not in a depression, and it then goes, over a two or three year period, to 7.4%, then (now pay attention, because I know you are trying to ignore this) then the UE rate is BETTER.  And if the first ue rate had indicated no depression was underway, then we were certainly not in depression at that later date when the ue rate had dropped.  And dropped a goodly amount.
And, if  gdp is down a fair amount, but no one is calling it a depression, then it could not be a depression when gdp has increased during that time, and increased to record levels.

"When Roosevelt took office in 1933, real GDP was more than 30% below its normal trend level. (For comparison, the U.S. economy is currently estimated to be between 5 and 10% below 
trend.)"
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2009/3/09 lessons/0309_lessons_romer

You see, me dishonest con tool, it is indeed possible to have a ue rate that goes from 3 to 25%, and a downturn in gnp that drops by over  30% of it.s trend line, and then have both of those indicators improve and still be in a depression.  As it did during the great depression.  

So, try as you can to change the subject, it is still the case that you can find not even a single economist who believes we are in a depression.  So, apparently you have given that up, and are trying to misquote what I have said.  Tacky, me poor con tool.  Shows a complete lack of integrity.
You are getting really boreing.  Trying to prove we are currently in a depression is stupid, me dear.  Makes  you look like a tool.  And a fool.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, Amazon getting really desperate, says the following:
> 
> 
> > So apparently you're not in a depression if GDP increases or if unemployment falls. Don't think I've ever heard anything so stupid from anyone before about this particular subject. Obviously we are dealing with someone who flunked Econ 101.
> ...



And coming from one of the great tools on this board...that's saying something!!!

STILL pretending to know something about economics, Tommy?  You never cease to amuse!


----------



## Graphix (Aug 19, 2013)

now he's making his own rules about what a depression is. thinks you're only in a depression if GDP goes down and unemployment goes up! ROFLMAO! NOBLE PRIZE ECONOMIST EHSRMER!!!


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 19, 2013)

Graphix said:


> now he's making his own rules about what a depression is. thinks you're only in a depression if GDP goes down and unemployment goes up! ROFLMAO! NOBLE PRIZE ECONOMIST EHSRMER!!!


Ah.  I wondered whom Tania had for research assistants.  A genuine congenital idiot incapable of truth.  OF COURSE!!!


----------



## Graphix (Aug 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Graphix said:
> 
> 
> > now he's making his own rules about what a depression is. thinks you're only in a depression if GDP goes down and unemployment goes up! ROFLMAO! NOBLE PRIZE ECONOMIST EHSRMER!!!
> ...



 pot calling kettle lmao at least I know when I'm wrong  you just keep going and going thanks for the laughs. I thought this forum was going to be boring. 

_The best way to think about this continued slump, I&#8217;d argue, is to *accept that we&#8217;re in a depression &#8230;.* It&#8217;s nonetheless essentially the same kind of situation that John Maynard Keynes described in the 1930s: "a chronic condition of subnormal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or towards complete collapse."

Paul Krugman End This Depression Now!_

http://digamo.free.fr/krugman12.pdf

here is a free copy of the book dude. you could really use it. LMAO TOO FUNNY


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 19, 2013)

Graphix said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Graphix said:
> ...


But that is what con tools do, me poor ignorant con.  They believe what they want to believe.  Good for you.  It is SOOO much easier than actually learning anything.  And you can therefor tell anyone the truth about whether ignorance is bliss.  Cause, jesus, are you ignorant.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, Amazon getting really desperate, says the following:
> 
> 
> > So apparently you're not in a depression if GDP increases or if unemployment falls. Don't think I've ever heard anything so stupid from anyone before about this particular subject. Obviously we are dealing with someone who flunked Econ 101.
> ...



I think this particular argument has more than run its course.  There is no firm definition of "depression" in economics.  Economic historians generally accept the NBER definition of recessions and their judgment in declaring them.  Depressions are usually measured by tracking from the quarter where real GDP begins to fall to the quarter where real GDP surpasses the original quarter GDP figure ("peak and trough" calculations).  A better measure might be to calculate the depression as continuing until there are two or more quarters where the growth rate of real GDP reaches the long-term trend level for growth (note that this will still be lower that GDP would have been had there been no depression).  

According to the NBER, the current downturn began in late 2007 and persisted until the end of 2009.  By the "peak & trough" method, the current downturn began in late 2007 and reached pre-recession real GDP in the second quarter of 2011.  By the "trend line" method, growth is still under 2% and we have a way to go before we are back on the long-term trend line.  

We have only two benchmark periods to compare this to, the Great Depression of the Thirties and the Long Depression of the 1870-80's.  Both lasted ten years or longer.  

So can we lay to rest the issue of who called the current economic downtrend a depression, and when, and what they meant by that?  Then we could spend more time on the good stuff, like getting out of it.


----------



## Graphix (Aug 19, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Graphix said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



 I ain't a con not that I know what one is lmao. and yeah, I should be learning from you! you know more than all our noble prize economist 

you're so awesome eshermr!


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 19, 2013)

As you spend your time here (if you dwell in the economy section) you will become more familiar with how Rshermr thinks:


Anyone who disagrees with him is either a con, a tool or usually a combination of the two (con tool).
Anyone which does not align with his view of the world has an agenda.

Because he knows what is in everyone's hearts and what they believe. It's the gift he has... Also, you will probably learn that he isn't the most honest or consistent person to talk with, despite his claims on how everyone else is dishonest:



Rshermr said:


> _*In that book, Krugman never tried to say the then current economic condition was a depression.*_  The title is tongue in cheek.  You should actually read it.  You may actually learn something.





			
				Paul Krugman said:
			
		

> _*The best way to think about this continued slump, I&#8217;d argue, is to accept the fact that we&#8217;re in a depression.*_ No, it&#8217;s not the Great Depression, at least not for most of us (but talk to the Greeks, the Irish, or even the Spaniards, who have 23 percent unemployment&#8212;and almost 50 percent unemployment among the young). But it&#8217;s nonetheless essentially the same kind of situation that John Maynard Keynes described in the 1930s: &#8220;a chronic condition of subnormal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or towards complete collapse.&#8221;
> 
> Paul Krugman: End This Depression Now! Page 4



Good find on the book, BTW. I knew it had to have been leaked on the internet somewhere.

Why exactly does it matter if Krugman says we are in a depression? It really doesn't. I tried to make the case that the US is experiencing a depression, the effects are similar to the depression and there are many economist which supports this position. Apparently, it's impossible for any economist to disagree with Rshermr. He's just that closed-minded.

So what exactly have we've learned from our USMB economist thus far:


Depressions apparently only last 2 years. Only the parts where there is significant decline is only classified as a depression.
If GDP increases and unemployment decreases, you're not in a depression.
Krugman never said the United States was experiencing a depression.
Krugman never wrote a book stating the current economy condition was a depression. The title was apparently, 'tongue in cheek.'
The opinions of economist matter, except for when these economist tell you that you are wrong. Then all of a sudden the opinions of economist do not matter.
Krugman doesn't know what he is talking about when he classifies this economic climate as a 'Lesser Depression.' There is no such thing as a 'Lesser Depression.'
A Lesser Depression is not the same thing as a Depression, despite the fact that they're both classified as depressions.

Now that we all understand that we are in a depression, it would be better if everyone came up with solutions which would help get us out of it. Or we can continue to let the original poster turn this thread into an even bigger joke. Either one is fine with me.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 19, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, Amazon getting really desperate, says the following:
> ...


I am all for it.  But I believe trying to call our current condition a depression simply does not pass the giggle test.  
But that is the concern, no doubt.  That we take a look at where we are and determine what needs to happen to get back to a good economic state.  So, what would you suggest.  It would appear to me, from looking at other periods of high unemployment, that we still could look toward infrastucture as the potential stimulus target.  Because, from what I have seen, our issue is trying to jump create jobs in an economy that still lacks demand due to unemployment levels.  And more particularly, in terms of good jobs.  
I tried to start a string about the particular problems that I think that we have at this point in the evolution of our economy, which is how do you regain a situation where the economy is good for the middle class when so many of those jobs are outsourced, and mechanization has taken many of the better paying jobs away.  The string went over like a fart in church, directly into a food fight about who deserved the spoils of increased productivity. 
Thoughts???


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 21, 2013)

What is the effect of austerity on the larger countries where it has been implemented in Europe?  Here is the latest numbers I have been able to find:
In the UK, a decrease in GDP of 3% since 2009.
file:///C:/Users/Rick/Desktop/taylor%20fig1%2019%20jul.png
Austerity has cost the UK £3,500 for every household


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 21, 2013)

What is the effect of austerity on the larger countries where it has been implemented in Europe?  Here is the latest numbers I have been able to find:
In the UK, a decrease in GDP of 3% since 2009.

Austerity has cost the UK £3,500 for every household


----------



## oldfart (Aug 21, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > I think this particular argument has more than run its course....So can we lay to rest the issue of who called the current economic downtrend a depression, and when, and what they meant by that?  Then we could spend more time on the good stuff, like getting out of it.
> ...



My post was an attempt to move on to something that would progress rather than simply repeat itself.  You are correct in that attempts to do so often get sidetracked pretty quickly, we both have threads that start OK and by the tenth post are shot to hell.  Amazontania usually makes some good points and has had the same thing happen to her.  

Sometimes the only way to move on is to move on.  In that spirit I note a recent paper by Antonio Fatás and Ilian Mihov  dated August 14 that revisits business cycle theory.  (See, somehow I have managed to remain on topic!)  

Here:  Recoveries: The missing third phase of the business cycle | vox

Basically they use NBER dating for peak and trough dates by quarter for downturns since 1948 and a new measure which I don't fully understand (you have to pay to get the actual paper, and I'm cheap, so I can't look at the methodological notes) to date a quarter of "recovery" where GDP rejoins a long-term trend line.  

In five recessions beginning in 1948 through 1969 the recovery lasted 3 to 5 quarters beyond the official end of the recession by NBER definitions.  Since then three recessions ('73, '81, and '90) had recoveries lasting 5 or 6 quarters, two ('80 & '01) did not achieve a recovery before the next recession hit, and the current one is 16 quarters and counting.  [Table 1]  Clearly the nature of recessions and especially of recoveries changed about 1980.  

So check them out and let me know what you think of the idea of concentrating on the recoveries rather than the recessions!


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 21, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...


I looked at the paper, and actually found it interesting.  But obviously there was no intent to explain the reasons why.  I have made my thoughts known, and am hardly bashful about doing so again.  But I would very much be interested in your thoughts.
In general, I think that the most important issue that I can see relative to the 2007 recession is that it was quite deep and that it did not get sufficient support from gov programs to bring the economy back, in terms of employment particularly.  It may be simplistic in nature, but I believe that the fact that the stimulus was not large enough particularly because such a large portion of the stimulus was tax cuts.  And in particular, as the cbo has supported, the tax cuts for the wealthier taxpayers had very little if any effect.  What was needed was stimulus in terms of spending on those areas with the best multipliers.  And with the best opportunity for long term economic and social benefit.
Having said that, I am concerned with the lack of interest in spending for hiring by business in general.  That is, in relation to past recession recoveries.  So, there you go.  My questions are why no more push for infrastructure stimulus and why the lack of hiring in relation to gains in gnp.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Aug 22, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Now, did Tania mention that that quote from Krugman was from over 3 years ago??  In the worst of the great recession???  Why, NO, she forgot to mention that.  So, we should look.  Has gdp decreased????  Why NO!!  IT HAS NOT!!!  Has the unemployment rate gone up????  Why NO!!  IT HAS NOT!!!  Why, tania forgot to mention that the unemployment rate has gone DOWN from a very nasty 9.5% to under 7.4%.  And GDP has gone to RECORD HIGHS.
> 
> But still, Tania is bound and determined to prove we are in a depression.



You're a cherry picking hack, Rshermr and it would surprise me at all to learn that you have some sort of vested interest in spreading your propaganda.

The US unemployment rate is a govt. scam (much like the rest of what the govt. does). The reality is that 1 in 5 of able bodied Americans who want to work are not working. 1 in 3 are not working or are underemployed. The system has only increased to a system of elite haves and have nots over the last 100 years as politicians regulate people out of business and throw their pittance to the poor.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 22, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Now, did Tania mention that that quote from Krugman was from over 3 years ago??  In the worst of the great recession???  Why, NO, she forgot to mention that.  So, we should look.  Has gdp decreased????  Why NO!!  IT HAS NOT!!!  Has the unemployment rate gone up????  Why NO!!  IT HAS NOT!!!  Why, tania forgot to mention that the unemployment rate has gone DOWN from a very nasty 9.5% to under 7.4%.  And GDP has gone to RECORD HIGHS.
> ...


OK.  Good.  we have the alternative reality posted bare and without proof.  got it.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 22, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > In that spirit I note a recent paper by Antonio Fatás and Ilian Mihov  dated August 14 that revisits business cycle theory.  (See, somehow I have managed to remain on topic!)
> ...



First what struck me as interesting is the focus on recovery.  The economic press and punditocracy tend to report the NBER dates and when the recession is over, everything has been hunky-dory.  That was generally true 1948--1980 when recoveries lasted 4 quarters and were so regular no one took notice of them.  Something happened circa 1980 and is getting worse, recoveries are taking longer, often fail to achieve the trend line before the next, and (although the paper does not address this) have less and less to do with recovery of employment.  So today we have a full recovery of the financial sector, large businesses are doing fine, and everything else is still mired in a de facto long recession.  

My second thought is the degree to which this is OK for many people.  I have always been a bit skeptical of the "social compact" line of reasoning (and maybe I need to start a thread on that!) because it is an ex-post facto concept (we agreed to what we agreed  to, but not necessarily for how long).  You can't really apply contract law to it, it's hard to see what the enforcement mechanism is, and it rarely includes everyone in the society.  It does, however, make a pretty fertile ground for game theory!  

So progressives argue that we have had a social compact that government will do certain things for the economic stability of the whole economy, including anti-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy, "automatic stabilizers" like unemployment benefits, and that this will result in everyone having an economic recovery on basically parallel paths, with a few lags.  It isn't working out that way, so progressives blame the failure of recovery on  simple inadequate stimulus and reform measures.  Conservatives blame the failure on the very policies progressives want to expand, arguing for more downwardly flexible wages and prices, less regulation, curtailment of anti-cyclical and entitlement programs, and so forth.  We can and are having the argument as to which view is correct, but my point is that both sides feel that the "social compact"  is in dire need of renegotiation.  

Personally, my over-arching theme in political economy is that political and social stability rest on an expected level of economic success over a broad swath of society, that left to its own devices our political and economic system tend to concentration of power which is the overwhelmingly predominant cause of systemic economic failure, and that therefore a continuous public policy to combat that concentration and its effects are necessary to avoid eventual catastrophic results.  This is essentially in political terms the Fabian position of a century ago.  

This position is adhered to by most "liberals" in the United States and a good number of conservatives, but it is rarely explicitly stated, because American political discourse has treated anything that can be attacked as "socialist" as sufficiently vulnerable as to be indefensible politically.  But these concepts owe very little to socialism in general and Marxism in particular.  They are firmly rooted in the American Progressive Movement of 1890--1920 (Bullmoose Party and all!) and of all things, Otto von Bismark.  Most of the developed world takes these positions for granted and regard America as being subject to some form of collective delusional state or genetic defect that prevents Americans from seeing the obvious.  Again off-topic, I think this is related to the vast gap between what Americans think the rest of the world thinks about America and what they really think.  There's a nagging doubt everywhere that unsophisticated, childish, and brutal Americans are going to send the death drones whenever they get frustrated.  And the "We-are-saving-the world-defending-freedom" and "see-how-generous-we-are!" schtick doesn't help either.  [/rant]

Back on topic, the stimulus was inadequate for several reasons.  First, Larry Summers acquiesed in Peterson's & Bernanke's plan to bail out the financial industry and leave everyone else holding the bag.  When it came time for stimulus all he could do was dump on Christine Romer, whose only fault was in being right.  Notice deja vu all over again, just replace Romer with Janet Yellen.  It's a failure of political guts and a bad job of economic analysis, which is Summers forte when he's not being a misogynist.  The guy is a slimeball, and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.  But it is now apparent that he was doing what Obama wanted him to do.  Obama had the same kind of opportunity FDR had and could have surrounded himself with almost any economic team he wanted.  He chose Clinton era recycles with Goldman Sachs ties.  Forget the rhetoric, he had bought into the Wall Street mantra, confidence fairies and all, from the get-go.  He just had no idea how big an error that was.  And he is still doing the same.  

You hit the nail on the head with the comment that too much of the original stimulus was tax cuts.  The "cash-for-clunkers" was also a generally bad idea.  Not bearing down on the banks to lend more to business was a disastrous policy.  If the government was indeed income-constrained in the stimulus, wasting it on political compromises was a recipe for failure-on-the-installment-plan.  

We have learned a lot from this experience and economic historians are rewriting the history of the Great Depression based on what we have learned.  It's going to be an exciting time in economic history for the next decade.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 22, 2013)

Oldfart says:


> Personally, my over-arching theme in political economy is that political and social stability rest on an expected level of economic success over a broad swath of society, that left to its own devices our political and economic system tend to concentration of power which is the overwhelmingly predominant cause of systemic economic failure, and that therefore a continuous public policy to combat that concentration and its effects are necessary to avoid eventual catastrophic results. This is essentially in political terms the Fabian position of a century ago.


THANK YOU.  You just crystallized and shortened a whole lot of thoughts that I have been placing in various posts.  What I see as the problem of money and power in politics provided by those who want favors from the politicians that they pay.  This push by a segment of those with money is relentless, and has been able to find a variety of ways to make things work in their own best interests often entirely paid for by those other than themselves.   
But what is most interesting is that those in control of this effort have been able to convince the very people that they hurt to support what they do.  And on this board we see it show up often.  With absolutely no doubt in their mind that what they believe is true by definition.  



> This position is adhered to by most "liberals" in the United States and a good number of conservatives, but it is rarely explicitly stated, because American political discourse has treated anything that can be attacked as "socialist" as sufficiently vulnerable as to be indefensible politically. But these concepts owe very little to socialism in general and Marxism in particular. They are firmly rooted in the American Progressive Movement of 1890--1920 (Bullmoose Party and all!) and of all things, Otto von Bismark. Most of the developed world takes these positions for granted and regard America as being subject to some form of collective delusional state or genetic defect that prevents Americans from seeing the obvious. Again off-topic, I think this is related to the vast gap between what Americans think the rest of the world thinks about America and what they really think. There's a nagging doubt everywhere that unsophisticated, childish, and brutal Americans are going to send the death drones whenever they get frustrated. And the "We-are-saving-the world-defending-freedom" and "see-how-generous-we-are!" schtick doesn't help either.



What I ran into during the years that I both traveled internationally a good deal, and worked with people from other nations, was how surprised they were that we could really be so ignorant as not to see what the rest of the industrialized world new to be true.  And that we could have the sort of John Wayne western outlook on the world that did not allow us to see the truth clearly.  The citizens United decision, in particular, was a source of amazement to those from other countries.



> You hit the nail on the head with the comment that too much of the original stimulus was tax cuts. The "cash-for-clunkers" was also a generally bad idea. Not bearing down on the banks to lend more to business was a disastrous policy. If the government was indeed income-constrained in the stimulus, wasting it on political compromises was a recipe for failure-on-the-installment-plan.



Well, it is an obvious enough thing.  I agree that Obama, as well as Clinton, seemed obviously enough to have been owned by the financial industry.  And largely by big business in general.  But the correct measures to take in terms of stimulus spending are, in my mind, OBVIOUS.  Yet we can not get sufficient support for them to see it happen.  And that is a political problem, a case of too many politicians owned by those that prefer getting rich themselves to any real concern about the economy in general and the middle class in particular.



> We have learned a lot from this experience and economic historians are rewriting the history of the Great Depression based on what we have learned. It's going to be an exciting time in economic history for the next decade.



Exciting is great.  Learning is a good, good thing.  Getting it right would be PERFECT.  However, those who want to run this gov by buying politicians, the courts, and the electorate concern me.  I hope that those who prefer truth based on fact rather than "truth" based on agenda win out.


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 22, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Oldfart says:
> 
> 
> > Personally, my over-arching theme in political economy is that political and social stability rest on an expected level of economic success over a broad swath of society, that left to its own devices our political and economic system tend to concentration of power which is the overwhelmingly predominant cause of systemic economic failure, and that therefore a continuous public policy to combat that concentration and its effects are necessary to avoid eventual catastrophic results. This is essentially in political terms the Fabian position of a century ago.
> ...



So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?


----------



## oldfart (Aug 22, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?



I don't see it happening this year, but yes.  Eventually so much money will be flooding into politics that the marginal effectiveness of another $100 million will be a lot lower.  At that point it becomes financially advantageous for a limitation agreement.  If Nixon and the Russians could see the sense in START I, why can't political parties?


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 22, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?



Not if you enjoy Free Speech. If the Government controls the amount of money in politics, it controls the amount of speech.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 22, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?
> ...


That is true if you believe that corporations are people.  And if you believe that money is speech.  Most do not, but it is certainly a matter of opinion.

The issue for most that I have talked to, including pretty much all from other nations, is the concept that the wealthy have the ability to influence politics and the gov MUCH more than those with less money.  Or, said another way, few individuals have a million to spend in each of several places from an electoral point of view.

And yup, I know, Citizens United was found for corporations having the right to spend as they wanted, saying essentially that money is speech.  But then, as we probably all agree, the supreme court is pretty much made up of politicians in robes.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 22, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



ROFL

People have money.  People group up.  Some groups form unions, some form clubs, some form corporations.  People spend money.  Sometimes people spend money as a group.  Advertisements can be bought.  People buy advertisements.  Sometimes they group their money to buy advertisements.  Advertisements can include political and non political topics.  What's wrong with any of this? Grouping together to share the cost of an advertisement? Really? lol


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 22, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



It's not a matter of what the opinions are. It's just a matter of classical law.

Corporations are not literally people. No one thinks they are. Not even the Supreme Court thinks they are. But Corporations have been given 'legal personhood' in purposes of the law for centuries all over the world, or at least in the case of the US Supreme Court decision of Darthmouth College vs Woodward. Treating corporations has people have already created great advantages to our society. Imagine if you didn't treat corporations as people. How could you possibly sue one if it did anything wrong on your behalf? You probably couldn't. You'd have to go around the country suing the millions of shareholders. No one thinks this is an efficient way to run a legal system.

Corporations are merely a group of people which have decided to get together and incorporate by combining land, labour and capital. Everyone has rights as people, and we still have rights even if we join together with other people. 

As for money being speech, no one believes money is speech. But what if the Government said that you could practice any religion you wanted, but you couldn't spend any money to build churches or to engage in any missionary affairs? What if the Government said you're free to operate a newspaper are radio station, you just can't spend any money to do it? What if the government said you can speak on whatever political matters you want, but you can't buy a megaphone so everyone can hear your voice?

If the government controls the money, it can essentially control the speech, in not just politics, in virtually everything. The wealthy influential government is not true to the freedom of corporations being able to spend whatever they want. Increasingly, politics has become a specialised game for a selected elite group of people. It's very difficult for a true grassroots organisation to start a campaign. As a result, you have great political inequality.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 23, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


I have worked for corporations over the years.  Never had one ask me what they should spend their political dollars on.  Never ever heard of that happening.  They may consult with a couple on the board, but that would be about it.  Those decesions are made at the highest levels.  By those that run the corporation.  So, if you think that corporations should be treated as people, then it is an opinion.  That it has been upheld by the courts, yes it has.  Again, the supreme court upheld it.  
But the primary issue is what Citizens United decided.  Which, by the way, had nothing to do with the court case that was brought to the supreme court.  It was, in fact, truly legislating from the bench.  But at any rate, the question is whether money is speech.  

