How is austerity doing in Europe

[Rshermr]

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]

You do realize that by your definition all financial investments including bonds, CD's, and savings accounts are Ponzi schemes?

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.

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]

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]

Okie dokie...



Madoff is a piker compared to the real criminals at the big investment banks.

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

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.

Why do you think Dimon should be charged?

 

[Kimura]

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]

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

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.

Why do you think Dimon should be charged?

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]

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.

Why do you think Dimon should be charged?

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?

I'm not sure what crimes they've committed.

 

[Kimura]

Why do you think Dimon should be charged?

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?

I'm not sure what crimes they've committed.

Securities fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, extortion, and acts of terrorism (financial terrorism, yet terrorism nonetheless).

 

[Toro]

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?

I'm not sure what crimes they've committed.

Securities fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, extortion, and acts of terrorism (financial terrorism, yet terrorism nonetheless).

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]

^^^
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.

Distributed to the wealthy? In what form?

You mean the GM bailout?

 

[Kimura]

I'm not sure what crimes they've committed.

Securities fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, extortion, and acts of terrorism (financial terrorism, yet terrorism nonetheless).

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?

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]

Securities fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, extortion, and acts of terrorism (financial terrorism, yet terrorism nonetheless).

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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?

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]

^^^
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.

Distributed to the wealthy? In what form?

You mean the GM bailout?

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]

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?

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.

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?

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]

Securities fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, extortion, and acts of terrorism (financial terrorism, yet terrorism nonetheless).

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

I thought you worked for a big bank?

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]

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.



Look, how about you try and figure it out? I can't hold your hand for everything.



When someone uses the term Y/Y (Year over Year), what exactly do you think this means?



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.



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.

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

Finally, we agree on something.