Minimum Wage --Prevents-- Wealth Acquisition!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reserves & T-bills. Sory for the imprecission... enough to bailout to whoever they want. Hardly an unescapable situation. Hard to manage , yes , certainly . Collapse... meh not so much.

They can't just turn in T-bills/bonds on demand. They have a specific mature date.

The only option would be to sell them on the open market. In small amounts, that would be perfectly fine. But in large numbers, that would start to lower bond prices. While that might screw up the US government (assuming we were borrowing like mad at the time), it would also hurt themselves. The amount of money for the bonds would drop.

The Chinese would end up selling the US bonds at a huge loss.

I don't see that as a realistic option.

The other option, is more possible, but it has a slippery slope to oblivion. They can start printing money, but as we've seen their economy still doesn't have the stability that even the US economy has.

If they printed money, inflation would jump. This would require them to increase pay towards the military, which is their only life line to holding power. With the required increases in military pay, that would require ever increasing the printing of cash, which would cause more inflation, which would require more pay to the military. This is exactly what happened in Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Once he got on that track, he was locked in with no hope of changing it.

I honestly doubt China will jump on either one of those.

Yes , they can sell their t-bills, indeed , they've been doing that for a couple of years now.
If the debt is in yen they can do QE just like the US did or simply write-off debts.
Foreign debt is more complicated.

Simply write it off? Really. You think that debt owed to Union Pension funds, is going to be written off? Yeah, that will go over real well.

No, not that way, rather the QE write-off method :
Create a government bond, exchange it for the bad asset ( unrecoverable debt) and turn the bond into capital.
Deja vu... Where have I seen that ? Oh, my memory fails...

Alternatively:
Emit a bonds , distribute the bonds among the debtors. The bond would be limited in the sense that any entity with debt would have to apply the bond directly to their debt.
Would this cause inflation . Yea, sure, but the government will have controll over how much inflation it will cause.

What are you talking about.........

Create a bond.... ok....

Exchange the bond for a bad asset..... ok.... So national debt, and interest payments go up, in exchange for a asset whose value is going down..... got it.....

Turn the bond into capital...... The bond doesn't turn into capital. Whoever we gave the bond to, in exchange for the asset, we still have to pay back.

And now we have a depreciating asset we can sell for penny on the dollar, to pay back the bond with?

How does that end up with us ahead? Let's just sell the bond, and leave it at that. Then we don't have to pay millions of dollars to the IRS to process the assets. Exchanging bonds for bad assets, is not a way to avoid debt. It's a way to increase our debt. But it looks better on paper.... yes, I can see this as a voting tool. You convince the idiots, that the bonds are exchanged for assets that can be sold.

But no one is going to sell a good asset that get's a 10% ROI, for a bond that has current interest rate of ZERO.

So, like you said, the only assets we can get.... are bad assets. Assets dropping in value. So we're going to sell a bond for several hundred thousand, for an asset that will be almost impossible to sell.... thus nearly worthless. How is this a win?

You sell me an IOU, for my Grand Marquis worth $3,000. When you get the Grand Marquis it will be worth a few hundred bucks, and then you'll owe me $3K plus some interest. Good win there buddy.

And your alternative, while great for institution in debt.... would make the national debt skyrocket. That's not a solution... unless the goal is to wipe out the government.....

I hate to say this, but this post of yours, makes me question if you even understand what you are talking about..... Either you are not explaining it right..... or you are clueless.

Either you are not explaining it right..... or you are clueless

The answer is........................................................^this one

 

[CultureCitizen]

Ah ok.

No, that would not be correct at all. NAFTA allowed more jobs to be created in Mexico, which allowed more people to stay in Mexico and have worth while jobs and a life.

Without NAFTA, the illegal immigration would be drastically worse.

The primary mover of people coming here illegally, is the drug wars in Mexico. Between corruption in the police force, and fighting between rival drug cartels, people have been fleeing here to escape the bloodshed.

There are some areas where people are coming here for economic reasons, but that too is actually driven by the prior reasons. In the areas where corruption and drug wars are happening, business has been rightfully reluctant to invest. Thus no jobs, thus economic reasons to come here illegally.

But it's impossible to tie NAFTA to illegal immigration. Not even close.

Actually corn production in Mexico has dramatically increased. 2008 was a record year in corn production.

No , you've got the picture all wrong : the drug war started to become a problem after year 2006 (watch video ) when President Calderon declared war on drugs ( apparently without knowing the firepower of drug cartels). By then illegal immigration was already leveling, in fact the numer of illegals was leveling off. So no , your theory is wrong. You establish a theory without a iota of evidence.