You mentioned that corporations have been given legal personhood all over the world??  Can you document where??  I can find no reference to any country.  Only two entities have some such powers, those being the Vatican, the other being the City of London.  But quite limited in both cases.  And NO COUNTRIES except the us have granted corporations personhood status.  Unless you can enlighten me.

And maybe I just can not find it.  But there seem to be exactly zero countries where money is considered to be speech.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 23, 2013)

It looks to me like there should be a good chance to eliminate the citizens united decesion.  Based on public polls, citizens united is quite unpopular.  

"After citizens united, polls showed that 80% of the public disagreed with the decision."
Corporate Personhood in the Fast Lane: Jonathan Frieman, Citizen, Takes a Stand - WhoWhatWhy

"The Hart survey found broad, bipartisan support for the notion of amending the U.S. Constitution to affirm that corporations don&#8217;t have the same rights as people, effectively overturning Citizens United. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Independents, and 68 percent of Republicans said they would support such an amendment."
Citizens United? Polls Show Bipartisan Agreement on Constitutional Amendment to Stop Corporate Election Spending ? YES! Magazine

 "According to a new poll, "[f]ully 79% of voters support passage of a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people."
Citizens United and Corporate Personhood: The Problem Isn?t the Constitution, It?s the Court | Constitutional Accountability Center

So, who cares about opinions of people???  Why, politicians.  Big time.  And we should, after all, based on our claim to be a largely democratic country.


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 23, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?
> ...



The government could have an agreed on price of funding of  elections spread evenly among the parties..  No partiality. Enough for the candidates to get their message out.   In the last 20 or 30 years the campaigning starts earlier and earlier thanks to the flood of money coming in.   Pro Israel billionaire Adelson even went to Israel the same time that Romney did when he met with Netanyahu.   Why? influence his candidate?  Not that Obama's not backed by big money either.  The corporate  personhood is to conduct corporate business, sign contracts,  and limit liability.  It's gone way beyond that.  Obama blatantly installs his CEO backers in cabinet positions. We wouldn't have this if we eliminated private funding of elections.  My opinion anyway.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 23, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



That's still a limit on Freedom of Speech. Who are campaigns aimed towards? They're not aimed towards the likely voters or even active political followers. Most people already have an idea of who they are going to vote for. It's the undecided or non active voters campaigns are trying to reach, and campaigns on all sides of the spectrum want to reach as many people as possible. There are over 30 forms of Speech regulated by the FEC. It's very costly to try and place your message on them all, let alone just a few.

The Federal Election Commission has hundreds of pages of regulations that one has to look through if one wants to learn how to run their campaign successfully without breaking any laws. How would this effect the average, grassroots campaign trying to get off the ground? Well, first you're going to have to hire a lawyer. Then you'd have to hire a skilled consultant. And then, you'd have to figure out how you're going to pay both of these people, because very few people are willing to offer this service as volunteers. You're going to have to come up with some money, and the only types of people who can use their resources for this are the wealthy.

If you want to understand why there is so much money in politics, look no further than the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 23, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Working for a Corporation is not the same as being part of one. Corporations are made up of Executives, Directors and Shareholders. 



> But the primary issue is what Citizens United decided.  Which, by the way, had nothing to do with the court case that was brought to the supreme court.  It was, in fact, truly legislating from the bench.  But at any rate, the question is whether money is speech.



As long as you have Freedom of Speech, and money is used as a means of expression one's self, then yes. Money is speech. Ultimately, the Government is advocating for the power to ban books or movies if it contained even one line of political advocacy. 

And it's not legislation from the bench. The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of legal personhood before. Stare Decisis binds future Supreme Court decisions by rulings made in the past, unless there is a clear distinction between the current case and the previous cases. Darthmouth College vs Woodward is the precedent the Supreme Court must follow, and this Supreme Court decision has never been overturned in nearly 200 years.



> You mentioned that corporations have been given legal personhood all over the world??  Can you document where??  I can find no reference to any country.  Only two entities have some such powers, those being the Vatican, the other being the City of London.  But quite limited in both cases.  And NO COUNTRIES except the us have granted corporations personhood status.  Unless you can enlighten me.



All nations which have adopted Common Law (basically CommonWealth nations) have adopted legal personhood for the legal right to enter contracts, sue or be sued. These are countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. There are two types of legal personality: natural persons and group of persons.

Because shareholders of a corporations enjoy limited liability, they were not considered responsible for the debts of the company. In the court of law it was argued because a corporate defendent could not be sued because they were not persons. To resolve the issue, early courts system created a framework of legal personhood. Corporations could sue, be sued and shareholders could be held accountable for the debts of the company.

Being able to hold corporations accountable is not the only advantage. It also allows corporations to buy and sell property without without having to re-title the property every time someone sells their stock. It allows people to poor their resources to create new products for the marketplace.



> And maybe I just can not find it.  But there seem to be exactly zero countries where money is considered to be speech.



Which is why the first amendment is very valuable. In many countries, can be restricted and infringed upon very easily. Perhaps you should think twice before taking it for granted.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 24, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



We get what we pay for, and if we aren't paying for governance, law and politics through taxes, then we aren't going to get governance, law and politics that is in our interest.

And the concept of no government, no governance, is absurd.  Try to take away government and all your gonna get is "not your government".    Someone is going to be governing you, someone with money, someone with power.  It is either government of the people, by the people, for the people, or it is someone else governing you (us).

"Smaller government" means not your government, someone elses government.  We can guarantee, if you don't want government, someone else will be quite happy to have a government that is governing you.  And it will be either overt and obvious, or it will be subtle and manipulative. Indeed, the less government you have, the more overt and obvious will be the governance of you, by someone else.

Currently, it is obviously, corporations doing the governing, and why not, they have a vested interest in the economics.  But they aren't in it for you.  Whom ever owns the corporations, funds the the government through lobbiest monies because we don't fund it adequately through taxes.

You get what you pay for, and if "the people" don't want to pay for it through taxes, someone else will happily pay for it so they get what they want.


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 24, 2013)

I remember in the 90's when Clinton was in the white house.  Dozens of visits by Chinaman Johnny Chung.  It was out in the open how Clinton was getting support from red china.  All because of elections being bought by influential, wealthy people and the politicians don't care where the money comes from.  Back to corporations.    Does anybody think that the words 'We the people" in  the preamble of the constitution were meant to include corporations?  Especially after the trouble the colonists had with the East India Tea company?  Getting money out of politics and having a taxpayer fund for campaigns would be better in the long run.   We the people would still vote.  Maybe more people would vote and take interest in government affairs if they knew their politicians weren't bought and paid for by big money.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 25, 2013)

The power to regulate the economy is naturally the same as the power distribute favours. As long as the people grant the Government the ability to pick winners and losers, the winners will always be the very wealthy and politically connected. As a result, you will always have money in politics.


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 25, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> The power to regulate the economy is naturally the same as the power distribute favours. As long as the people grant the Government the ability to pick winners and losers, the winners will always be the very wealthy and politically connected. As a result, you will always have money in politics.



But we know who our elected officials are.  There's some accountabllity there.   Such as elections.  What do you do when there are thousands of lobbyists operating under the radar with no accountability and operating with the profit motive in mind.   With taxpayer funded elections this could be eliminated.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 25, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > The power to regulate the economy is naturally the same as the power distribute favours. As long as the people grant the Government the ability to pick winners and losers, the winners will always be the very wealthy and politically connected. As a result, you will always have money in politics.
> ...



The idea that Government is only accountable to the people, instead of corporations is not exactly true. Government collusion with Corporations is the direct result of Government power. Corporations want the influence. Government has the power. Corporations want to buy that influence and Government is willing to sell that power. Without the government power, corporations will have no power to compete for, less privileges to seek, fewer subsidies to enjoy and no agencies to capture.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 26, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


Sorry.  You are avoiding the issue.  Again, can you provide a country that has provided corporations the rights of personhood related to voting and political contributions???  

What I took for granted, and what most people of the world take for granted still, is that politicians and political issues can not be purchased by the rich.  That the wealthy do not have more power to control politics than the general public.   So, related to Citizens United, can you name a country that allows corporations the same rights as natural people?


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 27, 2013)

Why can't you ever respond to post organised like the rest of us normal people...



Rshermr said:


> So, only the execs, directors, and stockholders get to decide.  Got it.  Employees are not part of the corporation.  Executives are.  Got it.  Dumb idea, and one very few believe in.  It is a total travesty of the concept of democracy.  But, it is a conservative dream.  Got the money, buy the votes you want.  Great deal.



You are an employee. If you are not one of the owners of the corporation, then you do not have any say in where the company's resources are allocated. It&#8217;s not a matter of democracy. It&#8217;s a matter of private property rights.

If you don't like it, that&#8217;s tough. Next time just purchase some shares when a stock option opportunity presents itself and you'll have all the voting rights you want as a shareholder.



> Here is the thing:  Over time, the courts have had many issues related to corporations being people to consider.  Including that Dartmouth case.  But those were cases brought through the courts to the supreme court.  They did not originate there.  And they had NOTHING to do with citizens united.  Citizens United did not address whether corporations were people.
> 
> What is legislating from the bench has been clearly established for decades.  It was always a conservative issue.  The supreme court should consider lower court decesions.  Or revise current legislation.  Citizens united was a supreme court decision not on whether corporations were people, but whether money was speech.  You need to get your facts straight.  And at that point,  you will find that Citizens United was indeed legislating from the bench.  Simple as can be.  Flies directly in the face of what you just stated. Because, you see, they were not considering prior law but MAKING new law.



Plenty of laws in the current US Code/US Register, as well as previous Supreme Court cases were considered in Citizens United vs. FEC. You are extremely misinformed.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM?N

And the Court Case does deal with the issue of Corporations having legal personality. Didn't you even read about the case?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> PLEASE.  I think we all understand the protections that corporations provide.  What your post states is that corporations around the world have been given personhood power by many other governments.  Personhood is the issue.  Not the law related to corporations.



The law relating to corporations is where corporate personhood derives. This was also explained to you.



> Sorry.  You are avoiding the issue.  Again, can you provide a country that has provided corporations the rights of personhood related to voting and political contributions???



Corporate personhood means corporations mostly the same rights have humans. Elections are only limited to individuals: One person, one vote; however, if individuals may give political contributions, then so may corporations. If individuals may enter contracts, so may corporations. If individuals may sue, so may corporations.

Get it now?



> What I took for granted, and what most people of the world take for granted still, is that politicians and political issues can not be purchased by the rich.  That the wealthy do not have more power to control politics than the general public.   So, related to Citizens United, can you name a country that allows corporations the same rights as natural people?



I've already told you, any country which follows Common Law (as opposed to Civil Law) adopts legal personality in regard to many institutions. Countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.

I really don't see the point in responding if you just ignore what was previously said.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 27, 2013)

So, tania says:


> Plenty of laws in the current US Code/US Register, as well as previous Supreme Court cases were considered in Citizens United vs. FEC. You are extremely misinformed.
> 
> CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM?N
> 
> And the Court Case does deal with the issue of Corporations having legal personality. Didn't you even read about the case?



Yes, indeed.  I did understand exactly what Citizens United was about.  The court case was brought to allow a conservative movie, called Hillary:  The Movie  to be run just prior to elections.  That was against FEC law which was found against the conservative group that brought the case.  The Citizens United group appealed that decision, and the supreme court made the decision to take things to a NEW level.  They did not decide on the Citizens united case relative to running that movie.  Rather, they opened new considerations, specifically relative to speech and money.  The court found against previous settled law relative to political contributions.  And established NEW LAW.  That would be, of course, legislating from the bench. 
If you cared to understand, you would read the following:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Frequently Asked Questions - Common Cause

Then, Amazon makes the following statement:


> The law relating to corporations is where corporate personhood derives. This was also explained to you.



Perhaps you would like to quote that law, me dear.  In general, it is thought to be the 14th Amendment.  Which provides NO SUCH rights to corporations.  The corporate rights that exist were decided by cases brought by corporations over a large number of years, providing them with some extent of personhood rights, in the US only.  But, in fact, until citizens united, corporations lacked the right to contribute to political activities in the same way as natural citizens.  Because of the speech part of the FIRST AMENDMENT.   Not the 14th Amendment, me dear, the FIRST.

So, then Amazon says:


> Corporate personhood means corporations mostly the same rights have humans. Elections are only limited to individuals: One person, one vote; however, if individuals may give political contributions, then so may corporations. If individuals may enter contracts, so may corporations. If individuals may sue, so may corporations.
> 
> Get it now?


Yes indeed.  Always did understand.  You are saying that corporations have the right to enter into contracts and may sue.  Nothing new there.  And no one is really concerned about those rights.  They are rights required to do business.  However, where you are stretching things beyond rationality, is political contributions.  You may have noted that so far, corporations can not vote.  And this is the issue, me dear.  Corporations are not natural people.  And in NO NATION YOU CAN NAME are they provided the right to give unlimited contributions for political reasons.  
So, DO YOU get it now???  Something over 80% of our population does.  Here, and in the rest of the world, people understand clearly that providing the rights given by Citizens United provided corporations and others the right to buy elections.


Then, continuing to avoid the subject, Amazon says:


> I've already told you, any country which follows Common Law (as opposed to Civil Law) adopts legal personality in regard to many institutions. Countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
> 
> I really don't see the point in responding if you just ignore what was previously said.



You have been discussing 14th amendment issues. As you well know, that had to do with contract rights and ability to sue.   Citizens United was a *FIRST AMENDMENT[/B] finding.  Brand new, me dear.  Nothing to do with corporate contract rights.  New law altogether.  BUT RATHER, A NEW RIGHT FOR CORPORATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN DISALLOWED BY PREVIOUS LAW.  It required striking down prior law, and enacting New Law straight from the bench.

So, perhaps you would like to explain why organizations should have the right to give ANONYMOUS UNLIMITED CONTRIBUTIONS that the vast, vast majority of the population could not possibly accomplish?

Now, where is there another nation that allows corporate or other large organizations to provide unlimited contributions to the candidates and causes of their choice??*


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 27, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...




But this is what I've been referring to.  If corporations couldn't lobby congresspeople, donate to their campaigns,   and offer them jobs when they finish their terms in office, then government would be accountable to the people instead of corporations.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 27, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Yes, indeed.  I did understand exactly what Citizens United was about.  The court case was brought to allow a conservative movie, called Hillary:  The Movie  to be run just prior to elections.  That was against FEC law which was found against the conservative group that brought the case.  The Citizens United group appealed that decision, and the supreme court made the decision to take things to a NEW level.  They did not decide on the Citizens united case relative to running that movie.  Rather, they opened new considerations, specifically relative to speech and money.  The court found against previous settled law relative to political contributions.  And established NEW LAW.  That would be, of course, legislating from the bench.
> If you cared to understand, you would read the following:
> Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Frequently Asked Questions - Common Cause



Again, it's not a matter of legislating from the bench. The Law was found unconstitutional. Just because congress automatically creates a law doesn't make it unconstitutional immediately. The law in it's current form has to be appealed in circuit courts and then eventually taken to the higher courts. That's when laws are examined line by line, statute by statute. 

If the law conflicts with the constitution, then it becomes unconstitutional and the law is removed from the US Code. It's like if a state passes a referendum which becomes the law of the state, but it turns out that the law is very discriminatory against a particular group of people (or groups). Under the US constitution, you are not allowed to create such laws and the law will be struck down.

There are plenty of laws which did actually become law and the Supreme Court strikes the law down. Some decisions I have found agreeable, and others I have not. That's how it works. You really should familiarise yourself with your own legal system. There is really no excuse why a foreigner like me should have more familiarity than you.



> Perhaps you would like to quote that law, me dear.



Ugh! 



> 1 USC § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
> 
> In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise the words *person and whoever include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals*;
> 
> 1 USC § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth | Title 1 - General Provisions | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute





> In general, it is thought to be the 14th Amendment.  Which provides NO SUCH rights to corporations.  The corporate rights that exist were decided by cases brought by corporations over a large number of years, providing them with some extent of personhood rights, in the US only.  But, in fact, until citizens united, corporations lacked the right to contribute to political activities in the same way as natural citizens.  Because of the speech part of the FIRST AMENDMENT.   Not the 14th Amendment, me dear, the FIRST.



I really don't know what you are trying to say here, but I don't see what the 14th amendment has to do with this. I don't know why you decided to bring it up.



> Yes indeed.  Always did understand.  You are saying that corporations have the right to enter into contracts and may sue.  Nothing new there.  And no one is really concerned about those rights.  They are rights required to do business.  However, where you are stretching things beyond rationality, is political contributions.  You may have noted that so far, corporations can not vote.  And this is the issue, me dear.  Corporations are not natural people.  And in NO NATION YOU CAN NAME are they provided the right to give unlimited contributions for political reasons.



Once again, I am left explaining something to you which I have already explained in the past. No, corporations are not natural people. No one believes they are, not even the Supreme Court. They have what is called a type of 'legal personality,' and I've already mentioned there are two different types of legal personality: natural persons and a group of persons.

Corporations, like unions, are made up of a group of people, and as a group of people, they have the same rights as you and I individually. Do you lose your rights simply because you are an individual? If your answer is no, then why do you believe people should lose their rights simply because they join with other people?



> So, DO YOU get it now???  Something over 80% of our population does.  Here, and in the rest of the world, people understand clearly that providing the rights given by Citizens United provided corporations and others the right to buy elections.



There isn't an actual unlimited amount of money individuals, or corporations, can give. Depending upon which entity is receiving the money there are limits for all persons. As of now, individuals (including corporations) can give unlimited amount of money to Super PACs. Otherwise, there are federal, state and local limits, depending upon who is doing the donating and to whom. This unlimited mantra is just scare tactics created by partisan hacks.

I am not aware of any other nations with restrictions or limits on campaign contributions provided by corporations. I know in Australia there was a threshold on the amount regarding campaign contributions, up to $10,000; however this is a limit on all persons. In Canada, the limit per person is $1,100 but there are many loopholes which allow individuals to donate 100 times that amount.

The amount of campaign contributes anyone can make always varies from case to case, nation to nation. Some nations have limits and some nations do not. It is still the case that Corporations can provide campaign funds just as a regular person could.



> You have been discussing 14th amendment issues. As you well know, that had to do with contract rights and ability to sue.   Citizens United was a *FIRST AMENDMENT[/B] finding.  Brand new, me dear.  Nothing to do with corporate contract rights.  New law altogether.  BUT RATHER, A NEW RIGHT FOR CORPORATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN DISALLOWED BY PREVIOUS LAW.  It required striking down prior law, and enacting New Law straight from the bench.*


*

There was no law straight from the bench. We have a law in the US Code which firmly re-enforces the rights of Corporations legal personality, and Supreme Court Cases. The law which restricted corporate financing in campaign was unconstitutional. Sooner or later, you'll have to come to terms with that.




			So, perhaps you would like to explain why organizations should have the right to give ANONYMOUS UNLIMITED CONTRIBUTIONS that the vast, vast majority of the population could not possibly accomplish?
		
Click to expand...


There was nothing preventing individuals from contributing vast amounts of money before. Absolutely nothing. Candidate Barack Obama raised $750 Million dollars, and he did it without financing from Corporations or Unions. $656 Million of that financing were from individual donations, if we accept the premise that all of his donations were legitimately US originated.

If a private individual separately can do it, then a corporation should be able to do it as well. This also means that unions should be able to do it, and companies should be able to do it as well. On our own, we all have rights and we have rights even if we gather with other people. Restricting the rights of corporations sets a dangerous precedent that the Government can ban any form of intellectual property it wishes, simply because it contained on queue of political advocacy. 

This may be something you want as 'non-partisan' as you would like to be, but people have the right to express their opinions about everything, especially politics. People have the right to express their political opinions through music, through movies, writings, and even though who they choose to finance/support.*


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 27, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



Corporations as individuals can lobby congress. CEO's have done it for decades. That's really distinction without a difference. 

There will always be special interest, no matter what you do. Limiting government's power is better than increasing it to police all campaign financing. Increasing it will just limit the favors handed out to the politically connected.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 28, 2013)

So, Tania says:





> I really don't know what you are trying to say here, but I don't see what the 14th amendment has to do with this. I don't know why you decided to bring it up.



You brought up the cases that were ALL ABOUT THE 14th.  They were NOT about the 1st amendment.  That would be why, me dear.  OBVIOUSLY.  Again, and please try to concentrate, those cases were about the ability to sue and to enter into contracts.  Sorry you can not understand this.  And citizens united, again, was about free speech.  Allowing corporate money to be speech.

So, what you are saying is that because corporations got decesions allowing them rights as citizens related to doing business, that they should also have First Amendment rights to spend unlimited amounts anonymously on political issues  because they have the right of speech??  Just wonder where the hell your head is.
Then, tania again said:


> Corporations, like unions, are made up of a group of people, and as a group of people, they have the same rights as you and I individually. Do you lose your rights simply because you are an individual? If your answer is no, then why do you believe people should lose their rights simply because they join with other people?


So, apparently you did not read the information provided.  Again, you are unwilling to listen to anything that does not fit in your desired agenda.  No, me dear.  Since corporations are not natural persons, they did not, prior to Citizens United, have the rights that the supreme court decided to give corporations.  That was indeed. NEW LAW.  It was not decided in lower courts, and given to the supreme court to decide if it was correct.  It was COMPLETELY BROUGHT UP AND DECIDED IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Then, Tania makes this really, really interesting post:


> There isn't an actual unlimited amount of money individuals, or corporations, can give. Depending upon which entity is receiving the money there are limits for all persons. As of now, individuals (including corporations) can give unlimited amount of money to Super PACs. Otherwise, there are federal, state and local limits, depending upon who is doing the donating and to whom. This unlimited mantra is just scare tactics created by partisan hacks.



Now, that, me dear, is an excellent example of how to lie without actually saying anything that is not at least partially true.  You must know, assuming you have any brain activity, that the issue IS about giving money to pac's.  Corporations do not want to be seen as giving huge amounts to corporations.  BY GIVING TO PAC'S, THEIR DONATIONS ARE ANONYMOUS.  Even you have to admit this.  Well, maybe not, who knows what you are willing to say.  

Then, continuing to ignore the truth, tania says:


> I am not aware of any other nations with restrictions or limits on campaign contributions provided by corporations. I know in Australia there was a threshold on the amount regarding campaign contributions, up to $10,000; however this is a limit on all persons. In Canada, the limit per person is $1,100 but there are many loopholes which allow individuals to donate 100 times that amount.
> 
> The amount of campaign contributes anyone can make always varies from case to case, nation to nation. Some nations have limits and some nations do not. It is still the case that Corporations can provide campaign funds just as a regular person could.



I suppose that is as close to an admission that there are no nations that allow unlimited corporate contributions to political entities as we will get from you.  Yes, it is indeed true, only in the us can corporations give unlimited contributions.  And you would be aware if you simply did a search on the subject.

And yes, they can provide funds just as a regular person could.  AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING CITIZENS UNITED IN 2010.

THEN, IN SUMMATION, AMAZON SAYS:


> There was nothing preventing individuals from contributing vast amounts of money before. Absolutely nothing. Candidate Barack Obama raised $750 Million dollars, and he did it without financing from Corporations or Unions. $656 Million of that financing were from individual donations, if we accept the premise that all of his donations were legitimately US originated.


So, you were talking about what year, me dear???
Consider this NY Times quote:


> Conservative groups alone, including a super PAC led by Karl Rove and another group backed by the brothers Charles and David Koch, will likely spend more than a billion dollars trying to take down Barack Obama by the time November rolls around.
> 
> The reason for this exponential leap in political spending, if you talk to most Democrats or read most news reports, comes down to two words: Citizens United. The term is shorthand for a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations much of the same right to political speech as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics. The oft-repeated narrative of 2012 goes like this: Citizens United unleashed a torrent of money from businesses and the multimillionaires who run them, and as a result we are now seeing the corporate takeover of American politics.





