next »

[puma]

I hold the Republicans in disrespect.  I hold the Democrats in greater disrespect.  Once you understand that, you may understand some of my posts....

As you can see, the posters still don't understand it. They completely ignore your topic in order to promote their own liberal agendas. It's the usual idle banter. Common sense is not dead yet ... but the cancer is spreading.

[Piano man]

As you can see, the posters still don't understand it. They completely ignore your topic in order to promote their own liberal agendas. It's the usual idle banter. Common sense is not dead yet ... but the cancer is spreading.

I don't see many posts here that come close to matching that characterization. Just because everyone didn't instantly agree with everything that was said doesn't mean we 'still don't understand it', or are 'ignoring the topic' or 'promoting a liberal agenda' or committing 'idle banter'.

I happen to believe that the Democrats are screwing up the bailout and stimulus by not spending the stimulus money fast enough, not selecting expenditures that will maximize economic impact and not putting enough strings on the TARP money. Both parties are missing an opportunity to 'jawbone' the economy by reminding people who have money that they can help the economy by taking advantage of the bargains in stocks, new homes, remodeling, travel, etc. All the doom and gloom can be self-fulfilling.

Perhaps that view is just 'idle, liberal banter' compared to your highly substantive post, quoted above in its entirety.

Most people here aren't blindly following Obama or Limbaugh, but have relatively centrist, or at least mixed, political ideologies. That doesn't mean they're obligated to agree with everything you say.

The original poster is entitled to his opinion, but IMHO he's taking a very complicated subject and trying to reduce it to a simple lack of common sense. Other than Thomas Paine, I rarely read anything that's presented under the banner of 'common sense' that sheds much light on the subject at hand.

[evan51]

The original poster is entitled to his opinion, but IMHO he's taking a very complicated subject and trying to reduce it to a simple lack of common sense. Other than Thomas Paine, I rarely read anything that's presented under the banner of 'common sense' that sheds much light on the subject at hand.

Exactly.

I should point out that none of our Republican friends posted any appeals to "common sense" when Bush began a costly and protracted war(s) (based on lies and skewed reasoning) by granting a $600 rebate and a hefty tax cut. It's most peculiar that they should raise this banner now that the country is cleaning up from their fiscal debacle.

No appeal to "common sense" when Bush's response to being called on his Niger fuel rod lies was to out a CIA agent and expose her operatives to danger, possibly death.

No appeal to "commonsense" when Republicans insist that an economic recovery plan needs further tax cuts to the richest 2% of Americans.

Republicans simply can't do math and call the resultant disability "common sense."

[BGuttman]

OK.  Puma, John Lipton, Johngsteel, and Slidemansailor (you all seem to have a similar bent).  I am still waiting to hear how you intend to deal with the economic crisis.  And if you plan to be true laissez-faire, how you plan to deal with the consequences of another 1930 style Depression, which I think ALL economists agree will result from doing nothing.

Are you all so secure in your employment that you are convinced you are Depression-proof?

[B0B]

Good evening,
As a random note: part of me really wonders if we might be better off in the long run if we didn't try to bail out these people and keep them in power. If we all need to learn to live on less after years and years of living off of more and more.

Rarely did I ever hear from any of these "Economists" that what goes up is going to come down during our booms. Rarely did I hear maybe we better slow the growth- we're TOO prosperous. Shoot, most of them even said this recession was a surprise. I'm sorry but regular schooling teaches enough to expect this recession.

I really wonder if the money spent would not be better spent on infrastructure and blue collar jobs, and let the banks fall to pieces. Don't think by any means what we're spending on them is a couple hundred billion. Add in the Fed and the FDIC and we're talking currently about 2 trillion in less then the past year alone.

Our country really does need to drastically restructure it's economy. How will that ever happen if we prop up the same people and instutions that got us here to begin with?

Take care,
B0B

[evan51]

I really wonder if the money spent would not be better spent on infrastructure and blue collar jobs, and let the banks fall to pieces. Don't think by any means what we're spending on them is a couple hundred billion. Add in the Fed and the FDIC and we're talking currently about 2 trillion in less then the past year alone.

Yes. The entire "sub prime crisis" amounted "only" to $100 billion, assuming the federal government paid the banks losses and "took over" the assets. That's not what happened-----they paid the losses and gave the assets to the banks. And what of the other $1.9 trillion? <<Poof!!>> It's gone. Where?

Isn't it strange that Congress can grant bailout money literally overnight, but will debate national healthcare for years(now some strange plan where the government pays insurance companies to insure us, thinking we need "insurance" instead of healthcare)?

It seems the government is becoming increasingly clever at handing our money over to the rich, even when it means borrowing that money so that future generations of credit slaves can be bound. Bob, I wonder what the aggregate sum is of all the investment money members of Congress had at risk in this meltdown?

[slidemansailor]

OK.  Puma, John Lipton, Johngsteel, and Slidemansailor (you all seem to have a similar bent).  I am still waiting to hear how you intend to deal with the economic crisis.  And if you plan to be true laissez-faire, how you plan to deal with the consequences of another 1930 style Depression, which I think ALL economists agree will result from doing nothing.

Are you all so secure in your employment that you are convinced you are Depression-proof?

While the wizards of wall street and the vast army of Keynesian economists continue to express shock and awe at the failings of their models, but ceaselessly conjure up new models to replace them, the Austrian Economists have correctly predicted every single step along the way.  The pattern is a sure thing.