It is MOSTLY ( 90%) economic reasons. There are areas which are safe. People running away from violence would rather go to such zones ( mexico city , the mayan riviera, ) than risk a trip through a dessert and going through cartel controlled zones ( the bloody border ) .

Yes, sure , corn production has reached record levels, but the situation for the farmers is rather bleak:

Pequeños productores siembran 85% del maíz en México, y monopolios los sumen en la miseria
Translated with google:
"
For farmers and specialists of agricultural sector organizations, the deliberate neglect to which they are subjected smallholders it comes from the implementation of neoliberal policies in Mexico and specifically with the signing of Free Trade Agreement with North America (NAFTA ) in 1994, which resulted in market targeting large corporations and neglect of the productive base.

Since then, with new factors such as migration, transgenic products and and global warming, the scenario for small producers is not the most flattering, and also face a neglect by the authorities.
...
However, only from 2013 to 2014, payment to producers per tonne of corn fell 30 percent.

The cost of producing a tonne of maize is approximately 2800 to 3000 pesos; but companies looking to buy it at 2,500 "

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unintended side-efect : massive migration).

A side effect easily eliminated by a Trump wall!!! Then when there is economic progress the migrants have to develop competitive skills in their own country. This is the very essence of economic progress. Small farmers and small car makers are not efficient so belong in the dust bin of history.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

and specifically with the signing of Free Trade Agreement with North America (NAFTA ) in 1994,

what BS!!! culture creep is a lib Nazi who wants intervention in Mexico and..... 1000 other countries and 1000 interventions in the American economy too. You play his game when you talk about the specifics of Mexico rather than his general lib Nazi approach to all political problems.

 

[danielpalos]

Unintended side-efect : massive migration).

A side effect easily eliminated by a Trump wall!!! Then when there is economic progress the migrants have to develop competitive skills in their own country. This is the very essence of economic progress. Small farmers and small car makers are not efficient so belong in the dust bin of history.

dear, how much money are we going to make on the Great Walls of America? Even the Chinese are making money on their, social wall, now.

 

[Andylusion]

Ah ok.

No, that would not be correct at all. NAFTA allowed more jobs to be created in Mexico, which allowed more people to stay in Mexico and have worth while jobs and a life.

Without NAFTA, the illegal immigration would be drastically worse.

The primary mover of people coming here illegally, is the drug wars in Mexico. Between corruption in the police force, and fighting between rival drug cartels, people have been fleeing here to escape the bloodshed.

There are some areas where people are coming here for economic reasons, but that too is actually driven by the prior reasons. In the areas where corruption and drug wars are happening, business has been rightfully reluctant to invest. Thus no jobs, thus economic reasons to come here illegally.

But it's impossible to tie NAFTA to illegal immigration. Not even close.

Actually corn production in Mexico has dramatically increased. 2008 was a record year in corn production.

No , you've got the picture all wrong : the drug war started to become a problem after year 2006 (watch video ) when President Calderon declared war on drugs ( apparently without knowing the firepower of drug cartels). By then illegal immigration was already leveling, in fact the numer of illegals was leveling off. So no , your theory is wrong. You establish a theory without a iota of evidence.

It is MOSTLY ( 90%) economic reasons. There are areas which are safe. People running away from violence would rather go to such zones ( mexico city , the mayan riviera, ) than risk a trip through a dessert and going through cartel controlled zones ( the bloody border ) .

Yes, sure , corn production has reached record levels, but the situation for the farmers is rather bleak:

Pequeños productores siembran 85% del maíz en México, y monopolios los sumen en la miseria
Translated with google:
"
For farmers and specialists of agricultural sector organizations, the deliberate neglect to which they are subjected smallholders it comes from the implementation of neoliberal policies in Mexico and specifically with the signing of Free Trade Agreement with North America (NAFTA ) in 1994, which resulted in market targeting large corporations and neglect of the productive base.

Since then, with new factors such as migration, transgenic products and and global warming, the scenario for small producers is not the most flattering, and also face a neglect by the authorities.
...
However, only from 2013 to 2014, payment to producers per tonne of corn fell 30 percent.

The cost of producing a tonne of maize is approximately 2800 to 3000 pesos; but companies looking to buy it at 2,500 "

I don't say much of anything without an iota of evidence. I might come to the wrong conclusion from the evidence, or there could be alternative contradictory evidence to look at, but it's rare if I ever say something without reason to back it up.