> If a private individual separately can do it, then a corporation should be able to do it as well.  That was and is not true.  Except, it is stated as an opinion.  So, ok.  that is your opinion.This also means that unions should be able to do it, and companies should be able to do it as well. On our own, we all have rights and we have rights even if we gather with other people. Restricting the rights of corporations sets a dangerous precedent that the Government can ban any form of intellectual property it wishes, simply because it contained on queue of political advocacy.



OK.  got it.  Your opinion is that corporations should have all of the rights of a natural person.  Mine is that they should not.  The issue is that something like 80% of our population disagrees with you.  So, do you agree with democracy??  Should we follow their desire, or simply ignore them??


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 28, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, Tania says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why should a person give up their rights when they join a group of persons?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 28, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, Tania says:
> ...


What right did you think that they were giving up???  They still have EXACTLY the same rights after joining as before.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 28, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> OK.  got it.  *Your opinion is that corporations should have all of the rights of a natural person.  Mine is that they should not.*  The issue is that something like 80% of our population disagrees with you.  So, do you agree with democracy??  Should we follow their desire, or simply ignore them??





RKMBrown said:


> Why should a person give up their rights when they join a group of persons?





Rshermr said:


> What right did you think that they were giving up???  They still have EXACTLY the same rights after joining as before.



You said above that corporations should *not* have all of the rights of a natural person. Your basis for this was democracy, aka. tyranny of the majority.  Thus, people should loose their rights when they join particular groups of people called corporations based on a 51% opinion.  Then you ask me what right I think you want them to give up when they join a corporation.  I thought the discussion was about free speech.  You know, the first amendment that restricts government's ability to restrict our speech.   I find your question, odd.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 28, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > OK.  got it.  *Your opinion is that corporations should have all of the rights of a natural person.  Mine is that they should not.*  The issue is that something like 80% of our population disagrees with you.  So, do you agree with democracy??  Should we follow their desire, or simply ignore them??
> ...


Sorry.  Those natural persons who join corporations still have their prior rights.  They loose nothing.  

Now, if they gain something from a corporations rights of free speech, as provided them by the Citizens United decision, you could say they GAIN rights by "joining" a corporation.  So, in effect, they gain rights that the rest of us do not have.  So, I am sure you think that is a good idea.

Sorry you think my question is odd.  It is simply a valid question.  You suggested that those "joining" a corporation loose some rights.  I know of none.  And apparently neither do you.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 28, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Your belief that a corporation can speak is nutz.  Can you provide a link of a corporation speaking?

A corporation is not a person.  A corporation is a non living entity.  A contract specified by incorporation papers agreed to between the owners.  A contract cannot speak any more than a piece of paper can speak. Corporations can't speak.  People who represent corporations most certainly can and do speak and their speech is protected by the first amendment, irregardless of their affiliation with particular corporations.  And now based on the CU decision, irregardless of where the funding comes from for their speech, be it from a union or corporation.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 28, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


The ruling, me boy, was that, in the case of corporations, MONEY IS SPEECH and therefor protected by the First Amendment.  So, now please try to understand, I also believe that corporations can not speak.  Because they can not.  BUT, because of CU, they can and have spent unlimited money.  Which they could not before.  Because it has  been found by the supreme court, through CU, that corporate money spent on political issues IS FREE SPEECH.

And I could provide a link.  But you can find it yourself.  Google citizens united corporate speech.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 28, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I've read it in the past and do not recall any law declaring that money is speech.  No corporation has unlimited money.  I have no idea where you got that idea from.   What I remember reading was that the very unconstitutional law that prohibited people from spending their own damn money while exercising lawful free speech, simply because they are using money from a corporate account, was thrown out.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 28, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


That would be because that is what you choose to think.  Good for you.  Perhaps ignorance is bliss.  Then you will have, me boy, bliss in spades.
Here is a quote from a republican you may have heard of:


> Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) continued his harsh criticism of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling this week, calling it the bench's "worst decision ever."
> 
> &#8220;They said money is free speech. Since when is money free speech?&#8221; McCain asked a crowd at an event put on by the Oxford Union at the University of Oxford, according to the Oxonian Globalist. &#8220;Money is money.&#8221;
> 
> ...


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 28, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> SI really don't know what you are trying to say here, but I don't see what the 14th amendment has to do with this. I don't know why you decided to bring it up.
> 
> You brought up the cases that were ALL ABOUT THE 14th.  They were NOT about the 1st amendment.  That would be why, me dear.  OBVIOUSLY.  Again, and please try to concentrate, those cases were about the ability to sue and to enter into contracts. Sorry you can not understand this.



I see where your issue lies. You've combined your legal understanding with your historical understanding, mixed in with your comprehension and created one abomination in terms of logical reasoning.

First of all, I only brought up one Supreme Court Case: Dartmouth College vs. Woodward. Supreme court cases needs to be referenced by name. If I never mentioned the case by name, I never brought it up. 

Secondly, Dartmouth College vs Woodward were tried well before the creation of the 14th amendment. As well as a few other court cases affirming Corporate Personhood.

The main laws establishing the ability to enter contracts (and many other contract laws) are establish in the Uniform Commercial Code Articles 1 (General Provisions), 2 (Sales) and 9 (Secured Transactions)

It would help you enormously if you look through those.



> And citizens united, again, was about free speech.  Allowing corporate money to be speech.
> 
> So, what you are saying is that because corporations got decesions allowing them rights as citizens related to doing business, that they should also have First Amendment rights to spend unlimited amounts anonymously on political issues  because they have the right of speech??  Just wonder where the hell your head is.



That's not anything close to what I said. Your comprehension is very bad. Refer to earlier post. I'm through repeating myself.



> So, apparently you did not read the information provided.  Again, you are unwilling to listen to anything that does not fit in your desired agenda.  No, me dear.  Since corporations are not natural persons, they did not, prior to Citizens United, have the rights that the supreme court decided to give corporations.  That was indeed. NEW LAW.  It was not decided in lower courts, and given to the supreme court to decide if it was correct.  It was COMPLETELY BROUGHT UP AND DECIDED IN THE SUPREME COURT.



Your history is very bad. Corporations were always allowed to contribute to political campaigns up until the early 1900's. There were many limits on campaign financing from corporations and unions around this time period, but many of these laws were unenforceable and just really unenforced. It wasn't until the Federal Election Commission Act of 1974 which eliminated corporate/union financing completely. 

Before the FEC, you've always had corporations donating to political campaigns since US inception. Corporations are people. This is established in Title 1, Chapter 1 of the US Code and also established by the Supreme Court cases reaffirming Corporate Personhood. US Congress must be in compliance with the US Court decisions. Corporations are persons. That's not debatable. 



> Now, that, me dear, is an excellent example of how to lie without actually saying anything that is not at least partially true.  You must know, assuming you have any brain activity, that the issue IS about giving money to pac's.  Corporations do not want to be seen as giving huge amounts to corporations.  BY GIVING TO PAC'S, THEIR DONATIONS ARE ANONYMOUS.  Even you have to admit this.  Well, maybe not, who knows what you are willing to say.



Um, no. 



> _(3) A candidate or committee receiving an anonymous cash contribution in excess of $50 shall promptly dispose of the amount over $50. The amount over $50 may be used for any lawful purpose unrelated to any Federal election, campaign, or candidate.
> 
> 11 CFR 110.4 - Contributions in the name of another; cash contributions (2 U.S.C. 441f, 441g, 432(c)(2)). | Title 11 - Federal Elections | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute_





> I suppose that is as close to an admission that there are no nations that allow unlimited corporate contributions to political entities as we will get from you.  Yes, it is indeed true, only in the us can corporations give unlimited contributions.  And you would be aware if you simply did a search on the subject.



You're reading things you want to read again. I said it depends case by case, nation by nation. I am not aware of any particular laws limiting corporations in other parts of the world. Until I see the actual statute in their books, I can only assume there is no law. I don't have time to look through hundreds of pages of code for other nations I don't inhabit. If you want to look for the laws, be my guess.

In the United States, there are already laws in place limiting corporate contributions. If you are an individual, there is already a limit on the amount of money you can donate, especially if you donate anonymous.



> And yes, they can provide funds just as a regular person could.  AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING CITIZENS UNITED IN 2010.



I've always been able to do this throughout US history, up until the 60's and 70's. You really need to wise up.



> So, you were talking about what year, me dear???
> Consider this NY Times quote:



And?



> OK.  got it.  Your opinion is that corporations should have all of the rights of a natural person.  Mine is that they should not.  The issue is that something like 80% of our population disagrees with you.  So, do you agree with democracy??  Should we follow their desire, or simply ignore them??



It's not a matter of opinion. That's the law. Your opinions are irrelevant. Corporations are merely individuals, and democracies must be responsible to both majorities and individuals. Most of all, individual rights must be protected, even if the majority wants something else.

Corporations are persons with legal rights and legal personality. That's not debatable.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 28, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Yeah well McCain bless his socialist soul, is not a conservative.  And he has no problem restricting our rights.  That CU law was his baby.  No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 28, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Wow.  That may be one of the most ignorant posts yet.  But glad to know you believe he is a socialist.  Proves you do not know what a socialist is.  And, me boy, HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CU.  AT all.  Jesus.  Have you always been that ignorant, or have you been working on it???  You are very, very confused.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 28, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Dufus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

*The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain*&#8211;Feingold *Act*, Pub.L. 107&#8211;155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and *John McCain *(R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.[1]

As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

    The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
    The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. *The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending*.[2]


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 28, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Thanks.  Coming from you, that is a compliment.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 29, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 29, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Out of words, eh.  Well, it is ok.  Ignorance is just a component of being a congenital idiot.  Really, me boy, it is not your fault.  Just plain bad luck.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 29, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Out of words, eh.  Well, it is ok.  Ignorance is just a component of being a congenital idiot.  Really, me boy, it is not your fault.  Just plain bad luck.



You are a pea brained dufus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biparti...ign_Reform_Act

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, *McCain*&#8211;Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107&#8211;155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and *John McCain* (R-AZ). *The law *became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.[1]

As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. *The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision*, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.[2]


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 29, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Out of words, eh.  Well, it is ok.  Ignorance is just a component of being a congenital idiot.  Really, me boy, it is not your fault.  Just plain bad luck.
> ...


Wow.  Nice, me boy.  You can use the google, and cut and paste.  I am impressed.  Let's see what this has to do with your crowning statement.  You said:



> Yeah well McCain bless his socialist soul, is not a conservative. And he has no problem restricting our rights. That CU law was his baby. No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.





> Socialist soul.


  Interesting.  So if you knew what socialism is, you would be able to evaluate your statement and understand it has NO basis in fact.  Which is why you will be unable to find any case where the guy ever supported the gov ownership of the means of production or distribution of goods and services.
Stupid statement number 1.



> That CU law was his baby.


  Now, here is the thing, me boy.  CU stands for citizens united.  He had no part in that legislation, at all.  He never supported it.  Ever. So, perhaps you would like to explain why it would be "his baby".  You could definitely say that the McCain Feingold act was his baby.  Can you see why, me boy??  But that legislation was partially overturned by the Supreme Court when it found to SUPPORT Citizens United.   Now, try to understand this.  Citizens United was a conservative group that did not include McCain.
So, congratulations, you just said another thing that has no basis in the real world.
Stupid Statement number 2.



> No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.


This is a really cool one.  You see, they did not flush Citizens United down the toilet.  Though a strong majority would agree with you that that was where it belonged.  You see, me poor ignorant con tool, they found FOR Citizens United.  And it is now LAW.  
Again, your statement has no basis in the real world.
Stupid statement number 3.

That is a lot of stupid statements for one short paragraph, dipshit.  But, if you can read and understand what you just posted, you will have learned something.  I try so hard to help you.  
And it makes you so angry.  Just symptoms of being a congenital idiot.  Really, me boy, it is not your fault.  Just bad luck.  Maybe you should go away and play with your beads.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 29, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


The issue in the CU case was the law I cited, this IS the law that McCain authored.  The result of the SCOTUS decision in the CU case was to change law I referenced.  When I referred to the CU law it was in reference to TO THE CU ISSUE you were talking about, YOU IGNORAMUS.  How stupid can you possibly be, to think I was referring to CU as a law? What the hell are you on, meth?  Are you ten years old?  Does you mommy know you are on the internet?  Do you eat your own shit or do you flush?

McCain is widely known in the republican party as the farthest left (on social issues) of all republicans.  McCain is in fact further left than most democrats.  McCain sides with democrats so often that when he "accidentally" walked into one of their closed door sessions, the Democrats erupted in applause.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 29, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Honestly, me boy.  We all know what you said.  It is ok.  Congenital Idiocy entails massive ignorance.  It is a mental illness.  And really not your fault.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 29, 2013)

The issue of the Citizens United case was not McCain Feingold.  That was simply a law that was in the way and they found that law to be unconstitutional.  The issue, me boy, was what SCOTUS decided they wanted to adjudicate, which was whether corporate money is speech.  And they found that it was.  
Try google.  And try to actually read.  Jesus.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 29, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Serious question, are you mentally handicapped?  You were talking about the CU decision and quoting to McCain's attack on the CU decision as proof that republicans were against the CU decision. I said and I quote, .."That CU law was McCain's baby."  You said I was making shit up.  Now you say I'm right.  The issue you are having is you are just to stupid to understand an extremely simple sentence. That CU law is a reference TO YOUR COMMENTS.  It's right up there for you to read again.  Maybe this time you'll understand it now that you've read the wiki and can understand why McCain was against the CU decision.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 29, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You really need to stop trying to dig your way out.  I am not a mccain fan.  Nor a fan of politicians in general.  But even a clock is right twice per day.  And he was correct then.  In my opinion.  and in the opinion of around 80% of the american public, and most of the rest of the world.  So, I know exactly what I was saying.  I know exactly what cu was about, and what the supremes did to it when they took it on.  And actually, I could care less what mccain had to say.  What is more important is what the people feel is correct.  because, you see, I believe in the corny democracy concept.  You know, everyone gets the same say in our political system.  And money can not buy elections.  Because corporate money has only one purpose:  To gain access and favors from politicians.  And because those favors are not going to be for the people, but rather for the corporations spending the money, we should all oppose it.

If you believe otherwise, good for you.  Few of us do.  The great majority want to take down cu.  And there are organizations that exist now trying to do so.  But, there is not a single repub politician in those organizations.  Which leads me to a conclusion.  Those who benefit from cu are not going to allow it to go away if they can help it.
By the way, republican citizens oppose cu by a fairly wide margin.  If we make it uncomfortable, maybe more politicians will come around.  If not, and they want to simply follow the party line, then we are stuck with something that the vast majority of the public does not want.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 29, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Yeah well I'm not a democrat or a republican.  You can spend a trillion dollars on advertising and it won't sway me one bit.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 29, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Good for  you.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 30, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



McCain needs to be in a nursing home.  Seriously, he's one these dinosaurs that just won't go away. Ever.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 30, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



We need some type of campaign finance reform. The goal should be to eliminate all money from politics and the political process.

I think campaign contributions can be unlimited so to speak, but only sixty percent of individual donations should go towards a particular candidate. The other forty percent would go toward the opponent. 

This would handicap huge donors from giving millions to a single candidate, which would create a financial advantage.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 30, 2013)

Nah..  We need to reform how the voting system works.  Our voting system is ludicrous.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 30, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Nah..  We need to reform how the voting system works.  Our voting system is ludicrous.



How so?

I'd ultimately like to see money out of politics, unless you approve of the current conditions. Our political class is bought and paid for by the highest bidder. They're all a bunch of cocksuckers in my estimation, minus a few decent human beings on both sides of the aisle, which is a rarity.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 30, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Nah..  We need to reform how the voting system works.  Our voting system is ludicrous.
> ...



Simple.  In a vote that comprises selecting one of three people, the voting system should at least allow one to select their first and second selections.  In this way one gets to express his desire for the election.  Allowing people to only vote for ONE person in a vote with THREE people allows for a tyranny of two parties where the best candidate favored by the people may not be selected based on fear of the other party winning.  Ok, the problem is not simple, but the solution is.

This problem is magnified in the primaries.  For example, in the last two conservative races the winner was the guy that was determined to be the "least" conservative.  How did that happen?  Easy.  The votes going for the "conservative" candidates were watered down among the conservative candidates.  Where the least conservative candidate got all of the votes from the opposing party and independents that desired to make sure the election was between two socialists.

Romney would likely not have been the candidate if the conservatives had been allowed to order the vote by their list of favorites.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 30, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



McCain will outlive us all...


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 30, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



That has to be one of the dumbest ideas ever posted in this forum.   The reason people donate to political campaigns is to help the guy they want to win and to help him defeat the other guy.   I couldn't donate a red cent if I know 40% of it was going to the candidate I despise.

Furthermore, your plan violates the First Amendment.  Of course, I know you don't give a shit about that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 30, 2013)

Kimura said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Nah..  We need to reform how the voting system works.  Our voting system is ludicrous.
> ...



Taking money out of politics is like taking tomatoes out of spaghetti sauce.  What you're left with isn't worth putting on the spaghetti.  That would just give government more control than it has now.  Of course, that's exactly what bootlickers like you want.

Politics simply can't be reformed.  It's inherently a dirty business.  Reforming it would be like reforming armed robbery.  Mencken described an auction as a present auction on future goods.  In other words, it's an exercise in organized plunder.  How do you "reform" that?


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 30, 2013)

People are often concerned when money and politics mix, but don't really seem to understand for the most part of American History money and politics have been unregulated. Sure, you have certain limits put into place in the beginning of the 20th century, but as I have said before, these regulations were virtually unenforceable and just plain ol' unenforced. This changed with the Federal Elections Campaign Act in 1974, when people thought if they could just regulate more it would bring more political equality. How has this worked? Not so well, I think.

Incumbency spending advantage has gone from 1.5 to 1, to 4 to 1. We also find that incumbents win reelections at ever higher rates with fewer viable challenges. It is also very difficult for a true Grassroots organisation to form. There are over hundreds of different regulations one has to know in order to determine what their obligations are in particular situations. It wasn't that long ago where campaign start ups were very easy. A candidate would say a few words, and then after a speech was finished a candidate would just ask for donations afterwards. If anyone tried this today, they would break all kinds of campaign finance laws.

Maybe it's time for a new approach when it comes to politics, which just happens to be an old approach: The First Amendment. It says that anyone can participate in politics. All anyone has to do is just start speaking. We've managed to do pretty well under that system until the 1970's.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Yeah, the 1st Amendment, I sure do hate it. Do you listen to yourself? I'm talking about corporations and outfits like the Saudi lobby and AIPAC.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Perfect.   Just leave the money in politics.  Don't try to stop those with big bucks from buying our politicians.  Why try.  Let it be a cespool.  Because Bripat loves it.  Got it.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 30, 2013)

> Taking money out of politics is like taking tomatoes out of spaghetti sauce.  What you're left with isn't worth putting on the spaghetti.  That would just give government more control than it has now.  Of course, that's exactly what bootlickers like you want.



Yeah, god forbid we have elected officials held accountable for the public interest, as opposed to the various special interests.



> Politics simply can't be reformed.  It's inherently a dirty business.  Reforming it would be like reforming armed robbery.  Mencken described an auction as a present auction on future goods.  In other words, it's an exercise in organized plunder.  How do you "reform" that?



Sure, quote a proponent of elitism like Menken. What's next? Nozick, Lord Acton, Rothbard, lol

Government isn't organized plunder. I see we're going with Bastiat now. 

Yeah, God forbid we have politicians focusing on the national interest as opposed to fundraising. We can't have all of our citizens, regardless of wealth or social status,  participating in every part of the democratic process. 

I suggest you put down the bong and get out of your parents basement.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 30, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> People are often concerned when money and politics mix, but don't really seem to understand for the most part of American History money and politics have been unregulated. Sure, you have certain limits put into place in the beginning of the 20th century, but as I have said before, these regulations were virtually unenforceable and just plain ol' unenforced. This changed with the Federal Elections Campaign Act in 1974, when people thought if they could just regulate more it would bring more political equality. How has this worked? Not so well, I think.
> 
> Incumbency spending advantage has gone from 1.5 to 1, to 4 to 1. We also find that incumbents win reelections at ever higher rates with fewer viable challenges. It is also very difficult for a true Grassroots organisation to form. There are over hundreds of different regulations one has to know in order to determine what their obligations are in particular situations. It wasn't that long ago where campaign start ups were very easy. A candidate would say a few words, and then after a speech was finished a candidate would just ask for donations afterwards. If anyone tried this today, they would break all kinds of campaign finance laws.
> 
> Maybe it's time for a new approach when it comes to politics, which just happens to be an old approach: The First Amendment. It says that anyone can participate in politics. All anyone has to do is just start speaking. We've managed to do pretty well under that system until the 1970's.


Yup.  You have already made it clear you believe in Citizens United, and have no problem with unlimited corporate contributions.  Most do.  
Seems to me that we are just involved with opinion.  We have seen it proven that corporate money can but our politicians and the supreme court.  If you like it, you would be for letting it alone.  If not, you would want to do something about it.  
Maybe we should try to be like the rest of the world, and NOT allow corporations to make unlimited contributions and buy our politics.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 30, 2013)

Kimura said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Nothing new there.  I have a theory that he is just one of those trying to get Ed's old position as the board troll.  Though there are a few competing for that position.


----------



## Kimura (Aug 30, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I deleted that post because I thought it was douchy. Upon further reflection, I've changed my mind.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 30, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Yup.  You have already made it clear you believe in Citizens United, and have no problem with unlimited corporate contributions.  Most do.



As you have already learned (or rather not learned), there is already a limit on what Corporations and Unions can donate. The only difference is that Corporations and Unions can donate unlimited funds to Super PACs. The reason why corporations and unions can give unlimited funds to Super PACs is because Super PACs are prohibited from donating directly to candidates. They spend the money they receive in contributions on their own. Regular PACs cannot take Union or Corporate money at all...



> Seems to me that we are just involved with opinion.  We have seen it proven that corporate money can but our politicians and the supreme court.  If you like it, you would be for letting it alone.  If not, you would want to do something about it.



Your only alternative is to migrate to a country where your individual rights are very limited. As long as we live in a Free Society, everyone should be allowed to participate in the electoral process. You cannot have rights for some, and limited rights for others. Democracy doesn't work that way.



> Maybe we should try to be like the rest of the world, and NOT allow corporations to make unlimited contributions and buy our politics.



Even in Super Pacs where Corporations are allowed to make unlimited amount of contributions, they make up a very small demographic of the amount of donations. You have zero idea of exactly what you are suppose to be angry or concerned about. Preventing 'Corporations from Buying Our Politics' just sounds cool to you, so you'll say it repeatedly.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 30, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Yup.  You have already made it clear you believe in Citizens United, and have no problem with unlimited corporate contributions.  Most do.
> ...


Relative to what I know of Citizens United, that would be your opinion.
Relative to what options I have, there are very few.  Once the supreme court rules, there is nothing you or I singularly can do.
Relative to what I know about what makes up corporate contributions, again, that would be your opinion.  

I do know that this last election cost over $7B, by far a new record for election costs.  I also know it  will grow.  As corporations learn that backlash over their contributions are low, as those contributions are unknown to the population.  Corporate contributions to super PAC's was over $629M.  
I also know that polls show over 80% of the people think that the Citizens United decision is wrong, and should be overturned.  
I also know that no developed nation in the world allows unlimited corporate donation for politics.

I also know that, like that large majority that disagrees with citizens united, I do not for an instant believe that my individual rights were helped by citizens united.  That is a true bit of nonsense.  Believed by very, very few.  And like those in that large majority, I do know that corporations are buying our politics.  I also know that anyone believing that corporate money going to politics has any other reason is either highly naive, or just pushing an agenda.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 30, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



It is not an opinion what the demographic makes up Corporate Contributions. All of this information is disclosed on the FEC website for everyone to see. Everyone can see which Committee or Organisation received the contribution, but in support or opposition of which candidate, which office the candidate is seeking, the individual/organisation making the contribution, the purpose of said contribution, when the contribution was received and the amount of which was contributed. This is all very detailed for anyone to see. 