You on the other hand.... I've caught you several times saying things with zero evidence.

Most Mexicans See Better Life in U.S. – One-In-Three Would Migrate

For Mexicans seeking to cross the US border, it's not just about jobs anymore

In Ciudad Juárez, Mexico's most violent city and just across the border from El Paso, Texas, residents told the Monitor in December that they, or their friends and colleagues, were increasingly getting threats via phone or were forced to "pay" for their safety. They said many small business owners had simply left for the US.​

OK, so I said that businesses packed up and left for the US.... Check.

I said that crime and corruption was driving people to the US.... Check.

I showed reasons given by surveyed immigrants, listed those as reasons... Check.

Now you seem to conclude that until the war on drugs was announced in 2006, that there was no drug-related reasons for people to move. I would encourage you to read up on the history of the drug cartels in Mexico.

Mexico didn't really become the major hotbed of the cartels until the 1980s, early 90s, when the most popular roots from Columbia to Florida and elsewhere in the Gulf. Colombian cocaine networks, formed partnerships in Mexico, to move drugs by land across the border.

From the mid-90s on, the crime rings dramatically increased control and influence throughout the area.

Now depending on the source, you can conclude that crime really didn't start until the War on Drugs in 2006.

But their are two problems with these numbers. A: It only looks at homicides. People forced to pay protection money, wouldn't be counted.

B: much of the numbers are cooked, because political officials in the areas dominated by the Drug Cartels, often were working together, to cover up deaths.

A perfect example was the 43 "missing" students.

Could the 43 Missing Students in Mexico Finally Lead to Reform?

Local politicians attempted to claim they vanished or were lost, or maybe they left the country. In reality, the politician and the local drug gangs were working together. Had that been left alone, those dead students would have not been counted in official homicide statistics.

The people of Mexico have been battling the cartels, and the state, for decades. That's why they have formed self-defense groups.

New mass grave found in hunt for missing Mexican students

Ayotzinapa students have long been characterized by Mexico authorities as radical, and are known for protesting protesting government reforms that they say target the poor. Guerrero state, one of Mexico’s poorest, is home to self-defense, vigilante groups formed in response to decades of state and organized crime.​

And when you compare official statistics, to outside media groups, the numbers are very different.

Yeah, homicide may not have gone up, for the same reason that Mafia controlled areas are pretty safe. No one commits a crime in the Mafia area, unless it's the Mafia. You are not going to rob the people we're collecting 'protection money' from.

So you can disagree with my sources, and argue the case... but don't tell me that I say stuff without evidence, because I ALWAYS have some evidence somewhere. Unless I misread it, which does happen sometimes. But even then, I wouldn't say it unless I thought there was evidence supporting it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unintended side-efect : massive migration).

A side effect easily eliminated by a Trump wall!!! Then when there is economic progress the migrants have to develop competitive skills in their own country. This is the very essence of economic progress. Small farmers and small car makers are not efficient so belong in the dust bin of history.

dear, how much money are we going to make on the Great Walls of America? Even the Chinese are making money on their, social wall, now.

worthless gibberish

 

[Andylusion]

Ah ok.

No, that would not be correct at all. NAFTA allowed more jobs to be created in Mexico, which allowed more people to stay in Mexico and have worth while jobs and a life.

Without NAFTA, the illegal immigration would be drastically worse.

The primary mover of people coming here illegally, is the drug wars in Mexico. Between corruption in the police force, and fighting between rival drug cartels, people have been fleeing here to escape the bloodshed.

There are some areas where people are coming here for economic reasons, but that too is actually driven by the prior reasons. In the areas where corruption and drug wars are happening, business has been rightfully reluctant to invest. Thus no jobs, thus economic reasons to come here illegally.

But it's impossible to tie NAFTA to illegal immigration. Not even close.

Actually corn production in Mexico has dramatically increased. 2008 was a record year in corn production.

No , you've got the picture all wrong : the drug war started to become a problem after year 2006 (watch video ) when President Calderon declared war on drugs ( apparently without knowing the firepower of drug cartels). By then illegal immigration was already leveling, in fact the numer of illegals was leveling off. So no , your theory is wrong. You establish a theory without a iota of evidence.

It is MOSTLY ( 90%) economic reasons. There are areas which are safe. People running away from violence would rather go to such zones ( mexico city , the mayan riviera, ) than risk a trip through a dessert and going through cartel controlled zones ( the bloody border ) .