Interesting bit of trivia the liberty fanatics might appreciate: Facebook and Google have given tonnes and tonnes of contributions to PACs and Super Pacs all throughout 2010 - 2012 to candidates in support of Ron Paul. These Corporations has also given plenty of money to Super PACs in opposition against Barack Obama.



> I do know that this last election cost over $7B, by far a new record for election costs.  I also know it  will grow.  As corporations learn that backlash over their contributions are low, as those contributions are unknown to the population.  Corporate contributions to super PAC's was over $629M.



Again, as you have already learned (or rather didn't learn) those anonymous contributions to anyone (including Super PACs) are limited to $50 dollars. Any contributions excess $50 dollars must be promptly disposed of and cannot be used on anything related to Campaigning, Elections or the Candidate in question. This means that this money cannot be used on anything political. At all. Why you believe Corporations are contributing millions of dollars a year just so only a very small port of those contributes can actually be used in for political advocacy is beyond me, but no one knowledgeable in Corporate Finance believes corporations are allocating their Treasury Funds so poorly.

The FEC gives a complete detail of who is donating and why. We already know the Corporations who are donating and to whom. If you believe Corporations are concerned about who they publicly support, then I'm afraid you don't know as much as you profess. Also, if you are so concerned about anonymous donations, you shouldn't be looking towards Corporations anyway. You should be looking towards 501(c)4 Non-Profit Organisations. These non-profits don't have to disclose their donors, unless someone gives the money to the non-profit specifically to run political ads, then these donors MUST be reported to the Federal Election Commission.

And I don't know where you got that $629 Million Corporate Contributions figure. As far as I can see only $71.8 Million Super PAC funds were raised by businesses in the 2012 election cycle. Not going to even bother digging deeper to see how much was raised since Citizens United was repealed.

Regardless, Corporations and Unions can only spend unlimited funds on Super PACs and this system has helped level the playing field in American politics.



> I also know that polls show over 80% of the people think that the Citizens United decision is wrong, and should be overturned.



It's not about what majority of individuals want. It's about individual liberties. If majority of people want to limit the rights of other people, and thats just not going to work. Democracy must protect individuals rights, regardless of what the majority wants.



> I also know that, like that large majority that disagrees with citizens united, I do not for an instant believe that my individual rights were helped by citizens united.  That is a true bit of nonsense.  Believed by very, very few.  And like those in that large majority, I do know that corporations are buying our politics.  I also know that anyone believing that corporate money going to politics has any other reason is either highly naive, or just pushing an agenda.



Again, the Supreme Court held that Corporations and Unions have the right to spend their money on Treasury Funds to advocate elections for the defeat of candidates. Not to give money directly to those candidates or to those campaigns, but to spend money to say that those people should be reelected or defeated in their runs for political office.  Supreme Court precedent establishes a clear line of segregation between expenditures for a campaign and independent expenditures. If you think this hasn't helped you at all, you really don't know as much as you claim.

If the Government can control any amount of money you are willing to use to express your opinion, then it abridge your right to Freedom of Speech. If you don't believe Freedom of Speech is important to you, then I know plenty of nations where you can migrate to. The right to criticise our government and it's elected officials is a highly concentrated part of our democracy and way of life. The only naivety I am hearing are the people who believe Government will use its power to restrict speech benevolently, when it's already been shown in the past that the same Central government is not above infringing on your individual liberties.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 30, 2013)

Tania says:


> Again, as you have already learned (or rather didn't learn) those anonymous contributions to anyone (including Super PACs) are limited to $50 dollars. Any contributions excess $50 dollars must be promptly disposed of and cannot be used on anything related to Campaigning, Elections or the Candidate in question. This means that this money cannot be used on anything political. At all. Why you believe Corporations are contributing millions of dollars a year just so only a very small port of those contributes can actually be used in for political advocacy is beyond me, but no one knowledgeable in Corporate Finance believes corporations are allocating their Treasury Funds so poorly.



You need to read the following.  Your paragraph above is untrue:



> Traditional political action committees are bound by a $5,000 annual limit on the size of contributions they can accept from individuals and are prohibited from accepting contributions from corporations and labor unions. A super PAC is freed from these restrictions under two conditions: The PAC must neither 1) give money directly to a candidate or other political committees that give directly to candidates, nor  2)  coordinate how it spends its money with a federal candidate. As long as those two conditions are met, a* super PAC may accept donations directly from corporate or union treasuries and in amounts that are limited only by the size of donors' bank accounts. *Movie mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg wrote a $2 million check to the super PAC backing President Obama's  reelection; casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife have reportedly underwritten a super PAC backing Newt Gingrich to the tune of $10 million. Neither of these donations could have been legally given to a traditional PAC.
> Nine things you need to know about super PACs - Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group



So, what else is allowed by Citizens United:


> *Currently, the cap on individual contributions is $5,000 a year.* Donors to traditional union and corporate PACS must work for or own shares in those corporations or belong to those unions. They must be identified and the amounts of their donations made public. *By contrast, super PACs can accept money in unlimited amounts from unions, corporations and unaffiliated individuals as well as from non-profit organizations that have been incorporated under innocuous-sounding names and that do not have to report the sources of their funding. *That means individuals and entities with whom candidates might not wish to be publicly associated can support their campaigns anonymously.



This paragraph came from the same source as above.

So very little of what you have said is true.  No $50 limit.  No $5000 limit, which may have confused you.  No limit on corporate contributions.   And so on.
Jesus, me dear, you have been masquerading as an expert on Citizens United.  Your statements have NO relation to the real world.  Hell, a corporation can set up it's own super pac, with a cute name.    

Then, Tania says:


> The FEC gives a complete detail of who is donating and why. We already know the Corporations who are donating and to whom. If you believe Corporations are concerned about who they publicly support, then I'm afraid you don't know as much as you profess. Also, if you are so concerned about anonymous donations, you shouldn't be looking towards Corporations anyway. You should be looking towards 501(c)4 Non-Profit Organisations. These non-profits don't have to disclose their donors, unless someone gives the money to the non-profit specifically to run political ads, then these donors MUST be reported to the Federal Election Commission.



That is nonsense, if you understand what Citizens United allows.  If you did understand, the following would not be any surprise:


> Do super PACs have to disclose the sources of their funding?
> That depends on what you mean by "disclose." Like other political action committees, super PACs do have to file regular financial disclosure forms with the Federal Election Commission  *But because they are permitted to accept money from incorporated entities that do not have to make the sources of their funding public, it's possible for them to keep the names of actual donors undisclosed. * In 2010, a super PAC that was active in one of that year's marquee House races listed a single donor: a 501(c)(4) organization that does not have to disclose its donors. This is what is known among some campaign finance lawyers as "the Russian doll problem."
> Nine things you need to know about super PACs - Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group



Then, Tania does not believe how much Super Pacs contributed.  Could have found out easily enough, but wants me to educate her, apparently:


> And I don't know where you got that $629 Million Corporate Contributions figure. As far as I can see only $71.8 Million Super PAC funds were raised by businesses in the 2012 election cycle.





> As of July 23, 2013, 1,310 groups organized as Super PACs have reported total receipts of $828,224,595 and total independent expenditures of $609,417,654 in the 2012 cycle. Super PACs | OpenSecrets



Note that was what had been reported to date.  Other sources show more or less, dependent on when they reported.

Then, tania says:


> Not going to even bother digging deeper to see how much was raised since Citizens United was repealed.


Citizens united was NOT REPEALED, me dear.
Sen. Tom Udall continued his efforts to repeal Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that 





> opened the floodgates for corporate spending in elections.
> 
> Udall introduced legislation with Sen. Michael Bennett, D-Colo., that would repeal the decision.


Udall introduces legislation to repeal Citizens United | New Mexico Telegram

These congressmen and others would probably not be trying to repeal a decesion that had already been repealed.  And I thought you were an expert!!!

Then Tania says:


> Again, the Supreme Court held that Corporations and Unions have the right to spend their money on Treasury Funds to advocate elections for the defeat of candidates. Not to give money directly to those candidates or to those campaigns, but to spend money to say that those people should be reelected or defeated in their runs for political office. Supreme Court precedent establishes a clear line of segregation between expenditures for a campaign and independent expenditures. If you think this hasn't helped you at all, you really don't know as much as you claim.


What I think, me dear, is that you have no clue.  Please read the referenced article from above.  You obviously have no clue.

Then, this statement from Tania:



> If the Government can control any amount of money you are willing to use to express your opinion, then it abridge your right to Freedom of Speech. If you don't believe Freedom of Speech is important to you, then I know plenty of nations where you can migrate to. The right to criticise our government and it's elected officials is a highly concentrated part of our democracy and way of life. The only naivety I am hearing are the people who believe Government will use its power to restrict speech benevolently, when it's already been shown in the past that the same Central government is not above infringing on your individual liberties.



OK.  Back to square one.  You think corporations making unlimited contributions (yes, unlimited.  Read the above) is a good thing.  Good for you.  

But hopefully you have learned something.  Like no $50 limit.  Where you got that, I have NO idea.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 30, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> This paragraph came from the same source as above.
> 
> So very little of what you have said is true.  No $50 limit.  No $5000 limit, which may have confused you.  No limit on corporate contributions.   And so on.
> Jesus, me dear, you have been masquerading as an expert on Citizens United.  Your statements have NO relation to the real world.  Hell, a corporation can set up it's own super pac, with a cute name.



I have a serious question: Is English your secondary language? You have a serious error of misreading what another person post on here. Or maybe you don't seen to understand the difference between an *Anonymous* contribution and a *Regular* Contribution.



> (3) A candidate or committee receiving an anonymous cash contribution in excess of $50 shall promptly dispose of the amount over $50. The amount over $50 may be used for any lawful purpose unrelated to any Federal election, campaign, or candidate.
> 
> 11 CFR 110.4 - Contributions in the name of another; cash contributions (2 U.S.C. 441f, 441g, 432(c)(2)). | Title 11 - Federal Elections | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute



Any anonymous contributions must not exceed $50 dollars. That is a law which is already in the books. 



> That is nonsense, if you understand what Citizens United allows.  If you did understand, the following would not be any surprise:



Your comprehension is so bad, you don't even understand that you quoted a source which supports what I said 100%.



			
				Your Source said:
			
		

> That depends on what you mean by "disclose." *Like other political action committees, super PACs do have to file regular financial disclosure forms with the Federal Election Commission But because they are permitted to accept money from incorporated entities that do not have to make the sources of their funding public, it's possible for them to keep the names of actual donors undisclosed. In 2010, a super PAC that was active in one of that year's marquee House races listed a single donor: a 501(c)(4) organization that does not have to disclose its donors. This is what is known among some campaign finance lawyers as "the Russian doll problem."*





AmazonTania said:


> The FEC gives a complete detail of who is donating and why. We already know the Corporations who are donating and to whom. If you believe Corporations are concerned about who they publicly support, then I'm afraid you don't know as much as you profess. Also, if you are so concerned about anonymous donations, you shouldn't be looking towards Corporations anyway. *You should be looking towards 501(c)4 Non-Profit Organisations. These non-profits don't have to disclose their donors, unless someone gives the money to the non-profit specifically to run political ads, then these donors MUST be reported to the Federal Election Commission.*



I'll try to dumb this down for you, because it's clear you don't understand what this entails. There are many different types of Code 501(c) organizations, which are also known as 'Non-Profit' Organizations. These Organisations are formed by individuals, groups and even local, state and federal governments. Many of the are really irrelevant to the initial point, because they all are required to disclose their financial statements to the IRS for Non-Profit tax exempt status, by law and all are required to disclose their donors publicly to quality for non-profit status. The only non-profit organization where this doesn't apply are 501(c)4 organizations: Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees. This is different from a 501(c)3 non-profit, which does has to disclose their financial statements, and are prohibited from getting involved in any kind of political activity at all. These are institutions like churches. 

501(c)4 are civic leagues who work to operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and because they operate in civics they do not have to publicly disclose their financial statements, and do not have to publicly disclose their donor information. This is UNLESS, they receive a donation for the specific purpose of running a political advertisement, also known as 'electioneering communications,' then this 501(c)4 is required by law to disclose this donor.



> Then, Tania does not believe how much Super Pacs contributed.  Could have found out easily enough, but wants me to educate her, apparently:
> 
> _As of July 23, 2013, 1,310 groups organized as Super PACs have reported total receipts of $828,224,595 and total independent expenditures of $609,417,654 in the 2012 cycle. Super PACs | OpenSecrets_
> 
> Note that was what had been reported to date.  Other sources show more or less, dependent on when they reported.





Rshermr said:


> *Corporate contributions to super PAC's was over $629M.*



Do you even proofread what you write before posting it? You clearly said Corporate Contributions to Super PACs were over $629 Million Dollars, but your source doesn't show that. Your source says that Super PACs have reported $828,224,595 in contributions. This is the amount Super PACs have made in total receipts altogether, NOT the amount corporations have contributed.

And I find it hilarious that you actually think you are educating someone when you don't even know the difference between a 'receipt' and an 'expenditure.' That's pretty fucking sad...



> Citizens united was NOT REPEALED, me dear.
> Sen. Tom Udall continued his efforts to repeal Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that
> Udall introduces legislation to repeal Citizens United | New Mexico Telegram
> 
> These congressmen and others would probably not be trying to repeal a decesion that had already been repealed.  And I thought you were an expert!!!



Maybe I should have been clear. The Citizens United I am referring to deals with Public Law 107 - 155: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. There are a number of Statutes at Large in regards to the Citizens United decision. A couple of these statutes have been removed.



> What I think, me dear, is that you have no clue.  Please read the referenced article from above.  You obviously have no clue.



Maybe you should actually read it, before taking a basic English class.



> OK.  Back to square one.  You think corporations making unlimited contributions (yes, unlimited.  Read the above) is a good thing.  Good for you.
> 
> But hopefully you have learned something.  Like no $50 limit.  Where you got that, I have NO idea.





			
				FEC Federal Regulations Chapter 2 said:
			
		

> $50 Limit on Anonymous Contributions
> An anonymous contribution is limited to $50. Any amount in excess of $50 may not be used for federal election purposes. 110.4(c)(3).
> 
> FEC CHAPTER 2



The only thing I've really learned is the only thing worse than a fool, is the person still willing to talk reason with him. Only on the internet can anyone actually encounter such an a concentrated force of self-aware ignorance. And it would have actually been funny, if we know there aren't many more people like you.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 30, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > This paragraph came from the same source as above.
> ...



Interesting how caustic you get when you are caught lying, me dear.  Let's take a look at a couple of your profound errors:  1.You are quoting facts from a law that was stricken down by the very law you have it confused with.  2.  Based on 1, you have made a myriad of false statements.  3.  You suggested I know nothing of Citizens United, when you do not know it well enough to keep it from being confused with a law that it negated.  4.  Nothing in your post has any validity at all, as far as I can see.  5.  You just wasted a lot of time for the small number of people who read your drivel.
To keep it really, really simple for you, let me explain:  Citizens United and McCain Feingold relate to each other kind of like an oil refinery and an oil tanker.  Only one does not eliminate the other.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 31, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Yes indeed, me dear.  Did you read the post I gave you????  Just wondering.  Apparently not.
> 
> *SO, ARE YOU IGNORANT OR DISHONEST OR BOTH.  U.S.C. 441 pertains to THE MCCAIN-FEINGOLD ACT, of 2002.  You should know that it was the act that was taken down by Citizens United.  The statutes you are basing your argument on have not been in existence since late 2009*  So, me dear, please read the document I provided you and see if you can learn something ABOUT THE SUBJECT WE ARE DISCUSSING (AT LEAST THE REST OF US) CALLED CITIZENS UNITED
> 
> ...



I really do not know where to begin with this. So much wrong in just so little words. 

1) There are 13 sections which are a part of 2 USC 441, and only 5 of which was actually a part of McCain-Feingold. The only part of McCain-Feingold which was declared unconstitutional was 2 USC § 441a, not 2 USC § 441.

2) 2 USC § 441 has nothing to do with McCain-Feingold, and was drafted before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and has to do with penalties of more than $1,000 fine or more than 1 year imprisonment for violation of this act. 2 USC § 441 has be repealed long before 2010.

3) ALL LAWS which have been repealed from the US Code or Federal Register are clearly shown they have been repealed. Exactly like what is shown here in the case of 2 USC 441. There are some instances where the laws are repealed given a specific period of time. If the law has been removed on the books, it is clearly updated in the US Code or Federal Register. 11 CFR 110.4 is still in the books and was not repealed.

4) 2 USC 441 has nothing to do with 11 CFR 110.4.

5) McCain Fiengold _also_ has nothing to do with 11 CFR 110.4.

6) There is a reason why there is a limit on $50 Dollar anonymous contributions: Donors which an excess of $50 must have their information disclosed.



			
				Accounting for contributions and expenditures said:
			
		

> (1) For contributions in excess of $50, such account shall include the name and address of the contributor and the date of receipt and amount of such contribution.
> 
> 11 CFR 102.9 - Accounting for contributions and expenditures (2 U.S.C. 432(c)). | Title 11 - Federal Elections | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute



Are there are more inaccuracies you need to be corrected on?



> My comprehension is fine.  I want to know the facts.  You do not.  Better allows you to push your agenda.



No, your comprehension is really not fine. You really have no idea what you are trying respond to, and you are very clueless as to what the facts are. Seriously, you need to retake basic English.



> Problem is, me dear, that the (now pay attention) *CONTRIBUTIONS ARE NOT RECEIVED WITH A SPECIFIC PURPOSE ATTACHED.  *
> 
> Now, I provided this information before.  Aparently it did not stick, me poor ignorant person.  Let's try it again, and I will highlight the relevant parts in RED:



Sometimes it's just better to let people just dig themselves into a deeper hole...



			
				Accounting for contributions and expenditures said:
			
		

> (1) An account shall be kept of all disbursements made by or on behalf of the political committee. Such account shall consist of a record of:
> 
> (i) The name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made;
> 
> ...






> So, there you go.  Can you tell red from black??  If so, pay attention, particularly, to the red sentence. And try to understand you are quoting law that has been struck down.
> 
> Your childish description of 501's was a waste.  Do you really think any corporation that wants to keep it's name from being known relative to how much it is donating and to whom would bother with a $50 contribution??   Go to opensecrets web site some time, and try to figure out who is giving what to whom.  And perhaps WONDER at why two attempts to pass the Disclose Act failed in congress, along partisan lines.  If what you thought was true, was true, there would have been no reason to try to pass the Disclose Act.



1) Laws which were stuck down are clearly removed from the US Code and the Federal Register. If you try to search for the Statute Code, the database will inform the research that the law has be repealed. You are wrong in this regard.

2)Corporations and 501(c)4 Tax exempt entities are completely different things. The only entity which can make a political contribution and not have to disclose it's information are 501(c)4 non-profit organizations. Any other Non Profit must disclose it's donors and financial statements by law. For-profit corporations cannot make donations without disclosing everything. And ideas to the contrary is just false.

3) The Disclosure Act has nothing to do with people being able to donate anonymous, and it was not preventative measure to limit Corporations. The Disclosure Act was a measure to increase the prevention campaigns and committees being able to take Foreign Contributions. There are already laws against Foreign Contributions. 



> Right.  You were not talking about citizens united, as we all know it.  You were talking about a 2002 case.  Not ever called Citizens United, but rather  the BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2002.  Also known as the McCain&#8211;Feingold Act.  Not Citizens United. So, me dear, you were talking about a different law.  It was, as a matter of fact, a law that was eliminated by the Supreme Court when deciding Citizens United.  So, ar you saying that you are either so ignorant or so untruthful that you were talking about attributes of a completely different law???  Really, me girl.  Honesty is a really good attribute.  Get some.



Maybe if I use less words it'll make a difference:

In the Citizen United Case, the Public Law I am referring to which was repealed was 2 USC 441a. 

Get it now?



> Interesting how caustic you get when you are caught lying, me dear.  Let's take a look at a couple of your profound errors:  1.You are quoting facts from a law that was stricken down by the very law you have it confused with.  2.  Based on 1, you have made a myriad of false statements.  3.  You suggested I know nothing of Citizens United, when you do not know it well enough to keep it from being confused with a law that it negated.  4.  Nothing in your post has any validity at all, as far as I can see.  5.  You just wasted a lot of time for the small number of people who read your drivel.
> To keep it really, really simple for you, let me explain:  Citizens United and McCain Feingold relate to each other kind of like an oil refinery and an oil tanker.  Only one does not eliminate the other.



I'm not even going to waste my time with this response, because I've already debunked everything you've said point by point. The only interesting thing is the more you speak, the more you realise how ignorant you are. And I honestly feel guilty because it's like I'm picking on a retard...


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 31, 2013)

Tania says:


> There is a reason why there is a limit on $50 Dollar anonymous contributions: Donors which an excess of $50 must have their information disclosed.


That is absolutely untrue.  You are making the clear statement that contributions of over $50 would have to have their donors disclosed.  Since this has not happened in all elections since 2010, then you are wrong.  Sorry about that.  But it is just the way it is.  

Then Tania says:


> I'm not even going to waste my time with this response, because I've already debunked everything you've said point by point. The only interesting thing is the more you speak, the more you realise how ignorant you are. And I honestly feel guilty because it's like I'm picking on a retard...



So, apparently you know something that all of the sources out there do not.  You see, the fact that there have been millions in contributions by donors who have not been disclosed.  Now, I would call that really, really ignorant.  You are making an argument that does not pass the giggle test.  Lets see:



> The PACs are required to release the names of donors, however, a *technicality in the disclosure rules allows donors to remain anonymous for months.* Disclosure *can be completely circumvented by PACs that create affiliated nonprofit 501(c)(4) organizations, which are not required to release the names of donors.*
> Read more: Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com






> But as a result of the Citizens United ruling that *allows unlimited, untraceable money to be spent on political action groups*, we will likely never find out who is behind the mystery dollars.
> Read more: Anonymous Donor Writes Huge Check To GOP -- Thanks, Citizens United! | Care2 Causes






> The court&#8217;s embrace of disclosure could hardly have been clearer. *Yet we now have a system awash in anonymous donations to shadowy political groups*. According to the reform-minded Center for Responsive Politics, advocacy groups spent approximately $305 million in the 2010 midterm federal elections, more than quadrupling the $70 million spent in the 2006 midterms. *Few of these groups disclosed their donors; the "transparency" promised by Justice Kennedy is nonexistent.*
> Was the Court Conned in Citizens United? - Bloomberg






> *Independent groups that do not disclose the identity of their donors spent $132.5 million to influence elections nationwide this year, accounting for about a third of all spending by outside groups in the 2010 election cycle,* a report released Friday found.
> Anonymous donors spent $132M on 2010 campaign ads - politics - Decision 2010 | NBC News



So, me girl, calling me names will get you nowhere.  Truth is truth.  Evidence is evidence.  Anonymous deductions are rampant, and have been since Citizens United.  So, rail on as you want.  You are wrong.  Whether you believe there is a $50 limit or not really makes no difference.  Millions of dollars have been anonymously donated to SUPERPAC's. which is all that matters.  You can go on arguing there is a law not allowing over $50 all you want.  I can find no reference to it being in effect after Citizens United.  Period.  If it is, so what.  The fact is, lots and lots and lots of anonymous donations have occured.

The law that is there, and that should matter, is the one that Justice Kennedy assured us would make everything OK.  the rule that all donations would have to be disclosed.  Problem is, in less than a year, those running the SUPERPAC's had found ways around those rules.  With millions of dollars of donations with no disclosure.  
And, beyond that, the SuperPac folks found ways to postpone by months and months the disclosures they did make.  Which, of course, made those disclosures of little value.  They simply waited until people lost interest.  