Yes, sure , corn production has reached record levels, but the situation for the farmers is rather bleak:

Pequeños productores siembran 85% del maíz en México, y monopolios los sumen en la miseria
Translated with google:
"
For farmers and specialists of agricultural sector organizations, the deliberate neglect to which they are subjected smallholders it comes from the implementation of neoliberal policies in Mexico and specifically with the signing of Free Trade Agreement with North America (NAFTA ) in 1994, which resulted in market targeting large corporations and neglect of the productive base.

Since then, with new factors such as migration, transgenic products and and global warming, the scenario for small producers is not the most flattering, and also face a neglect by the authorities.
...
However, only from 2013 to 2014, payment to producers per tonne of corn fell 30 percent.

The cost of producing a tonne of maize is approximately 2800 to 3000 pesos; but companies looking to buy it at 2,500 "

And let me quickly respond to the Mexico corn farmers.

Again..... I don't know what provision of NAFTA you think caused the price of corn to fall, but it simply isn't shown in the stats.

The Mexico price for corn has gone UP over the long term. Yeah, it's fallen since it's height in 2013, but that was because the price was inflated due to the demand created by Ethanol. At least that is what I'm convinced of from the evidence I've seen thus far.

Now if you can explain to me how NAFTA manages to entirely benefit the major farms, and somehow disadvantage the small farms, I'd love to hear it. Because they both sell their products at the market either way, and the market price is higher.

Now again, clearly if the major farms are producing drastically more corn, and the smaller farms are not.... then yeah, they are going to lose out. But they are going to lose out regardless of NAFTA.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But they are going to lose out regardless of NAFTA.

It seems that thanks to American big farm efficiency, subsidies, and NAFTA small Mexican farms lost out. This is basic economic progress. Small farmers and horse and buggy industry lose out as we all get richer thanks to more andmore free trade.

 

[Andylusion]

Unintended side-efect : massive migration).

A side effect easily eliminated by a Trump wall!!! Then when there is economic progress the migrants have to develop competitive skills in their own country. This is the very essence of economic progress. Small farmers and small car makers are not efficient so belong in the dust bin of history.

dear, how much money are we going to make on the Great Walls of America? Even the Chinese are making money on their, social wall, now.

worthless gibberish

But they are going to lose out regardless of NAFTA.

It seems that thanks to American big farm efficiency, subsidies, and NAFTA small Mexican farms lost out. This is basic economic progress. Small farmers and horse and buggy industry lose out as we all get richer thanks to more andmore free trade.

Yeah, exactly. Even if we take the counter factual, and assume world in which Mexico had completely closed borders.........

Big farms would industrialize, they would produce greater and greater amounts of food. The supply of food from the larger farms would drowned out the smaller farms, which would go bust.

This is exactly what happened in the US, and we export food rather than import.

How anyone can attempt to claim that this would not happen in Mexico, is not logical or rational.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unintended side-efect : massive migration).

A side effect easily eliminated by a Trump wall!!! Then when there is economic progress the migrants have to develop competitive skills in their own country. This is the very essence of economic progress. Small farmers and small car makers are not efficient so belong in the dust bin of history.

dear, how much money are we going to make on the Great Walls of America? Even the Chinese are making money on their, social wall, now.

worthless gibberish

But they are going to lose out regardless of NAFTA.

It seems that thanks to American big farm efficiency, subsidies, and NAFTA small Mexican farms lost out. This is basic economic progress. Small farmers and horse and buggy industry lose out as we all get richer thanks to more andmore free trade.

Yeah, exactly. Even if we take the counter factual, and assume world in which Mexico had completely closed borders.........

Big farms would industrialize, they would produce greater and greater amounts of food. The supply of food from the larger farms would drowned out the smaller farms, which would go bust.

This is exactly what happened in the US, and we export food rather than import.

How anyone can attempt to claim that this would not happen in Mexico, is not logical or rational.

A liberal cant resist the Nazi meglomanical urge to intervene in each and every situation.
The modern US liberal is merely a civilized Nazi.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Unintended side-efect : massive migration).

A side effect easily eliminated by a Trump wall!!! Then when there is economic progress the migrants have to develop competitive skills in their own country. This is the very essence of economic progress. Small farmers and small car makers are not efficient so belong in the dust bin of history.

Too little ( half of them cross by plane) too late ...

 

[CultureCitizen]

For Mexicans seeking to cross the US border, it's not just about jobs anymore

In Ciudad Juárez, Mexico's most violent city and just across the border from El Paso, Texas, residents told the Monitor in December that they, or their friends and colleagues, were increasingly getting threats via phone or were forced to "pay" for their safety. They said many small business owners had simply left for the US.
OK, so I said that businesses packed up and left for the US.... Check.

I said that crime and corruption was driving people to the US.... Check.

I showed reasons given by surveyed immigrants, listed those as reasons... Check.

Now you seem to conclude that until the war on drugs was announced in 2006, that there was no drug-related reasons for people to move. I would encourage you to read up on the history of the drug cartels in Mexico.

Well Andy,
I was actually working as a consultant on Juarez on 2002... I wouldn't be doing that same feat right now even with a double pay...check
At that time German consultants were bold enough to go partying to the downtown area and return alive... Check.
I've read Paul Rexton Kahn's book Cartels at war ... Check
If you take the time to read the article you posted you will learn it says :

"Surveys have shown over the past decade that the main motivation for immigration by Latino populations is overwhelmingly economic, followed by family reunification. But the violence raging across the country, where more than 13,000 have been killed in drug-related violence since Mexican President Felipe Calderón took office in late 2006 and dispatched the military to fight drug gangs, is also pushing people across the border."
which actually supports my claims ... Check.

Here's a chart showing how violence skyrocketed after Calderon's war ( he so reminds Dubya ... declaring war and leaving a mess behind).

 

[CultureCitizen]

Yeah, exactly. Even if we take the counter factual, and assume world in which Mexico had completely closed borders.........

Big farms would industrialize, they would produce greater and greater amounts of food. The supply of food from the larger farms would drowned out the smaller farms, which would go bust.

This is exactly what happened in the US, and we export food rather than import.

How anyone can attempt to claim that this would not happen in Mexico, is not logical or rational.

Posibly... but, that takes time: even large companies can't overtake the market in one year , but that's exactly what happened with Nafta, farmers were not prepared, specially because subsidies were reduced drastically.

You may think what ever you want about NAFTA and migration. But when one of the main promoters of NAFTA , who happens to be a Nobel prize winner , takes the time to write an article titled the broken promise of NAFTA, some thought must be put to the effects of the treaty.
Some highlights :
"In America, the ''giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country'' that Ross Perot predicted never quite materialized. "

" Meanwhile, poor Mexican corn farmers face an uphill battle competing with highly subsidized American corn, while relatively better-off Mexican city dwellers benefit from lower corn prices"

"Growth in Mexico over the past 10 years has been a bleak 1 percent on a per capita basis -- better than in much of the rest of Latin America, but far poorer than earlier in the century. From 1948 to 1973, Mexico grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent per capita. "

The Broken Promise of Nafta

 

[CultureCitizen]

exchange it for the bad asset ( unrecoverable debt)

Why would the holder of the Treasury want to do that?

Yes, I wonder why ?

 

[CultureCitizen]

There is no "turning", the "bad asset" was part of capital, the Treasury was part of capital.

MBS where assets.... bad assets, who's holding them now ?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wonder why most of the world is so poor? Simply because most governments don't have regulations and a minimum wage allowing most of the working population to get their fair share...The rich in most nations take it all while everyone else is screwed. Even nations that you'd think has a powerful dictator like government and could do something won't simply because they're ruled really by the riches elites.

Take a look at africa, central America or asia. We're better off by far with 10% or 20% of the population being able to start a business then 1% hogging it all.

We should break up corporations
We should and must have a minimum wage
We should seek for enough to survive on...What do you want otherwise? A population of 1.25/day workers?


We're all around better off for living in a regulated economy.

 

[danielpalos]

i believe it is even simpler than that.

we should merely abolish first world forms of wage slavery through recourse to the moral Goodness of bearing True Witness to our own laws regarding the concept of employment at will, and unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines, merely to function as that form of "oil pump" or liquidity pump in our economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

exchange it for the bad asset ( unrecoverable debt)

Why would the holder of the Treasury want to do that?

Yes, I wonder why ?

You were talking about bad assets. And something about exchanging them for Treasuries.
The Fed did buy MBS, but they used cash, not Treasuries. And the MBS were only the highest quality, government guaranteed MBS. They've traded above par since the crisis.

It's obvious that you're confused, again.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Too little ( half of them cross by plane) too late ...

OMG how stupid and liberal!! If we go to the great expense of building a wall we can go to the trivial expense of tracking those who come by plane.

Is that simple enough for you??