And yes, me dear, the Disclose Law was important.   It was proposed BECAUSE disclosures were NOT happening as Kennedy had assured all.  And saying it was not important simply shows your interest in seeing that disclosures would not occur.  Odd, but there seem to be a fair number of people like you, who will twist every way possible to support Citizens United.  They all seem to be far, far, far, far right wing sorts.  Kinda like you seem to be.
Honestly, getting all hot under the collar and making disparaging remarks when I am simply trying to provide you with the truth seems odd.  I would be mad at those providing me with the untrue things you are putting out there.


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 31, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Tania says:
> 
> 
> > There is a reason why there is a limit on $50 Dollar anonymous contributions: Donors which an excess of $50 must have their information disclosed.
> ...



11 CFR 102.9 pertains to contributions above a certain limit. The more money one contributes, the more information this person must provide to the FEC. This law is still in the books and has not been removed. I'm sure its easier to pretend that these laws do not exist, but your intellectual dishonesty is really getting out of hand. 



> (a) An account shall be kept by any reasonable accounting procedure of all contributions received by or on behalf of the political committee.
> 
> (1) For contributions in excess of $50, such account shall include the name and address of the contributor and the date of receipt and amount of such contribution.
> 
> ...





> So, apparently you know something that all of the sources out there do not.  You see, the fact that there have been millions in contributions by donors who have not been disclosed.  Now, I would call that really, really ignorant.  You are making an argument that does not pass the giggle test.  Lets see:



Again, you are doing a very poor job of reading your own sources. Three of your sources  again supports what I have already said: Non Profit organisations are donating to Super PACs and do not have to disclose their donors. One of your sources claims groups are making donations and do not have to disclose their information. Considering that none of your sources can actually prove their claims, I'm not going to consider it. Where is the proof of a particular person and/or organisation making a donation above a regulated limit and are not being disclosed?



> So, me girl, calling me names will get you nowhere.  Truth is truth.  Evidence is evidence.  Anonymous deductions are rampant, and have been since Citizens United.  So, rail on as you want.  You are wrong.  Whether you believe there is a $50 limit or not really makes no difference.  Millions of dollars have been anonymously donated to SUPERPAC's. which is all that matters.  You can go on arguing there is a law not allowing over $50 all you want.  I can find no reference to it being in effect after Citizens United.  Period.  If it is, so what.  The fact is, lots and lots and lots of anonymous donations have occured.



Yes, lots of anonymous donations have occurred, as non-profit organisations. I don't know how many times you must be told, but you cannot make a donation above a certain amount without it being disclosed to the public. We know which portion of contributions are actually given by corporations and which ones are not:





​
Only 5% of all Super Pac fund raising were made by 501(c)4 non-profit organisations. The rest of the contributions were made by organisations which has to be reported. The only other demographic consist of other donations, which may very well consist of anonymous contributions. 



> The law that is there, and that should matter, is the one that Justice Kennedy assured us would make everything OK.  the rule that all donations would have to be disclosed.  Problem is, in less than a year, those running the SUPERPAC's had found ways around those rules.  With millions of dollars of donations with no disclosure.
> And, beyond that, the SuperPac folks found ways to postpone by months and months the disclosures they did make.  Which, of course, made those disclosures of little value.  They simply waited until people lost interest.



FEC regulations states that ALL contributions to Super PACs must be reported and anonymous contributions cannot exceed $50 (unless you are a 501(c)4 non-profit organisation). You say that Super PACs have found ways around these laws. Where exactly is your proof of these loopholes? The treasurer of a Super PAC is legally responsible for authorizing expenditures, monitoring contributions, depositing receipts in the PAC's designated bank account, keeping records of receipts and disbursements, and filing complete, accurate and timely reports of activity with the FEC. These reports must be updated Monthly, Quarterly, or during instances of an upcoming election cycle, every 48 hours.

11 CFR Parts 102, 103, 104 and 300 are very clear about these regulations.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2011-title11-vol1-part102.xml

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2011-title11-vol1-part103.xml

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2011-title11-vol1-part104.xml

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2007-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2007-title11-vol1-part300.xml



> And yes, me dear, the Disclose Law was important.   It was proposed BECAUSE disclosures were NOT happening as Kennedy had assured all.  And saying it was not important simply shows your interest in seeing that disclosures would not occur.  Odd, but there seem to be a fair number of people like you, who will twist every way possible to support Citizens United.  They all seem to be far, far, far, far right wing sorts.  Kinda like you seem to be.



Really? Because the ACLU was also oppose to the Disclosure act. I had no idea they were a far, far, far, far, far, far, far right wing organisation.

You seem to have only one shtick: repeating the same things over and over and praying someone will believe you. Substituting repetition for knowledge will get you no where.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 31, 2013)

Wow.  You are really running out of game me dear.  ACLU???  Wow.  Wonder where you got that one.  Could be you have been off in those bat shit crazy con sites again.  

But all you have is blather, telling me how contributions must be disclosed.  Which, me girl, is stupid.  Sorry, everyone knows by now.
Here are a few more:



> Right now, through creating multiple Limited Liability Corporations (LLC) or through anonymous PACs (501(c)3 or 501(c)4), it can be near impossible to trace where some of this money going into a candidate&#8217;s campaign is coming from.
> Are Super PACs Good or Bad for Democracy?






> Whether they know it or not, when politicians and journalists talk about anonymous funding of Super PACs they&#8217;re actually referring to 501(c)4s. The anonymity loophole makes this tax code classification an appealing choice for political benefactors who value large donations while keeping their names out of the news and corporate interests that want to avoid political fallout. Even Super PACs can&#8217;t offer that combination:
> Sunshine for the Super PAC: The DISCLOSE Act Would Eliminate Anonymous Donors | The Georgetown Public Policy Review






> A group aligned with the Tea Party has funneled more than $1.3 million in anonymous contributions to a super PAC working aggressively to unseat Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and other congressional veterans, raising alarms among some watchdogs that these outside groups are emerging as a new avenue for secret political money.
> Sponsored Links





> FreedomWorks, a non-profit group that does not have to publicly disclose its donors, provided nearly half the money its affiliated super PAC, FreedomWorks for America, collected last year, as it launched an all-out campaign to defeat Hatch, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and others
> Super PAC taps source of anonymous cash to target Hatch ? USATODAY.com



You are becoming a joke.  this statement is classic Tania:


> Yes, lots of anonymous donations have occurred, as non-profit organisations. I don't know how many times you must be told, but you cannot make a donation above a certain amount without it being disclosed to the public. We know which portion of contributions are actually given by corporations and which ones are not:


Here are the problems.  First, the numbers do not add up to what other analysis shows.  At all.  And, me dear, you picked the contribution period for the 2010 race, with nearly all contributions made in 2010.  Citizens United happened in Jan, 2010.  Takes the crooks a couple years to find out how to best game the system.  And 2012 was much worse.  And 2014, and 2016.... Get it yet??  This is why thinking people are worried.  This is why we have a push for the Disclose act, which ALL republicans voted against.  Every Single One of them.  And this is why far, far, far right cons say there is NO problem with Citizens United.  And why they say, in the face of obvious and overwhelming evidence, that Citizens united is a good thing, and why there really is no problem with anonymous contributions to superPac's.

But this is really classic.  You actually had the nerve to say:


> This law is still in the books and has not been removed. I'm sure its easier to pretend that these laws do not exist, but your intellectual dishonesty is really getting out of hand.



Now try to listen, and try a little honesty.  I said I could care less whether laws that do not work are on the books or not.  What I care about is that Citizens United allows the wealthy to buy our politics, first, and that it is indeed largely anonymous contributions doing so.  And that those anonymous contributions, according to ALL NONPARTISAN RESEARCHERS THAT ARE LOOKING AT THE ISSUE, ARE MAJOR AND GROWING IN SIZE.  I hope if you see it in large type, you will understand.  Though I think you will simply believe what you want.  
Why, did you know that there were several thousand people killed in auto accidents by inebriated drivers under the age of 18,  But that must not be true.  Because alcohol consumption by those under 18 is illegal.  Laws are on the books.  Jesus.


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 31, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Wow.  You are really running out of game me dear.  ACLU???  Wow.  Wonder where you got that one.  Could be you have been off in those bat shit crazy con sites again.
> 
> But all you have is blather, telling me how contributions must be disclosed.  Which, me girl, is stupid.  Sorry, everyone knows by now.
> Here are a few more:
> ...



According to your chart the unions have only a small part in donations, unlike what the right wing contends.   It's mostly the wealthy and corporations that are swaying politics.  Maybe we could take a chapter out of the book of republicans and demand that corporations show their U.S. birth certificate before they can have free speech (in the form of buying politicians).


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 31, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.  You are really running out of game me dear.  ACLU???  Wow.  Wonder where you got that one.  Could be you have been off in those bat shit crazy con sites again.
> ...


Of the largest 5 donors, who contributed about $160M, only one was a union, and donated to dems very predominantly.  That contributor was $14M of the $160M.  This is the site if you want to see actual donations WITHOUT agenda:
Top Overall Donors | OpenSecrets


----------



## Barb (Aug 31, 2013)

Confidential Memo at the Heart of the Global Financial Crisis 

http://www.gregpalast.com//vulturespicnic/pages/filecabinet/chapter12/5_protocol.pdf


----------



## AmazonTania (Aug 31, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Wow.  You are really running out of game me dear.  ACLU???  Wow.  Wonder where you got that one.  Could be you have been off in those bat shit crazy con sites again.





			
				Wikipedia Disclose Act said:
			
		

> *The DISCLOSE Act was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)*,[28] which claimed that it "would inflict unnecessary damage to free speech rights and does not include the proper safeguards to protect Americans' privacy. The bill would severely impact donor anonymity, especially those donors who give to smaller and more controversial organizations."
> 
> DISCLOSE Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You were saying?



Rshermr said:


> But all you have is blather, telling me how contributions must be disclosed.  Which, me girl, is stupid.  Sorry, everyone knows by now.
> Here are a few more:
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know whether or not it's because you cannot understand the issue or it's because your reading comprehension is very bad. You seem very content on proving my point for me and I've highlight in bold both of your quotes so that you can see for yourself.

Both of your sources show that Non-Profit Organisations DO NOT have to disclose the information of their donors. This is perfectly normal, and three of your sources show this. Freedom Works, Tea Party groups, etc. They all have a type of 501(c) non-profit status and do not have to disclose their donors. 

That's perfectly legal. You might think its bad, but this is perfectly legal. I am referring to your claims about the organisations without 501(c) status making anonymous donations to Super PACs without being reported. Where is your proof of this?



Rshermr said:


> Here are the problems.  First, the numbers do not add up to what other analysis shows.  At all.  And, me dear, you picked the contribution period for the 2010 race, with nearly all contributions made in 2010.  Citizens United happened in Jan, 2010.  Takes the crooks a couple years to find out how to best game the system.  And 2012 was much worse.  And 2014, and 2016.... Get it yet??



That's your assumption. Those are not the facts. Super PACs are required to report ALL of their donors to the FEC, where it is making available of their own website for any American who wants to look it up. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group has used data from The FEC and the Sunlight Foundation to complied aggregate information about the composition of donors since 2010 - 2011, as well as the 2012 Election Cycle.  The only legitimate complaint is that some of their donations are contributed by Non-Profit Organisations, and they don't have to disclose their donors. Even still, they make up a very small percentage of the contributions relative to all the contributions which are required to be disclosed.






Rshermr said:


> This is why thinking people are worried.  This is why we have a push for the Disclose act, which ALL republicans voted against.  Every Single One of them.  And this is why far, far, far right cons say there is NO problem with Citizens United.  And why they say, in the face of obvious and overwhelming evidence, that Citizens united is a good thing, and why there really is no problem with anonymous contributions to superPac's.



That's not true at all. You've had more partisan support for the Bill than you've had in opposition of it. Only 2 Republicans with 217 Democrats voted in favor of H.R.5175. 36 Democrats and 169 Republicans voted against the resolution. The Bill Died in the House, and all of the partisans voted in favor of it. Another example of talking out of your arse and not getting any of your facts straight.



Rshermr said:


> Now try to listen, and try a little honesty.  I said I could care less whether laws that do not work are on the books or not.  What I care about is that Citizens United allows the wealthy to buy our politics, first, and that it is indeed largely anonymous contributions doing so.  And that those anonymous contributions, according to ALL NONPARTISAN RESEARCHERS THAT ARE LOOKING AT THE ISSUE, ARE MAJOR AND GROWING IN SIZE.  I hope if you see it in large type, you will understand.  Though I think you will simply believe what you want.
> 
> Why, did you know that there were several thousand people killed in auto accidents by inebriated drivers under the age of 18,  But that must not be true.  Because alcohol consumption by those under 18 is illegal.  Laws are on the books.  Jesus.



That&#8217;s a terrible analogy for an overall terrible argument. All of your sources have supported my claims that these anonymous donations are being made by nonprofit organisations. This is perfectly legal and make up a very small percentage of all contributions in the election cycle. We know majority of where the contributions are coming from and we know who they are contributing to. FEC has very detailed information regarding this.

You have claimed that *anyone*, regardless of status individual status, are making anonymous donations of any amount and these contributions Super PACs are circumventing regulations by the FEC, and not reporting these donations. Where is your proof of this?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 31, 2013)

Relative to the aclu, you are back a ways.  I did not doubt it.  What I said was did you have a point?? 
You had one liberal source who did not like the disclose act.  But, me dear, if you ran the list, kind of like a list on video, you would see hundreds of conservatives against it along with a couple of progressives.  You know that.  So, why are you wasting time with a non point like that??  You are looking really, really desperate. 

Lets look at the next error you made:

Quote: Originally Posted by Rshermr View Post
This is why thinking people are worried. This is why we have a push for the Disclose act, which ALL republicans voted against. Every Single One of them. And this is why far, far, far right cons say there is NO problem with Citizens United. And why they say, in the face of obvious and overwhelming evidence, that Citizens united is a good thing, and why there really is no problem with anonymous contributions to superPac's.


> That's not true at all. You've had more partisan support for the Bill than you've had in opposition of it. Only 2 Republicans with 217 Democrats voted in favor of H.R.5175. 36 Democrats and 169 Republicans voted against the resolution. The Bill Died in the House, and all of the partisans voted in favor of it. Another example of talking out of your arse and not getting any of your facts straight.


And, so yes, you had only 2 republicans voting in favor in the house.  Which is what I would expect.

And the blue dog repubs voted against it.  No surprise.  Now, me dear, the bill was then still alive.  Let me explain.  A bill is normally introduced in the house, and dies if it does not pass.  Needs 50%, since there is no filibuster in the house.  Got that, me dear.  So, had it failed in the house, it would have been all over.  But it did not.  It PASSED in the house.  So, to be succinct, HR 5175 did not fail in the house, as you said.  It PASSED, and moved on to the SENATE.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/show

So, here is the deal.  the bill then FAILED in the senate, because it got exactly 0, as in ZERO,  republican votes.  Yup, it got about 59% of the vote.  Well beyond a majority.  BUT, you see, they do not call this senate the do nothing senate for nothing.  They filibustered pretty much everything they could.  And, me dear, they filibustered it here.  
So, it was not me talking out of my arse.  It was you.  Do  you use a clear plastic navel??
You really need to get a clue.  What I said was true.  And you just made a fool of yourself again.  This is getting embarrassing for you.

The disclose act was brought up twice in 2010.  It was defeated by republicans in the senate both times  Both times the bill had well over 50% support in the senate, and both times senate republicans filibustered the bill.  Because, of course, they could care less about the will of the people.  
As could you.

Then, there is this little bit of dishonesty:



> That&#8217;s a terrible analogy for an overall terrible argument. All of your sources have supported my claims that these anonymous donations are being made by nonprofit organisations. This is perfectly legal and make up a very small percentage of all contributions in the election cycle. We know majority of where the contributions are coming from and we know who they are contributing to. FEC has very detailed information regarding this.


Nonproffit organizations, me dear, as in 501C4 groups, who contributed to SuperPacs, who then spent the money on political activities.  And those superpacs dutifully discloses that it got the money from a 501C4.  So, if you call this little bit of avoiding the naming of the actual (original) contributor true disclosure, then you are a fool.  No one but nut cases believes that.   But you are correct.  It is indeed legal.  So, please, a bit of honesty would be appreciated.  You are ruining any reputation as an honest broker that you may have had.  

Then, continuing to tell untruths, Tania says:


> You have claimed that anyone, regardless of status individual status, are making anonymous donations of any amount and these contributions Super PACs are circumventing regulations by the FEC, and not reporting these donations.



I am not sure what you were just trying to say.  "Regardless of status individual status"???  "and these contributions Super PACs are circumventing regulations by the FEC"  ???

I am not talking about FEC regulations.  Not sure what status you are talking about.  



> Where is your proof of this?


What this is this, me dear.  Is the point that yu really do not like the english language??  OK.  I get it.

Here is the deal, Amazon.  YOur silliness has proven a well known fact:  A PERSON WITH A CLOSED MIND LEARNS *NOTHING*.  You have proven that in spades.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 1, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Relative to the aclu, you are back a ways.  I did not doubt it.



Sure, you didn't...



Rshermr said:


> Wow.  You are really running out of game me dear.  ACLU???  *Wow.  Wonder where you got that one.  Could be you have been off in those bat shit crazy con sites again.*





Rshermr said:


> What I said was did you have a point??



Where?



> You had one liberal source who did not like the disclose act.  But, me dear, if you ran the list, kind of like a list on video, you would see hundreds of conservatives against it along with a couple of progressives.  You know that.  So, why are you wasting time with a non point like that??  You are looking really, really desperate.



You made an erroneous claim which was incorrect. If don't want anyone to call you out on these claims, perhaps it would be better if you took the time to examine your words carefully. Not to mention you can clearly see all of the interest who oppose the bill, many with no clear affiliation. 



> And, so yes, you had only 2 republicans voting in favor in the house.  Which is what I would expect.
> 
> And the blue dog repubs voted against it.  No surprise.  Now, me dear, the bill was then still alive.  Let me explain.  A bill is normally introduced in the house, and dies if it does not pass.  Needs 50%, since there is no filibuster in the house.  Got that, me dear.  So, had it failed in the house, it would have been all over.  But it did not.  It PASSED in the house.  So, to be succinct, HR 5175 did not fail in the house, as you said.  It PASSED, and moved on to the SENATE.
> H.R.5175: DISCLOSE Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress
> ...



The first part in non underlined text is 'partially true'. The rest in underlined text is completely made up, and another example of talking out of your arse. The Support for cloture on S. 3628 was not 59%. Also 59% support is not majority needed to bring the debate onto the floor for a vote: It's 60%. And again, you still had more partisan support in favor of cloture than you did in opposition of it. No Republicans supported a vote for the bill, however, at least one Democrat voted against cloture.

In a world where information is freely available, it should really be impossible as wrong as you often are. 

On the Cloture Motion S. 3628 -- GovTrack.us



> The disclose act was brought up twice in 2010.  It was defeated by republicans in the senate both times  Both times the bill had well over 50% support in the senate, and both times senate republicans filibustered the bill.  Because, of course, they could care less about the will of the people.
> As could you.



It's not about the will of the people. It's about individual rights. The constitution insures the rights of individuals to engage in the political process without unnecessary risk of being harassed or embarrassment. Laws should be created to encourage Free Speech, not limit it.



> Nonproffit organizations, me dear, as in 501C4 groups, who contributed to SuperPacs, who then spent the money on political activities.  And those superpacs dutifully discloses that it got the money from a 501C4.  So, if you call this little bit of avoiding the naming of the actual (original) contributor true disclosure, then you are a fool.  No one but nut cases believes that.   But you are correct.  It is indeed legal.  So, please, a bit of honesty would be appreciated.  You are ruining any reputation as an honest broker that you may have had.



There is really nothing avoiding about it. It's not as if anyone can wake up one morning and decide to start their Non-Profit organisation. There is a lot of steps and regulations involved. A great portion of Treasury Funds come strictly from donations. Non-Profits take treasury funds and contribute these to Super PACs. It can falsely be determined that an ordinary citizen supports a candidate simply because it donated to a Non-Profit, which happened to make a contribution to a Super PAC. Because of this misconception, Non-Profit organisations are not required to disclose any of its donors. These organisations are only required to disclose if for specific contributions, depending on its purpose.

This law was made to protect individuals, not Non-Profits.



> I am not sure what you were just trying to say.  "Regardless of status individual status"???  "and these contributions Super PACs are circumventing regulations by the FEC"  ???
> 
> I am not talking about FEC regulations.  Not sure what status you are talking about.



Just so there is no confusion:



Rshermr said:


> *Truth is truth.  Evidence is evidence.  Anonymous deductions are rampant, and have been since Citizens United.  So, rail on as you want.  You are wrong.  Whether you believe there is a $50 limit or not really makes no difference.  Millions of dollars have been anonymously donated to SUPERPAC's. which is all that matters.  You can go on arguing there is a law not allowing over $50 all you want*.  I can find no reference to it being in effect after Citizens United.  Period.  If it is, so what.  The fact is, lots and lots and lots of anonymous donations have occured.
> 
> *The law that is there, and that should matter, is the one that Justice Kennedy assured us would make everything OK.  the rule that all donations would have to be disclosed.  Problem is, in less than a year, those running the SUPERPAC's had found ways around those rules.  With millions of dollars of donations with no disclosure.*



And as much as your limited vocabulary doesn't surprise me, you should know that status is pertaining to legal status, such as individuals, legal personality, organisations, non-profits, etc. Going over your words, lets review some basic facts:


Anonymous contributions must not exceed $50 dollars. Any amount give over this amount must be quickly disposed of.
Any contributions over $50 to a candidate, organisation or committee must have the information disclosed to the public.
Contributions to 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 organisations are not required to disclose their donor information.

Besides non-profit organisations, no other institutions or individuals are allowed to make contributions above $50 dollars without Super PACs having to disclose this information. If you are suggesting otherwise, where is your proof of individuals or organisations which are donating, regardless of status, to Super PACs? You have already claimed that these Super PACs have found ways around these rules,' despite the overwhelming amount of rules requiring the disclosure of many contributions above a specific amount.



> What this is this, me dear.  Is the point that yu really do not like the english language??  OK.  I get it.



A simple question was asked. All that really requires is a simple answer. If you don't have an answer, your silence will suffice.



> Here is the deal, Amazon.  YOur silliness has proven a well known fact:  A PERSON WITH A CLOSED MIND LEARNS *NOTHING*.  You have proven that in spades.



What exactly was I suppose to learn? I was the one doing the teaching and correcting you at every opportunity. What exactly are you knowledgeable about? It's not economics, nor is it law. I'm not even really sure what your purpose here to be honest other than being a glorified cheerleader for everyone other person.


----------



## Rshermr (Sep 1, 2013)

> The first part in non underlined text is 'partially true'. The rest in underlined text is completely made up, and another example of talking out of your arse. The Support for cloture on S. 3628 was not 59%. Also 59% support is not majority needed to bring the debate onto the floor for a vote: It's 60%. And again, you still had more partisan support in favor of cloture than you did in opposition of it. No Republicans supported a vote for the bill, however, at least one Democrat voted against cloture.



The point is, me dear, that the bill did not fail in the house as you said.  It passed there.  Remember, you said I was talking out of my arse when I said it got majority support.  Passed and failed, you see, are different things.
Now, it is nice to see that you now know you understand about cloture, and related filibuster.  Relative to a majority, you need to check the dictionary.  50.1% is a majority.  You are, of course, talking about a filibuster proof majority.
Now, here is a short history lesson.  I know you will learn nothing, because you prefer not to.  If repubs do not want to filibuster a bill, and it gets over 50% it passes.  In the past the great majority of bills that got a simple majority PASSED.  Since 2006, very, very few bills got through the senate, because REPUBLICANS BROKE WITH ALL PAST RATIONALITY AND FILIBUSTERED OVER 90% OF BILLS  BROUGHT FORWARD BY DEMS.  So, the bill passed based on a simple majority.  Repubs simply filibustered AGAIN.  
So, I know you know this,  You are pushing ridiculous points simply to hang on to a stupid concept.  That concept being that it is a bad idea to have a law saying that donors need to disclose their votes, and votes can not be hidden by those in charge of spending those donations on politics.

By the way, as you surely know, the one dem who voted against cloture was harry reid.  And he voted against, because he knew the bill was going to be filibustered, and if he HAD voted for the bill he would not have been able to bring it back up for another vote.  And you had one other potential vote by an independent that did not vote, because hew said he was unable to.  Both votes, of course, would not have overcome the repub filibuster.  BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE REPUB VOTED AGAINST REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF DONATIONS.  Which, me dear, simply supports what I said.  Hell, even the blue dogs in the senate did not vote against the bill.  And they almost ALWAYS vote with the repubs.  
You are proving the fact that it is possible to mislead by simply leaving out the evidence that provides the truth.  That, me dear, is a fairly advanced type of lying.

Then you say the following:


> And as much as your limited vocabulary doesn't surprise me, you should know that status is pertaining to legal status, such as individuals, legal personality, organisations, non-profits, etc. Going over your words, lets review some basic facts:
> Anonymous contributions must not exceed $50 dollars. Any amount give over this amount must be quickly disposed of.
> Any contributions over $50 to a candidate, organisation or committee must have the information disclosed to the public.
> Contributions to 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 organisations are not required to disclose their donor information.


Got it.  So, according to Tania:
1.  Good.  So therefor there are no contributions that have not been disclosed??  Got it.
2.  Good.  It was the intent of the supreme court to say all deductions should be disclosed.  But they meant for any donor to be able to donate to a 501c4 which would then donate to a superpac, and then that donation would be disclosed as coming from the name of the superpac, completely hiding the name of the actual donor.
3.   Good.  Hundreds of independent sources say that Citizens United allows donors to contribute unlimited amounts anonymously, but you say that it is a.  First, untrue, and then b.  ok because it is legal.
4.  Good.  The fact that congress has attempted to pass the disclose act multiple times to require disclosure of contributions to political activities is great with you, because we do not need to know.
5,  Good.  Because just because anonymous contributions are INCREASING EXPONENTIALLY according to all investigative reports, we should understand that there are laws that stop it.  
6.  The vast majority of americans are a.  Against the cu decision, b.  want it reversed, c.  want disclosure, you think it is absolutely fine that politicians vote against disclosure, because it is part of the "law".  



> Besides non-profit organisations, no other institutions or individuals are allowed to make contributions above $50 dollars without Super PACs having to disclose this information. If you are suggesting otherwise, where is your proof of individuals or organisations which are donating, regardless of status, to Super PACs? You have already claimed that these Super PACs have found ways around these rules,' despite the overwhelming amount of rules requiring the disclosure of many contributions above a specific amount.


And you suggest that it is not happening.  Because there are laws.  Which you call overwhelming.  Read and learn.  Point is, me dear, completely and totally obvious by now.  The Supreme Court, as Kennedy stated, would not allow anonymous contributions with Citizens United. However, those in control of superpacs circumvented that ruling.  There is no doubt of that.  Only a true con tool would try to spin it differently.  As you are doing.  No one buys it, me dear.  No one.  
You believe corporations should be able to donate as much as they want, have NO restrictions, and be able to find ways around citizens united rules about disclosure.  Got it.  
We all understand.  



> What exactly was I suppose to learn? I


   Get out your dictionary again.  You were not suppose to learn anything.  It would be supposed.  


> I was the one doing the teaching and correcting you at every opportunity.


Right.  And now we all know that points 1 through 6 above are true.  AND, we know you are delusional.



> What exactly are you knowledgeable about? It's not economics, nor is it law.


That would be your opinion, me dear.  And you know how much I value your opinion. 



> I'm not even really sure what your purpose here to be honest other than being a glorified cheerleader for everyone other person.


Now I know you think this sentence is good grammar, and makes perfect sense.  Good for you.  
But, me dear, what you fail to understand is that anyone reading this knows what your purpose is.  I have brought it out.  You have proven to be a conservative tool.  In the pocket of the wealthy and powerful.  Really, really, really obvious.  

So, we understand that you believe citizens united is a good law.  You believe there are laws against contributions being undisclosed, and therefor they are not.  And  you believe we should believe you, and not the overwhelming and obviously well researched information out there and readily available to all proving you are completely wrong.  Got it.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 1, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> The point is, me dear, that the bill did not fail in the house as you said.  It passed there.  Remember, you said I was talking out of my arse when I said it got majority support.  Passed and failed, you see, are different things.



Whether it or not majority of votes were reached in the House is irreverent. If the Bill didn't get any closer to a vote in the Senate, then it failed in the House.

The rest of your points there is just meaningless to the topic at hand.



Rshermr said:


> Got it.  So, according to Tania:
> 1.  Good.  So therefor there are no contributions that have not been disclosed??  Got it.



The laws are pretty clear: Non-Profits are the only organisations which do not have to disclose their donor information. You are the one suggesting that anyone can contribute any amount, and remain anonymous. Where is your proof?



Rshermr said:


> 2.  Good.  *It was the intent of the supreme court to say all deductions should be disclosed.  But they meant for any donor to be able to donate to a 501c4 which would then donate to a superpac, and then that donation would be disclosed as coming from the name of the superpac*, completely hiding the name of the actual donor.



Where is the proof that any Justice on the Supreme Court made had such intention? 

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM?N

The decisions in the court case are perfectly clear. 2 USC 441b was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and thus, removed the previous ban on corporations and organisations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. In no way did the Supreme Court make any decision about non-profits and their donors.

If a non-profit receives a contribution from a donor, that organisation must provide a donor with a written disclosure statement. These statements are made for the IRS to examine, and no one else.



Rshermr said:


> 3.   Good.  Hundreds of independent sources say that Citizens United allows donors to contribute unlimited amounts anonymously, but you say that it is a.  First, untrue, and then b.  ok because it is legal.



Where is your proof of individuals or organisations which are donating, regardless of status, to Super PACs? You have hundreds of independent sources, but somehow, you cannot cite one. How is it that organisations beside a non-profit are able to make donations and Super PACs are not reporting their information?



Rshermr said:


> 4.  Good.  The fact that congress has attempted to pass the disclose act multiple times to require disclosure of contributions to political activities is great with you, because we do not need to know.



That was not the purpose of the Disclosure Act. The purpose of the Disclosure Act was as follows:


Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communications by government contractors.
Applying a ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to foreign-controlled domestic corporations.
Treatment of payments for coordinated communications as contributions.
Treatment of political party communications made on behalf of candidates. 

The only other additional requirement which are too verbose to get into are the addition requirements regarding independent expenditures: 24 hour reporting on anyone making a contribution aggregate the amount or exceeding $10,000, but mostly impractical requirements for anyone who chooses to participate in electioneering communications.



Rshermr said:


> 5,  Good.  Because just because anonymous contributions are INCREASING EXPONENTIALLY according to all investigative reports, we should understand that there are laws that stop it.



Where is your proof? Anonymous contributions made up a very small portion of total aggregate contributions in 2012. Over $855 Million total receipts were made by Super PACs' in 2012. Less than a percentage of contributions were made where the origins of that money was unknown. Only 2% of donations were made by contributors which are not required to disclose their donors.



Rshermr said:


> 6.  The vast majority of americans are a.  Against the cu decision, b.  want it reversed, c.  want disclosure, you think it is absolutely fine that politicians vote against disclosure, because it is part of the "law".



Again, you are partially right on a part which is seemly irrelevant. What majority of Americans want is not irrelevant. Everyone has the right to closure, unless they are making a contribution above a certain amount. You've claimed that anyone can do this, still remain anonymous and not have their information reported. Where is this proof?



Rshermr said:


> And you suggest that it is not happening.  Because there are laws.  Which you call overwhelming.  Read and learn.  Point is, me dear, completely and totally obvious by now.  The Supreme Court, as Kennedy stated, would not allow anonymous contributions with Citizens United. However, those in control of superpacs circumvented that ruling.  There is no doubt of that.  Only a true con tool would try to spin it differently.  As you are doing.  No one buys it, me dear.  No one.



First of all, Kennedy made no such opinion.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM?N

Secondly, all you have to do is show me the proof. It's that simple. How is it that anyone can make a donation to a Super PAC, and this Super PAC are circumventing the laws in not reporting the information? The only legitimate cases are non-profits which are not required to disclose their donor information. If you have any other examples, I'm still interested in seeing it.



Rshermr said:


> You believe corporations should be able to donate as much as they want, have NO restrictions, and be able to find ways around citizens united rules about disclosure.  Got it.
> We all understand.



There is already a restriction on how much Corporations can make. The only forums where there are no restrictions are Super PACs. Corporations can make an unlimited amount, the same as any other individual. However, you are suggesting the corporations can make these donations anonymously. That is not the case. If they are, show me the proof.



Rshermr said:


> Right.  And now we all know that points 1 through 6 above are true.  AND, we know you are delusional.



Actually, not a single point you've brought up was actually true. Parts 2 and 4 are a figment of your imagination, and the rest you have absolutely no proof for. It's not what you know; it's what you can actually prove. Repeating a phrase over and over doesn't actually make it true.



Rshermr said:


> That would be your opinion, me dear.  And you know how much I value your opinion.



Maybe if you ignore all the facts, it's an opinion. The Facts are your economic understanding is very bad, and your legal knowledge is equally atrocious. I have a greater understanding of your legal system than you do, and you live here! How pathetic is that?



Rshermr said:


> Now I know you think this sentence is good grammar, and makes perfect sense.  Good for you.
> But, me dear, what you fail to understand is that anyone reading this knows what your purpose is.  I have brought it out.  You have proven to be a conservative tool.  In the pocket of the wealthy and powerful.  Really, really, really obvious.



Who you think I am is not relevant to the discussion. Show me why I am wrong.



Rshermr said:


> So, we understand that you believe citizens united is a good law.  You believe there are laws against contributions being undisclosed, and therefor they are not.  And  you believe we should believe you, and not the overwhelming and obviously well researched information out there and readily available to all proving you are completely wrong.  Got it.



All you have to do is show examples of anyone being able to make undisclosed donations, unreported by Super PACs. Feel free to offer more than just your ignorant say so.


----------



## Rshermr (Sep 1, 2013)

Tania says:


> Whether it or not majority of votes were reached in the House is irreverent. If the Bill didn't get any closer to a vote in the Senate, then it failed in the House.
> 
> The rest of your points there is just meaningless to the topic at hand.


Well, I am not sure what it takes to get it through your head.  It passed the house vote.  Period.  It did not die there.  It went to the senate, where it was voted on.  Twice.  You are being dishonest again.  Obvious.  If any bill is voted on in the senate, it has indeed passed the house.  Lying will not make it different, me dear.  Now, if you can show how a any bill is passed in the house, and then voted on in the senate, gets a majority yes vote in the senate, and is then filibustered indicates it died in the house, please bring that on.  You can not, of course, because what you are saying is just plain dumb. 
Ant the rest of what I said was relevant.  Just not what you wanted to address.



> The laws are pretty clear: Non-Profits are the only organisations which do not have to disclose their donor information. You are the one suggesting that anyone can contribute any amount, and remain anonymous. Where is your proof?


Proof.  You have to have an open mind, me dear.  You do not.  I have provided proof and explained to you how it works too many times.  You are simply playing games at this point.

Perhaps you would like to prove something.  Prove why a corporation who does not want to have it's name disclosed gives to a  501c4 that they know can and will contribute to a super pac.  And then, having done so the SuperPac would simply disclose that the  501C4, named, say, Citizens for Prosperity, would  be disclosed.  And therefor NO DISCLOSURE BY THE SUPER PAC WOULD BE MADE of the actual original source.  THE CORPORATION.  So, that meets your test.  It would be legal.  And unlimited donations could be so given and not divulged.  Legal, me dear.  So I guess in your mind that is no problem.  Because we know that Citizens for Prosperity donated the money.  

Most see this as a way to provide money to politics in an unlimited way, and see it as corrupting government.  You do not.  Got that.
But, hat is a really simple thing to understand.  Somehow you do not want to understand it.



> Where is your proof of individuals or organisations which are donating, regardless of status, to Super PACs? You have hundreds of independent sources, but somehow, you cannot cite one. How is it that organisations beside a non-profit are able to make donations and Super PACs are not reporting their information?


I have provided you that proof.  Not my fault you are brain dead.



> That was not the purpose of the Disclosure Act. The purpose of the Disclosure Act was as follows:
> Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communications by government contractors.
> Applying a ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to foreign-controlled domestic corporations.
> Treatment of payments for coordinated communications as contributions.
> ...



No, it was not.  As in, it had more to it.  You are simply stating untruths again, me dear.  Very tacky.



> Where is your proof? Anonymous contributions made up a very small portion of total aggregate contributions in 2012. Over $855 Million total receipts were made by Super PACs' in 2012. Less than a percentage of contributions were made where the origins of that money was unknown. Only 2% of donations were made by contributors which are not required to disclose their donors.


Nonsense.  And you are happy with seing the name of a nonprofit, as in 501c4, as the disclosure.  Tacky, and dishonest.

T





> here is already a restriction on how much Corporations can make. The only forums where there are no restrictions are Super PACs. Corporations can make an unlimited amount, the same as any other individual. However, you are suggesting the corporations can make these donations anonymously. That is not the case. If they are, show me the proof.


Right.  How many more times would you like proof.  Go play your games elsewhere.  You have been given proof.  



> Maybe if you ignore all the facts, it's an opinion. The Facts are your economic understanding is very bad, and your legal knowledge is equally atrocious. I have a greater understanding of your legal system than you do, and you live here! How pathetic is that?



Good for you.  Great to see you are proud of yourself.  Most stupid people are, me girl.  It is a normal attribute that stupid people, in study after study, always think that they are very, very knowledgeable.  Studies show, of course, that they are actually stupid.  Just trying to help.



> Who you think I am is not relevant to the discussion. Show me why I am wrong.



Wow.  Touchy when someone points out that you are a con tool.  But it is obvious, me dear.  Dead obvious.



> All you have to do is show examples of anyone being able to make undisclosed donations, unreported by Super PACs. Feel free to offer more than just your ignorant say so.



So, since the PAC does not disclose the name of the individual, or corporation, who made the contribution, when that contribution is anonymous, then you should be able to understand that NO ONE can name who made that contribution.  But, if you are stupid, that would be the kind of statement you might make.  And please, if you know how to name the person who was not disclosed,* Feel free to offer more than just your ignorant say so*.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 1, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Well, I am not sure what it takes to get it through your head.  It passed the house vote.  Period.  It did not die there. * It went to the senate, where it was voted on.  Twice.*  You are being dishonest again.



LMAO! There was no vote in the Senate. At all.  The only vote which took place was the vote to end cloture and begin the voting process. Whatever became of the bill making process ended with the House version of the bill. You really don't know what you are talking about. And it's sad too because one only of us here is actually allowed to vote in American elections.

Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (2010; 111th Congress S. 3628) - GovTrack.us




Rshermr said:


> Proof.  You have to have an open mind, me dear.  You do not.  I have provided proof and explained to you how it works too many times.  You are simply playing games at this point.



If you provided proof, I wouldn't need to ask for it over again. The only proof you've shown were nonprofit organisations which did not have to disclose information of their donors. That supports my claim. It doesn't support yours in anyway. Just in case you are confused, these are your words against my words:



Rshermr said:


> *Truth is truth.  Evidence is evidence.  Anonymous deductions are rampant, and have been since Citizens United.  So, rail on as you want.  You are wrong.  Whether you believe there is a $50 limit or not really makes no difference.  Millions of dollars have been anonymously donated to SUPERPAC's. which is all that matters.  You can go on arguing there is a law not allowing over $50 all you want*.  I can find no reference to it being in effect after Citizens United.  Period.  If it is, so what.  The fact is, lots and lots and lots of anonymous donations have occured.
> 
> *The law that is there, and that should matter, is the one that Justice Kennedy assured us would make everything OK.  the rule that all donations would have to be disclosed.  Problem is, in less than a year, those running the SUPERPAC's had found ways around those rules.  With millions of dollars of donations with no disclosure.*





AmazonTania said:


> And as much as your limited vocabulary doesn't surprise me, you should know that status is pertaining to legal status, such as individuals, legal personality, organisations, non-profits, etc. Going over your words, lets review some basic facts:
> 
> 
> Anonymous contributions must not exceed $50 dollars. Any amount give over this amount must be quickly disposed of.
> ...





Rshermr said:


> Perhaps you would like to prove something.  Prove why a corporation who does not want to have it's name disclosed gives to a  501c4 that they know can and will contribute to a super pac.  And then, having done so the SuperPac would simply disclose that the  501C4, named, say, Citizens for Prosperity, would  be disclosed.  And therefor NO DISCLOSURE BY THE SUPER PAC WOULD BE MADE of the actual original source.  THE CORPORATION.  So, that meets your test.  It would be legal.



That doesn't meet any test I asked for, and what I asked for was very specific. I can't really tell if you are moving the goalpost or your reading comprehension is failing once again, but that is not what you were asked to prove. Noticed the words in Bold Underline.



AmazonTania said:


> I am referring to your claims about the *organisations without 501(c) status making anonymous donations to Super PACs without being reported. Where is your proof of this?*





AmazonTania said:


> How is it that* organisations besides a non-profit are able to make donations and Super PACs are not reporting their information?*



And it's already been explained to you that a non-profit making a donation to a Super PAC does not mean this non-profit is making a contribution on behalf of it's donors. 



AmazonTania said:


> There is really nothing avoiding about it. It's not as if anyone can wake up one morning and decide to start their Non-Profit organisation. There is a lot of steps and regulations involved. A great portion of Treasury Funds come strictly from donations. *Non-Profits take treasury funds and contribute these to Super PACs. It can falsely be determined that an ordinary citizen supports a candidate simply because it donated to a Non-Profit, which happened to make a contribution to a Super PAC. Because of this misconception, Non-Profit organisations are not required to disclose any of its donors. These organisations are only required to disclose if for specific contributions, depending on its purpose.*
> 
> This law was made to protect individuals, not Non-Profits.



If you were paying attention instead of trying to score cheap points, you wouldn't have made such an erroneous error.

Now I'll ask you again, and this time, try to pay attention to the words: Do you have any prove that an individual or organisation, regardless of status, is making contributions to Super PACs and are not having their information disclosed.  



Rshermr said:


> Most see this as a way to provide money to politics in an unlimited way, and see it as corrupting government.  You do not.  Got that.
> But, hat is a really simple thing to understand.  Somehow you do not want to understand it.



For anyone with the same legal knowledge as you, it's simple. The rest of us educated individuals understand that these issues are not as simple as you think they are. There is really no limit to the amount of money people can donate to charity. There are millionaires and billionaires which have donated more than 65% of their fortune to charity before they have died. With mandatory disclosure laws on non-profits, it can easily be confused that philanthropist made a contribution or supports a candidate simply because the Non-Profit used treasury funds to lobby congress or to donate to Political Committees.

Which is why you were not asked about corporations making donations to non-profits, which made donations to Super PACs.' If AARP hosts a charity drive, and Goldman Sachs decides to become a sponsor. It could be misinterpreted that Goldman Sachs supports Obamacare, simply because Goldman was a Sponsor of AARP's charity drive. Very few people are honestly dumb enough to make this connection, except for you. This is why unless there is a specific purpose attached to the contribute, Non-Profit donations are to always be disclosed.



Rshermr said:


> I have provided you that proof.  Not my fault you are brain dead.



Where?



Rshermr said:


> No, it was not.  As in, it had more to it.  You are simply stating untruths again, me dear.  Very tacky.



No it wasn't. I've mentioned all the sections relating to the Bill. Perhaps you should read it sometime. Or maybe have someone else read it for you until your English improves.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr5175ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr5175ih.pdf 



Rshermr said:


> Nonsense.  And you are happy with seing the name of a nonprofit, as in 501c4, as the disclosure.  Tacky, and dishonest.



Anyone can to to the FEC and look up contributions from all sources, as well as the Sunlight Foundation which uses the same data. It's really not my reality disagrees with you.



Rshermr said:


> Right.  How many more times would you like proof.  Go play your games elsewhere.  You have been given proof.



I'll keep asking until I either get something resembling proof, retract your claim, or make another claim.

It really doesn't matter to me.



Rshermr said:


> Good for you.  Great to see you are proud of yourself.  Most stupid people are, me girl.  It is a normal attribute that stupid people, in study after study, always think that they are very, very knowledgeable.  Studies show, of course, that they are actually stupid.  Just trying to help.



That's nice that your studies show that, but it's really sad that you can't understand based legal matters regarding your own country. That puts your basic education in question.



Rshermr said:


> Wow.  Touchy when someone points out that you are a con tool.  But it is obvious, me dear.  Dead obvious.



It doesn't matter to me who you think I am. Concentrating the discussion on me is not going to help you in any way.



Rshermr said:


> So, since the PAC does not disclose the name of the individual, or corporation, who made the contribution, when that contribution is anonymous, then you should be able to understand that NO ONE can name who made that contribution.  But, if you are stupid, that would be the kind of statement you might make.  And please, if you know how to name the person who was not disclosed,* Feel free to offer more than just your ignorant say so*.



Yeah, except that the FEC keeps records of ALL contributions and puts this data into a database for all Americans available who wants to look it up. The amount of information to disclose depends upon the amount of which was contributed, hence, my question: prove that an individual or organisation, regardless of status, is making contributions to Super PACs and are not having their information disclosed.  

According to FEC data, less than a percentage of donations were made anonymous, which means that 99.9% of donations were made through other sources which are known to the public.


----------



## Rshermr (Sep 1, 2013)

So, more drivel.  Lots of untruths.
Lets look at your graph at the end, me dear.  I noticed there was NO LINK.  So, I went to the site that produced it.  But was unable to find it.  What a surprise.  Here is the graph that shows what demos.org says are secret, or unreported, contributions.


Million-Dollar Megaphones: Super PACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections | Demos

So, where you got the "under 1% " graph I do not know.  You will notice I provided a link.  How about you do the same.  Because I have read their report and your contention of under 1% bears no relationship to what they have to say. They said, in fact, the following:



> Of the spending reported to the FEC, $12.7 million, or 7.6 percent was secret spending, not traceable to an original source.


Same link, same page.  


> Other groups are spending millions to influence our votes without reporting their donors.  And, millions of dollars of this dark money is doubly-secretnot only are the donors undisclosed, but the spending itself is not reported to the public in any systemic way.


Same link


----------



## Rshermr (Sep 1, 2013)

Then, tania makes the following post, the untruth of which is very easy to establish.  


> LMAO! There was no vote in the Senate. At all.


 So, I thought you understood something about votes in the senate, and filibusters, and cloture votes.  Either you do not, or you are simply floating a lie to see if it gets by.  
The Senate takes on bills passed by the house.  If the house passes a bill, it goes to the senate for consideration.  Once the bill is put into the form the senate wants, then you get VOTES.  Specifically, if the other party has said they will filibuster, then the votes are procedural, to see if the bill has a chance to overcome a filibuster.  If it does, it goes forward.  If not, there is generally a vote for cloture, to put the bill aside, or to kill it, essentially.
Now pay attention, me girl.  The disclose bill passed in the house.  You have said several times it did not, but it did.  You were WRONG.
The bill, in the House form, went to the senate.  The senate modified the bill, primarily to accommodate repubs.  The repubs said they WOULD FILIBUSTER the bill if it was passed by a simple majority.  So, a procedural vote was taken, in which it was determined that the bill would not pass the filibuster requirement of the republicans. 
So, I guess I could say I am LMAO at you, me dear.  But it is way too childish.  But maybe  you should go laugh your ass of at what you said, because it was kinda funny.  Nice try. 




> The only vote which took place was the vote to end cloture and begin the voting process. Whatever became of the bill making process ended with the House version of the bill. /QUOTE]
> 
> And so, there were two votes relative to the bill.  One a procedural vote to see if the filibuster of the repubs could be overcome.  One set the bill aside.  It was later brought back up, with more changes, in 2010.  So, no, me dear, the bill did not die in the house.  And you are wrong about the vote on the bill.  It was voted on.  And the bill was not killed even in the Senate, it was simply set aside for further consideration at a later time.  A few months later.
> 
> ...


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 2, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, more drivel.  Lots of untruths.
> Lets look at your graph at the end, me dear.  I noticed there was NO LINK.  So, I went to the site that produced it.  But was unable to find it.  What a surprise.



Well that means that you're a complete moron, because the graph I used is on the same exact website you just provided...




Which probably leaves the impression that you didn't even read your own source. Is that a safe bet?



> Here is the graph that shows what demos.org says are secret, or unreported, contributions.
> 
> View attachment 27429
> Million-Dollar Megaphones: Super PACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections | Demos
> ...



I doubt that you've actually read it, because you would have seen the graph that I used plan as day. Also, what is up with your comprehension? The graph you attached doesn't show unreported contributions. All the contributions in your graph are accounted for clearly show on the bottom: Total Reported outside Spending for 2012 Cycle: $167.5 Million Dollars ($154 Million + $12.7 Million). What it does show is the total non-secret spending plus the total secret spending. And I'll show you why it's considered total secret spending in a second.



> > Of the spending reported to the FEC, $12.7 million, or 7.6 percent was secret spending, not traceable to an original source.
> 
> 
> Same link, same page.
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Now I am 100% certain you didn't read the source. If you did actually read your source, you wouldn't have actually quoted the closing remarks. Also, you would have understood that the report is explaining the same thing that I've been trying to explain to you: 501(c)4 Non-Profit organisations role in donating to Super PACs'. Hell, you could have figured that out just by reading the first paragraph.



			
				Demos said:
			
		

> Although each major party presidential candidate will likely break previous fundraising records, *the big story of the 2012 election has been the role of Super PACs, nonprofits and outside spending generally.*



You would have also understood that the 7.6% in unreported funds are clearly from Non-Profit Organisations.Without realising it you attached the second figure. I guess I will have to do all of the work for you.




This is the first figure which shows all reported contributions from all sources: $137 Million from Super PACs, $15 Million from 527 Political Organisations, $9 Million from 501(c)4s', 3 Million from 501(c)6s', $1 Million from Unions and a few hundred Thousand from other sources.

Now lets review Figure 2 (your graph):




As I have said before, what is being shown is the reporting of non-secret spending versus secret spending. $154 Million consist of non secret spending and $12.7 Million consist of spending which was kept secret. Looking at the numbers from the first chart, we can see what contributions towards 'non-secret spending.' There was $137 Million from Super PACs,' $15 Million from 527, $1 Million from Unions and $127,000 from other sources. This contributes to roughly $154 Million as estimated by the chart in Total 'Non Secret Spending.' 

There are only two other organisations left, and through simple process of elimination, even you should be able to figure out what these two are:




The 7.6% of secret spending money comes from non profit organisations. What a shocker. I don't know how many times you've proven my point, but I've never seen such a bigger fail. If this isn't the evidence you need to improve your reading proficiency around these forums, I don't know what is...


----------



## Rshermr (Sep 2, 2013)

> Which probably leaves the impression that you didn't even read your own source. Is that a safe bet?


No, but it does show that you used an early version of the graph.   JUNE 2012, prior to most activity.  Interesting that you did not take a later version, which would have shown more about what actually happened.  So, you are fine then with contributions to political activities being anonymous as long as they come from non profits.  Great.  
And contributions to SuperPac's can come from any source, and be unreported, and that is fine with you??  As long is it is legal according to the tax code??  


> How to Create a Super PAC with Tax Exempt Status
> 
> Contact a Delaware corporate lawyer.
> Have him setup a shell corporation in your name.
> ...



Then there is this type of thing, which allows PAC's to establish corporations to give money to SuperPacs.  But information available on the spanking new corporation provides little information.  And it is becoming rather common.


> A shadowy Tennessee company donated more than $5 million to a prominent conservative super political action committee days after establishing itself.
> 
> So who&#8217;s behind one of the largest batches of election contributions this year? There&#8217;s a questionable trail.
> 
> ...


So, nice.  A shadow corporation that discloses it's contribution to a huge superpac.  But no one knows a thing about the corporation.  And that corporation may be gone next week.  And that passes the legal test.  So, it must be ok.  

So, yes indeed.  Since Citizens United things have been going really well for the average citizen.  The big spenders have taken over politics in a big way.  Unless, of course, you believe they are making contributions just to make contributions, with no thought of financial gain.  


> A Center for Responsive Politics study found that in 2010 the percentage of &#8220;spending coming from groups that did not disclose their donors rose from 1 percent to 47 percent since the 2006 midterm elections,&#8221; and &#8220;501(c) non-profit spending increased from 0 percent of total spending by outside groups in 2006 to 42 percent in 2010.&#8221; The same report found that 72 percent &#8220;of political advertising spending by outside groups in 2010 came from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006.&#8221;
> 
> 
> > With House and Senate seats also in play, and control of each chamber potentially up for grabs, we are likely to easily eclipse the total $301 million spent by outside groups in the entire 2008 election. How do I know? In 2010, a midterm congressional election year&#8212;when you would expect to see a dip in spending compared to a presidential year&#8212;total outside spending hit a record $304.6 million. It was an incredible number for a midterm election season.
> ...


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 2, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> > Which probably leaves the impression that you didn't even read your own source. Is that a safe bet?
> 
> 
> No, but it does show that you used an early version of the graph.   JUNE 2012, prior to most activity.  Interesting that you did not take a later version, which would have shown more about what actually happened.



I used all of the information from the report YOU provided. If there was a later version, you should have provided that information as well. It's really not my fault you didn't read your own information carefully.



Rshermr said:


> So, you are fine then with contributions to political activities being anonymous as long as they come from non profits.  Great.



I don't understand why basic things must be explained so many times to you. A bulk of Non-profit financing originates from donations. Non-profits may use these contributions for political activity if they choose to. Explain why you believe someone should guilty by association simply for making a donation unrelated to politics? Unless the individual donor is making a specific contribution for political matters, they should not be required to have their information disclosed. 

Non-profits are required to go through a rigorous screening process to maintain their tax exempt status. Non Profits have to be able to show how their organisation is not in it for the money. The Government knows whom their donors are. As long as you believe the government will do a thorough job of making sure all finances are legit, then there should be no worry where these non-profits receive their financing from. After all, many of their funds gifts from people whom simply just want to lower their marginal taxes.



Rshermr said:


> And contributions to SuperPac's can come from any source, and be unreported, and that is fine with you??  As long is it is legal according to the tax code??



There are no contributions which have gone unreported. Not one. If you are aware that a contribution exist, then said contribution is made available for review by the FEC. Whether the contribution was made anonymous or not depends on varying factors.



Rshermr said:


> > How to Create a Super PAC with Tax Exempt Status
> >
> > Contact a Delaware corporate lawyer.
> > Have him setup a shell corporation in your name.
> ...



Is it possible for you to read your sources carefully, just once? You source is not explaining how Super PACs may establish corporations, but how Super PACs may establish tax exempt status by filing as a Non Profit organisation. In order to establish a business, regardless of intent (for-profit or non-profit), you must incorporate. This means that you are required to file Articles of Incorporation documents. Articles of Incorporation are official statements that you are creating an organisation, and they are filed with a state's corporations office. In addition to this you must apply for a federal employer identification number.

It hasn't become rather common. People have been doing this for decades. Political Committees do not have to establish corporations to spend money to other Super PACs. They can already do this on their own. They may spend their money on pretty much anything politically related, as long as they're not spending it directly on a campaign or a candidate.



Rshermr said:


> So, nice.  A shadow corporation that discloses it's contribution to a huge superpac.  But no one knows a thing about the corporation.  And that corporation may be gone next week.  And that passes the legal test.  So, it must be ok.
> 
> So, yes indeed.  Since Citizens United things have been going really well for the average citizen.  The big spenders have taken over politics in a big way.  Unless, of course, you believe they are making contributions just to make contributions, with no thought of financial gain.



Try reading more than the first sentence too.



> A shadowy Tennessee company donated more than $5 million to a prominent conservative super political action committee days after establishing itself.
> 
> So who&#8217;s behind one of the largest batches of election contributions this year? There&#8217;s a questionable trail.
> 
> ...



Your source clearly knows where these contributions came from, which means these contributions are registered by the FEC.  All anyone has to do is look it up, like I just did.





And here are one of their itemized receipts.

13962690430_000169.pdf

It's really not the case at all that these businesses are making secret contributions. The fact that the media is able to find out about this at all proves this. They're not exactly conducting ground breaking journalism and fact finding. They're employing the same resources which are available to any American: The Individual Contribution data Query.

I suggest you try it yourself. You might be surprise about what you might actually learn.

Search Campaign Finance Data by Individual Contributor


----------



## Rshermr (Sep 2, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > > Which probably leaves the impression that you didn't even read your own source. Is that a safe bet?
> ...


Got it, Tania.  There are absolutely NO contributions that are anonymous.  They are all reported.  And there is no problem at all.  

We, the 80 percent of the people in the US that believe that Citizens United is a bad idea are just WRONG.  And all of the articles out there, by the HUNDREDS explaining why citizens united has corupted politics are wrong.  And all of those investigative articles that show unreported revenue going through SuperPacs are wrong.  Got it.
And those named 501c4's set up specifically to provide money to SuperPac's do not exist.  And corporations are not being set up to fund SuperPac's that are shell corporations are not happening.  The documentation is just not true, eh, Amazon.  
Good deal.  No problem at all.  Citizens united is a great idea, and we are so lucky to have it.  Got it, Tania.

Now, here is a little problem.  You have nothing but drivel to back you up.  You are an obvious con tool.  If a far right talking head would be in favor you are right there with him.  You name it.  Any economic policy of any kind.  Now, why is it you think that anyone would believe you.  You make statements that are obvious lies(The disclose act failed in the house, there are laws against any contributions over $50 being undisclosed, so therefor there are none) and then move on when caught. 
But, on the other hand, we have:
The PACs are required to release the names of donors, however, a technicality in the disclosure rules allows donors to remain anonymous for months. Disclosure can be completely circumvented by PACs that create affiliated nonprofit 501(c)(4) organizations, which are not required to release the names of donors.
Read more: Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com


But as a result of the Citizens United ruling that allows unlimited, untraceable money to be spent on political action groups, we will likely never find out who is behind the mystery dollars.
Read more: Anonymous Donor Writes Huge Check To GOP -- Thanks, Citizens United! | Care2 Causes


The court&#8217;s embrace of disclosure could hardly have been clearer. Yet we now have a system awash in anonymous donations to shadowy political groups. According to the reform-minded Center for Responsive Politics, advocacy groups spent approximately $305 million in the 2010 midterm federal elections, more than quadrupling the $70 million spent in the 2006 midterms. Few of these groups disclosed their donors; the "transparency" promised by Justice Kennedy is nonexistent.
Was the Court Conned in Citizens United? - Bloomberg


 Independent groups that do not disclose the identity of their donors spent $132.5 million to influence elections nationwide this year, accounting for about a third of all spending by outside groups in the 2010 election cycle, a report released Friday found.
Anonymous donors spent $132M on 2010 campaign ads - politics - Decision 2010 | NBC News

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Right now, through creating multiple Limited Liability Corporations (LLC) or through anonymous PACs (501(c)3 or 501(c)4), it can be near impossible to trace where some of this money going into a candidate&#8217;s campaign is coming from.
Are Super PACs Good or Bad for Democracy?



"A group aligned with the Tea Party has funneled more than $1.3 million in anonymous contributions to a super PAC working aggressively to unseat Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and other congressional veterans, raising alarms among some watchdogs that these outside groups are emerging as a new avenue for secret political money.

FreedomWorks, a non-profit group that does not have to publicly disclose its donors, provided nearly half the money its affiliated super PAC, FreedomWorks for America, collected last year, as it launched an all-out campaign to defeat Hatch, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and others"
Super PAC taps source of anonymous cash to target Hatch ? USATODAY.com

So, Freedomworks takes in donations, keeps them anonymous, and gives money to a superpac.  The superpac contributes the money to some political group to make negative adds, or whatever.  The SuperPac then discloses that it had received the money from Freedomworks.  Now that's disclosure.

So, you have NO sources that say that all superpac money provides actual disclosure of the person or corporate entity that donated.  And that if it was a corporation, it was not a shell company.  But we should believe you, and not the above sources.  Got it.  

The only sources that I have found that agree with you are the bat shit crazy conservative web sites.  And they line up with you very well.
So, play your games with someone who wants to deal with a dishonest person.  I am tired of you.  I prefer to deal with people that have class.  And people with class rarely lie.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 2, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Got it, Tania.  There are absolutely NO contributions that are anonymous.  They are all reported.  And there is no problem at all.



I believe I have found the fallacy in your reasoning: It's your understanding of the terminology. *Anonymous Contributions* are donations from individuals or an organisation whose information are not disclosed to the public. *Reported Information* is completely different. This has to do with the compliance of FEC regulations. It is FEC regulations are ALL contributions, receipts, donations and independent expenditures are reported in a timely matter. Whether or not this information is disclosed publicly or privately depends on the actual requirements.

The fact that anyone, anywhere knows of any secret donations at all shows that there are obviously zero neglects of reports filed.



Rshermr said:


> We, the 80 percent of the people in the US that believe that Citizens United is a bad idea are just WRONG.



*Yawn* That's nice. . 



Rshermr said:


> And all of the articles out there, by the HUNDREDS explaining why citizens united has corupted politics are wrong.  And all of those investigative articles that show unreported revenue going through SuperPacs are wrong.  Got it.



So these investigative articles show unreported revenues going to Super PACs,' but somehow the FEC has records of these transactions on their database...

Makes perfect sense... If you're a moron, that is...



Rshermr said:


> And those named 501c4's set up specifically to provide money to SuperPac's do not exist.



The 501(c)4 aren't set up by Super PAC's. The 501(c)4 ARE the Super PACs'. Did you somehow forget that you have to disclose your operational statements and financial statements to the IRS for Non Profit Status Review? Do you really believe the IRS is going to grant this status for anything resembling a dummy corporation? Are you that clueless, or do you believe everyone else is?



Rshermr said:


> And corporations are not being set up to fund SuperPac's that are shell corporations are not happening.  The documentation is just not true, eh, Amazon.



Shell corporations are often formed before commencing operations to obtain financing. Sometimes, they're used as a front for tax evasion, but ultimately all Shell Corporations have an originator, and can be found rather easily simply by looking to the SEC database.

To have an honest discussion about these things, this requires research, which you have already admitted you are very poor at. 



Rshermr said:


> Now, here is a little problem.  You have nothing but drivel to back you up.



Your source claimed that Freedom Works received shadow money from a Business. I've already show you how this is not true, using FEC statistics. 

You are angry because you have been thoroughly debunked. 



Rshermr said:


> You are an obvious con tool.  If a far right talking head would be in favor you are right there with him.  You name it.  Any economic policy of any kind.  Now, why is it you think that anyone would believe you.  You make statements that are obvious lies(The disclose act failed in the house, there are laws against any contributions over $50 being undisclosed, so therefor there are none) and then move on when caught.



So I am lying about a law which is clearly in the books? It's always funny, regardless of the evidence, no one else is telling the truth, except you of course. 



Contributions in the name of another said:


> (3) A candidate or committee receiving an anonymous cash contribution in excess of $50 shall promptly dispose of the amount over $50. The amount over $50 may be used for any lawful purpose unrelated to any Federal election, campaign, or candidate.
> 
> 11 CFR 110.4 - Contributions in the name of another; cash contributions (2 U.S.C. 441f, 441g, 432(c)(2)). | Title 11 - Federal Elections | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute





Rshermr said:


> But, on the other hand, we have:
> The PACs are required to release the names of donors, however, a technicality in the disclosure rules allows donors to remain anonymous for months. Disclosure can be completely circumvented by PACs that create affiliated nonprofit 501(c)(4) organizations, which are not required to release the names of donors.
> Read more: Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com
> 
> ...



You're backed into a corner. Now you are just recycling the same rhetoric I've already debunked. All I'm going to do is refer you to post #1426 and #1431. 

I really don't see why I should have to debunk the same information twice.



Rshermr said:


> So, Freedomworks takes in donations, keeps them anonymous, and gives money to a superpac.  The superpac contributes the money to some political group to make negative adds, or whatever.  The SuperPac then discloses that it had received the money from Freedomworks.  Now that's disclosure.



Freedom Works is a Non-Profit organisation. They're not required to publicly disclose the information of any donors. UNLESS one particular donor makes a contribution for specific political purposes, such as advertisement. 

So we both agree that this is happening, which is nice to agree for a change. 



Rshermr said:


> So, you have NO sources that say that all superpac money provides actual disclosure of the person or corporate entity that donated.  And that if it was a corporation, it was not a shell company.  But we should believe you, and not the above sources.  Got it.



I have the Federal Elections Commission. That's a source. Not only is it a source, it's a primary source. It doesn't come from a blog, news article or any other secondary source. I've also used information from the Public Interest Research Group, which uses FEC statistics. 



Rshermr said:


> The only sources that I have found that agree with you are the bat shit crazy conservative web sites.  And they line up with you very well.



I didn't know the FEC was a conservative organisation. Do you think they've made unreported contributions to Freedom Works as well?



Rshermr said:


> So, play your games with someone who wants to deal with a dishonest person.  I am tired of you.  I prefer to deal with people that have class.  And people with class rarely lie.



All the information you have shown supports my initial claims, which are:


Anonymous contributions must not exceed $50 dollars. Any amount give over this amount must be quickly disposed of.
Any contributions over $50 to a candidate, organisation or committee must have the information disclosed to the public.
Contributions to 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 organisations are not required to disclose their donor information.

This is all verifiable. If you are making the case that it is wrong for a non-profit organisation to be able to donate and not have any of its donors disclosed, that's a legitimate concern. However, it is not true that these types of donations make up a large part of total aggregate contributions, it is not true that these contributions have gone unreported, and it is not true that any individual or ogranisation can make unlimited donations directly to Super PAC's can keep their information from the public.

You have no qualms with calling everyone else a tool, but you believe 100% of everything you read (or rather don't read, since your literacy is so poor), especially if it's a source you find acceptable. If there is anyone here who is a tool, it's most definitely you.

Grow up...


----------



## Rshermr (Sep 3, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Got it, Tania.  There are absolutely NO contributions that are anonymous.  They are all reported.  And there is no problem at all.
> ...


So, setting up a 501c4 for the express purpose of making donations to a connected superpac is legal.  No one said it was not, me clown.  It is exactly why the c4 WAS SET UP.  Which is what source after source after source says, tool.  It is exactly the purpose.  To circumvent requirements to actually disclose who it was that donated the money.  As you well know.  You see, me clown, this is why I cal you a tool.  You know what you are saying.  You are saying it is legal, and the superpac does what it is required to do.  They disclose the name of the doner, who is a c4.  That is easy to understand.  Also easy to understand is that it is deceptive, and meant to protect actual doners.  Plain and simple.  So, see why it is so simple to see that you are playing games.  Unless of course, you are just plain stupid.
Same with corporations.  A superpac can arrange to set up a corporation, which takes money and donates to a superpac.  But it is a shell corporation, and the disclosure tells only the name of the shell corporation.  And protects the actual doners, who placed the money in the shell corporation for the purpose of avoiding true disclosure.  
So, you got it.  It is legal to set up c4's.  But it was against the intent.  And it is possible to set up corporations, and hide actual donors.  So, you apparently believe that because it is legal, it is ok.  You see, dipshit.  That is why I keep saying the same thing.  You think it is ok.  Or so you say.  The truth is, very few think it is.  And that is why, as you also know, the disclose act has been attempted.  And killed by those,  who like yourself, believe that the public has no right to know who is donating what.  
Now I am sure you will want to say again that all you have to do is look at the fec records.  And we can see who donated.  But, as you know, that money coming from dark sources will be VERY hard to uncover.  In general, we will never know.  We will not know who the c4 got it's money from, but we will have it's name as a donor to the superpac.  

You also will not want to admit, though it has been proven to any rational person, that superpacs can and do postpone those disclosures for months.  You can not tell, when looking at fec information, that disclosures have not yet been provided.  But that is legal.  So I am sure it is ok with you.  Because, of course, you do not feel that the citizens have any need to see that information.  Just as the corporate interests do not.  And why they are fighting to keep disclosure from happening at all.  

But the issue is not just hidden contributions.  That is a small portion of the damage from Citizens United.  But you like it.  So, what the hell.  I have no argument for that.  None at all.  That is the argument that you will find in one place, over and over and over.  That being the bat shit crazy con sites who always align perfectly with your opinions on everything economic.  
So you can bypass a hundred rational sources, say they prove nothing, and believe what you want.  Which is, citizens united is a good thing, protecting us citizens.  But you see, most of us citizens think you are full of shit.  That you are simply protecting those that want to own our politics, and thereby our laws.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 3, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> So, setting up a 501c4 for the express purpose of making donations to a connected superpac is legal.  No one said it was not, me clown.  It is exactly why the c4 WAS SET UP.  Which is what source after source after source says, tool.  It is exactly the purpose.  To circumvent requirements to actually disclose who it was that donated the money.  As you well know.  You see, me clown, this is why I cal you a tool.



No, your source is pretty clear on this one:



> How to Create a Super PAC with Tax Exempt Status:
> 
> What are PACs and Super PACs and Their Connection to the IRS?



And it's actually not a 501(c)4. It's a 527, which is basically a tax-exempt organisation under the Internal Revenue Code. And it has already been explained to you that Super PACs' are not setting up Non Profit Organisations. Non Profit Organisations are becoming Super PACs. Typically, Super PACs' establish themselves as Non Profit Organisations, OR Non Profit Organisations establish their own Super PACs.' Either way, by law, you are required to have an exempt function to create a political committee.



			
				26 USC § 527 - Political organizations said:
			
		

> 1) Political organization
> The term political organization means a party, committee, association, fund, or other organization (whether or not incorporated) organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or both, for an exempt function.
> 
> (2) Exempt function
> ...





> You know what you are saying.  You are saying it is legal, and the superpac does what it is required to do.  They disclose the name of the doner, who is a c4.  That is easy to understand.  Also easy to understand is that it is deceptive, and meant to protect actual doners.  Plain and simple.  So, see why it is so simple to see that you are playing games.  Unless of course, you are just plain stupid.



That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying you don't understand a bloody thing about how this works. You cannot set up a Non Profit organisation for the sole purpose feeding funds into a Super PAC. Not only is it very redundant, it is also not feasible. Of course, everyone is stupid, except for you. You understand more about these regulations than the IRS, and they're the ones who makes these laws.

Filing Requirements

Exemption Requirements - Political Organizations

Common Tax Law Restrictions on Activities of Exempt Organizations



> Same with corporations.  A superpac can arrange to set up a corporation, which takes money and donates to a superpac.  But it is a shell corporation, and the disclosure tells only the name of the shell corporation.  And protects the actual doners, who placed the money in the shell corporation for the purpose of avoiding true disclosure.



Super PACs can already donate money to other Super PACs. It has already been established that a over $30 Million of fundraising to Super PACs' were from other Super PACs'. So maybe you can explain why a Super PAC would need to establish a corporation just for the sole purpose of donating money to another Super PAC. The first part of making an effective argument is making sense.








> So, you got it.  It is legal to set up c4's.  But it was against the intent.  And it is possible to set up corporations, and hide actual donors.



You cannot establish a non-profit organisation for the sole purpose of donating money. That's already been confirmed by the Internal Revenue Service requirements. Corporations are another matter. People can decide to incorporate and send money together. It's still not as easy as one makes it sound, but ultimately, the origins of the money will always turn up.



> So, you apparently believe that because it is legal, it is ok.  You see, dipshit.  That is why I keep saying the same thing.  You think it is ok.  Or so you say.  The truth is, very few think it is.  And that is why, as you also know, the disclose act has been attempted.  And killed by those,  who like yourself, believe that the public has no right to know who is donating what.



That's not what I'm saying this time. I'm saying it's time for you to grow up and understand how this all works. Getting your information from Google will only get you so far.



> Now I am sure you will want to say again that all you have to do is look at the fec records.  And we can see who donated.  But, as you know, that money coming from dark sources will be VERY hard to uncover.  In general, we will never know.  We will not know who the c4 got it's money from, but we will have it's name as a donor to the superpac.



Where is your proof that the money comes from dark sources. Only the IRS knows where the money comes from. And yes, all one has to do is look at FEC records. Unless the contribution is less than $50 dollars, the information is available to the public, whether it's a individual, corporation or organisation. Individuals send money on their own, Corporations send money as a group, and Organisations send money according to their mission statement. It's not to be confused as sending money on behalf of it's donors.



> You also will not want to admit, though it has been proven to any rational person, that superpacs can and do postpone those disclosures for months.  You can not tell, when looking at fec information, that disclosures have not yet been provided.  But that is legal.  So I am sure it is ok with you.  Because, of course, you do not feel that the citizens have any need to see that information.  Just as the corporate interests do not.  And why they are fighting to keep disclosure from happening at all.



All contributions and expenditures are updated monthly and/or quarterly. The only instance where the FEC does not allow such leniency is during an election cycle, in which reports must be filed as often as every 48 Hours. It's right here in plan simple text.

FEC Reporting Dates (2013)



> But the issue is not just hidden contributions.  That is a small portion of the damage from Citizens United.  But you like it.  So, what the hell.  I have no argument for that.  None at all.  That is the argument that you will find in one place, over and over and over.  That being the bat shit crazy con sites who always align perfectly with your opinions on everything economic.



As long as the contributions are above a certain amount, they're not hidden. 



> So you can bypass a hundred rational sources, say they prove nothing, and believe what you want.  Which is, citizens united is a good thing, protecting us citizens.  But you see, most of us citizens think you are full of shit.  That you are simply protecting those that want to own our politics, and thereby our laws.



Do you have anything else to add other than meaningless pontificating?


----------



## Rshermr (Sep 3, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, setting up a 501c4 for the express purpose of making donations to a connected superpac is legal.  No one said it was not, me clown.  It is exactly why the c4 WAS SET UP.  Which is what source after source after source says, tool.  It is exactly the purpose.  To circumvent requirements to actually disclose who it was that donated the money.  As you well know.  You see, me clown, this is why I cal you a tool.
> ...


Since you had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW, no.  You are beyond any possibility of discussion.  that is what happens when you are a con tool.  You believe what you want.  Strange malady.  But well documented.
A really close personal friend of mine, dead now, used to argue in the same way as you.  Finally admitted that he did not believe anything that he did not want to believe.  And he did indeed believe what he wanted to.  
Strange illness.  I did a lot of his eulogy.  We were buddies even with our disagreements.  Same strange affliction.  He was a con.  He believed as he was told.  
So I have come to be able to recognize your sort.

What you all seem to know is that it takes a few seconds to make accusations or claims, but minutes to hours to disprove them.  You go in circles.  I recognize the pattern.  Read a lot about it over the years.  

But here is the thing.  You know better.  You know you are playing a game.  You could care less about truth.  It is of no interest.

So, we come at things from a completely different perspective.  I believe in the truth.  And you are on the wrong side relative to citizens united.  Making silly arguments about minutia.  Because you are a con tool.  And that is simply what you do.

So the preponderance of evidence makes no dent in your truth.  Your truth is what you want it to believe.  There may be hundreds, and in this case there are, of sources proving you are wrong.  But you will go along making statements you know to be untrue in order to support your agenda.  

Good for you.  I thought at one point you had interest in rational conversation.  You do not.  Just another con tool.


----------



## Kat3eWhit (Sep 3, 2013)

America will be fine. There is no way to legitimately compare us to the mess that's going on in Europe.


----------



## jasonnfree (Sep 3, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



One thing came out of the 501 c 4 scandal a couple of months ago is that this exemption is for organizations whose primary purpose is the common good and general welfare of the community.      When  you see the Koch Brothers and Dick Armey involved in the common good this should arouse some suspicion.   Freedom works was involved in promoting pure right wing politics by organizing  tea parties.      Getting money out of politics should be a common aim of people  of all political persuasions.   Calling  a corporation a person is beyond ridiculous and shows that money can buy anything.  Am I getting ridiculous by demanding to see Exxon's birth certificate before they're allowed to even vote, much less be allowed to buy votes?
Ok, only two more posts and this thread hits the C mark.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 3, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Since you had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW, no.  You are beyond any possibility of discussion.  that is what happens when you are a con tool.  You believe what you want.  Strange malady.  But well documented.



Except for the chart, all of the information I have provided was new. It's not my fault 



> A really close personal friend of mine, dead now, used to argue in the same way as you.  Finally admitted that he did not believe anything that he did not want to believe.  And he did indeed believe what he wanted to.
> Strange illness.  I did a lot of his eulogy.  We were buddies even with our disagreements.  Same strange affliction.  He was a con.  He believed as he was told.
> So I have come to be able to recognize your sort.



I don't care about your personal relationships. I really don't.



> What you all seem to know is that it takes a few seconds to make accusations or claims, but minutes to hours to disprove them.  You go in circles.  I recognize the pattern.  Read a lot about it over the years.
> 
> But here is the thing.  You know better.  You know you are playing a game.  You could care less about truth.  It is of no interest.



So you consider Journalism more truthful than Governmental Statistics, Legal Statutes and Federal Documents. Is that what I'm reading?



> So, we come at things from a completely different perspective.  I believe in the truth.  And you are on the wrong side relative to citizens united.  Making silly arguments about minutia.  Because you are a con tool.  And that is simply what you do.
> 
> So the preponderance of evidence makes no dent in your truth.  Your truth is what you want it to believe.  There may be hundreds, and in this case there are, of sources proving you are wrong.  But you will go along making statements you know to be untrue in order to support your agenda.
> 
> Good for you.  I thought at one point you had interest in rational conversation.  You do not.  Just another con tool.



If you weren't such a bloody crybaby throwing ad homeniem attacks, I'd take you seriously.

The Facts are I have provided tonnes and tonnes of legal statutes currently in the books regarding Political Contributions and Independent Expenditures, FEC Statistics regarding donations within the past 3 years, Personal donor information of an organisation which was reported to have given 'dark money,' IRS rules and regulations regarding tax exempt status, a tonne of your own sources substantiating my claims, and a tonne of other things.

The sources I have provided are completely neutral. They don't advocate for policy and they don't have an agenda, which I thought was right up your ally. Of course, when these sources do not support your worldview, you can pretend it doesn't exist.

These aren't my truths. I don't make the laws, rules or the regulations. I don't compile data for the FEC. I don't conduct studies on behalf of the US PRIG. I don't review tax regulations either. I am not a Barrister, Statistician, Accountant or Political Researcher.

I just show what the facts are and you're crying because the facts are not what you want them to be. That's not my problem. You need to just live with it.

Federal Election Commission Home Page

Internal Revenue Service 

LII | LII / Legal Information Institute

U.S. PIRG | The Federation of State PIRGs


----------



## Rshermr (Sep 3, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


Agreed.  You, I, and the vast majority of the nation believe that 1.  Corporations are not people, and 2.  Money is not speech.  Any other concept is just plain support for those with enough money to control politics.  Easy to see by those with an open mind.


----------



## Rshermr (Sep 7, 2013)

So those there has been a revolt against austerity in a number of those countries that have seen sustained downturns attributed to austerity measures.  It will be interesting.  With the major push for more austerity in european nations coming from german politicians, and with push back now quite heavy even in Germany, it will be interesting.  But here is a sample of the analysis and the overall thought of some of the more rational sources of information.  The following specifically about the effects of lessened austerity in a number of nations:



> So, overall, its more good news out of Europe as the national economies eke their way towards growth. Obviously there are still major issues, most notably the continued lack of demand for credit in many nations and the underlying issue of debt imbalances across the region. As I stated last week , the question now is whether the same adjustments in austerity policy that are supporting this recovery will continue after the German election, or whether we will see a return to old form and a renewed slow down. Well obviously have to wait until after September 22nd to find that out.



How bad did it get:


> Faced with soaring unemployment, deepening recession, and a widening political backlash, European officials are easing up on two-year-old demands for painful budget cuts from its most debt-gorged members.
> 
> The scope of the economic pain was brought into sharper focus last week with the latest jobless data for the 17 euro-area member countries. Nearly 20 million Europeanssome 12.2 percent of the workforceare without work.
> 
> In struggling southern periphery countries locked in a downward spiral of tax increases and spending cuts mandated by Brussels, the job outlook is especially grim. More than one in four Spaniards is out of a job; in Portugal 17.8 percent are unemployed. In February, the latest data available, the Greek unemployment rate had risen to 27 percent.



It took a while, but those who most prospered from austerity, the very wealthy business officials, have been overpowered by a combination of logic, bad economic news, and the citizenry of the countries anger over their activities.  The net result is that things are actually starting to improve.  

For the most part, the lesson is learned.  Those with the most to gain personally and in their business ventures are still fighting to maintain austerity measures.  But overall, the great majority have been able to watch a very painful experiment gone awry.  And the resultant emphasis has been to stop austerity measures in most nations.  Now, the real question:  Will the political and economic leaders have the guts to make the correct moves this time.  Or will they cave to the powers that be??

Should be another really interesting experiment to watch.  And a really great opportunity for those that benefited most from austerity to make (more) untrue statements about cause and effect.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> For the most part, the lesson is learned.




how idiotic!! the idea that tax and spend can create real jobs is absurd. A real job comes from an invention that free people want to buy. Thats how we got from the stone age to here. 

Since government libturd bureaucrats do not invent things they can't help, but they can hurt by throwing a monkey wrench into the economy. Is that really over your head?


----------



## Rshermr (Sep 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > For the most part, the lesson is learned.
> ...


It is ED.  You were gone and....  Well not missed, just gone.  And back with your normal irrational comments.  Perfect.
Now, this one is really cool.  You say "Since government libturd bureaucrats do not invent things they can't help".  So, apparently you believe R. Reagan was a libturd bureaucrat.  Perfect.  He reduced taxes and spending, saw unemployment go to 10.8%, the highest ever except for the great depression.  Perfect non intervention.  Then, he raised taxes 11 times, tripled the national debt, and increased the size of the gov significantly.  Damned libturd bureaucrat.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 15, 2013)

Rshermr said:


> Reagan was a libturd bureaucrat.  Perfect.  He reduced taxes and spending, saw unemployment go to 10.8%, .



of course thats a idiotic lie. Check you history and you'll see Volkers record 20% interest rates made unemployment shoot up. It does not bother you to lie at all does it?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan was a libturd bureaucrat.  Perfect.  He reduced taxes and spending, saw unemployment go to 10.8%, .
> ...


It had been quite close to that under the prior president, yet unemployment never got close to 10.8% under Carter.  Never got above 8% and Carter handed Ronnie the presidency with unemployment at 7.3%  But nice try, my mentally challenged cut and paste expert.
But here is the real problem for you, dipshit.  Ronnie was a true believer in lowering taxes and decreasing gov spending in pretty much ANY situation, but certainly always in the case of high unemployment.  So, he has the highest unnemployment rate since the great republican depression of 1929. And he does not lower taxes as he said he would, but RAISES TAX RATES INSTEAD OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.  So, he believes that he needs to raise taxes in bad times now.  Must have changed his mind after seeing what a mess he made when he lowered them.  Because he needs to spend stimulatively.  Which he then does.  Spends like a drunken sailor to get the economy going.  Why, ED, think about it.  He used good old democratic thought, democratic policy, and raised taxes to get money to spend stimulatively.  AND, ED, IT WORKED FOR YOUR HERO.  JUST AS ECONOMISTS AND HIS ECONONOMIC TEAM KNEW IT WOULD.  DAMN,,,,,,,


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2014)

So, the beat goes on.  Austerity is still being used as a tool throughout europe.  As time passes, we have a good look at how it has worked, so I am trying to reactivate the thread to see what people think after another 6 months or more.
It became obvious that the right wingers did not want to believe anything that was being said by investigative journalists and economists unless it was favorable to austerity.  I could care less what the verdict is, just a bit of truth would be useful.  Because what is important is that people get back to work, and that economies expand in general.  Whether it is because of austerity or spending programs is immaterial.  So, try and leave agenda at the door.
By the way, another favorite of the right wing web sites and fox is that austerity is not being practiced anywhere.  That  is a claim that has been dealt with by numerous economists, and silly IMHO.  But, knock yourselves out.  
Anything new???


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> So, the beat goes on.  Austerity is still being used as a tool throughout europe.  As time passes, we have a good look at how it has worked, so I am trying to reactivate the thread to see what people think after another 6 months or more.
> It became obvious that the right wingers did not want to believe anything that was being said by investigative journalists and economists unless it was favorable to austerity.  I could care less what the verdict is, just a bit of truth would be useful.  Because what is important is that people get back to work, and that economies expand in general.  Whether it is because of austerity or spending programs is immaterial.  So, try and leave agenda at the door.
> By the way, another favorite of the right wing web sites and fox is that austerity is not being practiced anywhere.  That  is a claim that has been dealt with by numerous economists, and silly IMHO.  But, knock yourselves out.
> Anything new???




What you call austerity is really just the welfare state system collapsing under its own weight.

Not spending money one doesn't have isn't unnecessary austerity, it's REALITY.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, the beat goes on.  Austerity is still being used as a tool throughout europe.  As time passes, we have a good look at how it has worked, so I am trying to reactivate the thread to see what people think after another 6 months or more.
> ...


Ah.  So all of those nations have no money to spend.  Got it.  Though that is not true, at all.  So, you like austerity.  Is it working well for any nation, or are you simply suggesting that whatever happens, no more spending and go down with the ship if that is what the ship is doing.  

Next.


----------



## Toro (Jul 20, 2014)

Austerity seems to be doing pretty well in Ireland.  They appear to be coming out of their deep recession.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

Ireland also has a very low corporate tax rate which invites business investment.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




Please expain how a nation spending more on social welfare programs than it can afford to is not "going down with the ship".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Ireland also has a very low corporate tax rate which invites business investment.



yes 12% and so many of the world's great companies relocated there in whole or in part. The US is worlds highest at 35% tax plus 5% state tax and is one of only six countries that collects taxes on the world wide income of our corps. Its no wonder Walgreens and many other want out asap.

Liberals need to punish evil business so badly that they cant think. Liberalism is so stupid that it should be made illegal.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2014)

I did not say social welfare programs specifically, but since you ask:
 Same as we did when in 1982, after lowering tax rates to a major degree Reagan raised taxes 11 times, brought in revenue, and spent it on stimulative programs.  Worked wonders.  
Same process with social programs in general.  Say social medicine.  Doctor and hospital and medical services get paid, they pay employees and contractors, who buy things.  Hope this is simple enough.  Called stimulative spending.  Works when the economy is in bad shape.  
While it is possible to over spend on any program, in most cases europe suffered from a revenue problem big time, not so much a spending problem.  Unemployment does that, by definition.  If you are not working, you are not paying taxes and you end up with a major deficit.  Cutting spending will put you in an even bigger deficit, as Reagan learned in 1981-82.  
You are welcome.
Next.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> , brought in revenue, and spent it on stimulative programs.  Worked wonders.



of course thats 100% impossible because what the govt taxes and spends the private sector can no longer tax and spend. Simple enough for even a liberal to understand?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> I did not say social welfare programs specifically, but since you ask:
> Same as we did when in 1982, after lowering tax rates to a major degree Reagan raised taxes 11 times, brought in revenue, and spent it on stimulative programs.  Worked wonders.
> Same process with social programs in general.  Say social medicine.  Doctor and hospital and medical services get paid, they pay employees and contractors, who buy things.  Hope this is simple enough.  Called stimulative spending.  Works when the economy is in bad shape.
> While it is possible to over spend on any program, in most cases europe suffered from a revenue problem big time, not so much a spending problem.  Unemployment does that, by definition.  If you are not working, you are not paying taxes and you end up with a major deficit.  Cutting spending will put you in an even bigger deficit, as Reagan learned in 1981-82.
> ...




You are historically ignorant.   Reagan lowered income and capital gains taxes much more than the SS tax increase.   The economy recovered due to taming inflation and an overall lower tax burden.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Called stimulative spending.  Works when the economy is in bad shape.



yes it works for simple fool liberals  who don't know that taxing is unstimulative. If you take water out of one side of the lake and pour it in the other does the water level rise? Think about it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Ireland also has a very low corporate tax rate which invites business investment.
> ...


And ed is lying again.  Here, me boy, is the truth:


> Levin, Coburn Release GAO Report Finding U.S. Corporations Pay an Average Effective Tax Rate of 12.6 Percent
> Monday, July 1, 2013- See more at: Carl Levin - United States Senator for Michigan: Newsroom - Press Releases



Cons are always talking about the tax rate, not what corporations pay.  The US corporate tax rate is relatively high, but the actual rate that they pay is among the lower rates in the world.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > I did not say social welfare programs specifically, but since you ask:
> ...


That is a totally stupid statement.  The corporations do not tax, or spend taxes, dipshit.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



yes all agree they get from 40% tax to 15% by moving out of the country to lower tax countries like Walgreen is planning. Companies move to China for lower wages and to Ireland for lower taxes.

Its the liberal insanity anti jobs policy!!y


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Called stimulative spending.  Works when the economy is in bad shape.
> ...


Go tell the reagan folks that, dipshit.  It worked very well for them.  That you are wrong was proved by the fact that the reagan team did not lower taxes, they raised them, and they did not decrease spending, they increased spending.

The fact is, me boy, no president had ever doubled the national debt.  Until reagan, who TRIPLED the national debt.

Here is the thing, dipshit.  I am not talking about theory.  I am talking about the facts.  What actually happened, me poor ignorant tool.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...





You nattering nabob of nonsense - please learn how to use the quote feature.  I did not post what you have attributed to me.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Now, now ed.  You are lying so fast you can not keep track of yourself.  What the quote proved is that the GAO has determined that the average tax rate paid by us major corporations is 12.6%.  Now, if you can stop lying, you would be stuck having to admit that the US corporate effective tax rate is not very high.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


jesus, Boedeca, you are indeed a clown.  If you look, you will see that I  was not commenting to you.  dipshit.  I commented to Ed.  Who had commented to something I had said.  Now I know both of you are lying fools, but try to take your head out of your ass.  Then,take a look and see if you  can find your name in the string of nested comments.  Jesus, it must be tough being that stupid.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> I am not talking about theory.  I am talking about the facts.  What actually happened, me poor ignorant tool.



1) not even Krugman says Reagan proved stimulus works. Of course there were way too many variables for anyone to come to that conclusion, except you. What does that tell us about your IQ?

2) we know that taxing destimulates the economy by destimulating those who are taxed.

Govt stealing and spending does not suddenly make a dollar magical. Please post on fridge for daily review. This is really Econ 101. Sorry to rock your world.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > I am not talking about theory.  I am talking about the facts.  What actually happened, me poor ignorant tool.
> ...


Let me know when you can prove anything you say, me boy.  A link would be a good start.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



dear your idiotic assertion is that Reagan Administration was perfect scientific experiment that proved tax and spend worked. Is there even one economist that agrees with you?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2014)

Dante said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > European austerity is the model for neo conservative policies.
> ...


Posting a quote from me that is not something that I posted is just a little dishonest, me boy.  I did not make the post that you are trying to attribute to me.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


You know I have done so many times.  Lying again, me boy.  No integrity at all.
However, lets take it another direction:
  1.  Do you dispute that reagan increased the national debt by nearly three times it size when he was inaugurated???

He did, of course.

2.  Do you admit that after decreasing taxes greatly in 1981, he then increased taxes many times?
He did, of course.

3.  Since he increased taxes and spent enough to triple the national debt, do you admit he went back on his pledge to cut taxes and cut the size of government?

You must, if you admit to 1 and 2 above.

Do you admit that after he increased taxes and spent enough to triple the national debt, that unemployment decreased and the deficit decreased??

There you go, me boy.  Proof that deficit, or stimulative, spending works.  And that your heroe admitted that it indeed did.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> There you go, me boy.  Proof that deficit, or stimulative, spending works.  And that your heroe admitted that it indeed did.



if it was proof and the matter was closed at least one economist would see it that way but none do. In fact you may be the only person on earth who sees it that way. what does that tell us about your IQ?

If deficits were stimulative then Obama's economy would be roaring since his deficts have totaled $5.8 trillion in 4 years while Reagans totaled only $1.86  trillion in 8 years. How slow are you?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 24, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > There you go, me boy.  Proof that deficit, or stimulative, spending works.  And that your heroe admitted that it indeed did.
> ...


Poor ed.  Again we see why the kindergardeners know more of economics than he does.
Ed thinks he can buy a new car at the same price as during the Reagan administration.  Knows NOTHING of inflation, excepts when he wants to suggest that inflation is the dem's fault.  Funny. 
Reagan tripled the national debt.  Now,ed would think that is a knock on Reagan, because he is stupid.  But truth is, it was only Reagan spending to get the economy going, and it worked.  No one stopped him, though they could have.  Because they saw the value and the results of stimulative spending.
So, we have ed, who thinks stimulative spending is a bad thing.  So, ed thinks I suggested deficits were stimulative.  Which, of course, I did not.  Because they are not.  Deficits are neither good nor bad, depending on the condition of the economy.  They help nothing, and hurt nothing generally.  But spending stimulatively did work for reagan, as he and his advisers all knew.  The fact that the deficit tripled proves he spent more than the economy brought in.  Which any economic team would do if faced with 10.8% unemployment and a deficit growing too fast.  And again, *faced with extremely high unemployment and a slow economy, reagan did not cut taxes and stop spending as ed said he would, but rather he did just the opposite.  BECAUSE SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS HAD FAILED AND MADE THE ECONOMY MUCH WORSE FROM EARLY 1981 THROUGH LATE 1982.*   Stimulative spending, however, worked as planned.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 24, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Ah, yes...the board's "economist" surfaces yet again!  You're the US Message Board's answer to George Costanza "architect"!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 24, 2014)

So how IS austerity working out.  Here are the first couple of hits from google.


> *Europe is sinking into a protracted period of deepening poverty, mass unemployment, social exclusion, greater inequality, and collective despair as a result of austerity policies* adopted in response to the debt and currency crisis of the past four years, according to an extensive study being published on Thursday.
> 
> "*Whilst other continents successfully reduce poverty, Europe adds to it*," says the 68-page report from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. "The long-term consequences of this crisis have yet to surface. The problems caused will be felt for decades even if the economy turns for the better in the near future &#8230; We wonder if we as a continent really understand what has hit us."
> Austerity pushing Europe into social and economic decline, says Red Cross | World news | The Guardian


Bold added by me.



> US success proves European disciples of austerity wrong
> Opinion: None of the horrendous consequences predicted by hawks has come to pass
> 
> Fintan O'Toole
> ...





It is easy enough to see the austerity  failures.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> It is easy enough to see the austerity failures.



of course if capitalism fails then China would be shrinking rather than growing at 10% a year setting world records and saving million from enmasse liberal starvation.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> So, we have ed, who thinks stimulative spending is a bad thing.



actually dear there are other people like Milton Friedman. Sorry to rock your world!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> it was only Reagan spending to get the economy going,



Econ 101 for you:

1) tax and spend slows the economy since the people taxed cant spend what was taxed away from them! A child could figure that out, just not a liberal.

Do you understand that draining water from one side of lake and pouring it in another does  not raise the level of the lake?

Do you see why conservatives think liberalism is based in pure ignorance.


----------