Though there will be some really significant differences this time (*more on that in a moment*), the future is clearly written in "FDR's Folly" and Murray Rothbard's "America's Great Depression". Government meddling is assured. It also will guarantee a LONG depression rather than a brief adjustment.

I know none of this will fit with what the ruling elite and their Keynesian enablers are convincingly promoting on their media monopolies. If you want to be continually surprised by "unforeseeable events", stick with your experts. If you want to have a clue as to what's coming, why and what you should do about it, seek other experts.

* Differences between now and 1929 are:
No net savings; Americans are individually in debt
No significant manufacturing of essential goods
Widespread belief in what the TV tells us
Much groundwork for replacing dollar with world currency
Dollar detached from precious metal
 ... (d'ya remember silver certificates?)
 ... has already lost 90% of its value from then
Dollar used as world currency since 1942 Bretton Woods Accord,
now in HUGE quantities in every central bank of every "developed" nation ... all waiting to come home to rapidly devalue the remaining dollars.

There are more, but those are going to loom large.

The only way out is to repudiate the national debt. Neither you, I nor any of the rest are going to be able to repay the $50,000 per person we owe on promises our politicians made. Forget 'em.  Let those who loaned money to them extract their pound of flesh from the carpetbaggers.  We move on without them.

[Baron von Bone]

I don't see many posts here that come close to matching that characterization.

Reality is pretty much never the actual issue with fundies.
 
Byron

[B0B]

Good evening,

Somehow every other post I see from you seems to call someone a "fundie". Reminds me of a kid with a favorite word, where they just want to repeat it over and over again. Might I suggest a thesaurus? One entry is as follows:

Main Entry:     
diehard

Part of Speech:    
noun

Definition:    
overenthusiastic person

Synonyms:    
Bourbon, Tory, bitter ender, dyed-in-the-wool*, extremist, fanatic, fogy, fundamentalist, intransigent, mossback*, old liner, praetorian, pullback, reactionary, right, right-winger, rightist, standpat, standpatter, stick-in-the-mud*, true blue, ultraconservative, zealot

Take care,
B0B

[Exzaclee]

so does anyone know how the hell Gold (silver, etc...) became "intrinsically" valuable?

and would anyone care to follow that question to its logical conclusion?  Namely the entire concept of an economic system that isn't built around equal trade of goods and services is doomed to eventually collapse -

scary

discuss!

[Baron von Bone]

Somehow every other post I see from you seems to call someone a "fundie".

I suggest you turn off your "buttons" as best you can now and then, so they won't be pushed, and so you can consider the substance behind what pushes them when they're on. It would probably be quite revealing. It's the first step very few people ever take toward a much better grasp of a much larger and more interesting world (it's also pretty much inherent to studying anthropology).
 
I suggest everyone do this, by the way, as often and as constantly as possible. Ideally, just try to keep them turned off. It's not easy, but the rewards are tremendous and that helps it get easier over time.
 
Byron

[BGuttman]

so does anyone know how the hell Gold (silver, etc...) became "intrinsically" valuable?

and would anyone care to follow that question to its logical conclusion?  Namely the entire concept of an economic system that isn't built around equal trade of goods and services is doomed to eventually collapse -

...

Gold is one of the few metals found in nature as-is.  It is also quite rare.  I think the fascination with Gold probably predates recorded history.

Silver is a little more common, but not much.  Again, it is found in nature as-is (although it also occurs in compounds).

Gold and silver were used for coins (money).  Money was invented to create a standard by which goods and services could be rated.  That way you would know that (for example) 3 sheep were equivalent to one cow, and if you wanted to get a cow you didn't need to shlep three sheep with you, just the money equivalent.

There are always some people for whom money is much more important than the goods or services it can purchase.  These people then try to get as much of the metal basis for the money as they can.

This whole idea of trade is a VERY complex subject.  Way beyond even the scope of a whole Forum.  Suffice it to say if the Chinese ship tons of Jin Bao trombones here and refuse to buy any Shires trombones there, we will have a surplus of Chinese trombones here.

[Baron von Bone]

Gold is one of the few metals found in nature as-is.  It is also quite rare.

Rare and pretty ... and somewhat useful in practical ways. But mostly I think just being rare and pretty drives its value. Diamonds are similar, but much more useful, I think (gotta check those suspicions with geologists or other types with pertinent expertise who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do though).
 
Byron

[puma]

OK.  Puma, John Lipton, Johngsteel, and Slidemansailor (you all seem to have a similar bent).  I am still waiting to hear how you intend to deal with the economic crisis.  And if you plan to be true laissez-faire, how you plan to deal with the consequences of another 1930 style Depression, which I think ALL economists agree will result from doing nothing...Are you all so secure in your employment that you are convinced you are Depression-proof?

You begin with the premise that one person has the answer. No one does. Even the wizbangs on this forum have no answer. They only have opinions. Same for me, so read the rest of this as you should read all posts here, prefaced with the phrase, "in my opinion".

Forgive me if I missed your actual question. There are several parts to the answer. Part one: let the people who know how to handle money handle the money. That means no one owns their job unless they are self-employed. When you hear someone ask, "How will you save my job at Company X?" Tell them "It's not your job." The job was created by the person(s) who formed the going concern named Company X and decided to hire you. You provide a specific service for the company and the company pays you.

Part two: The president is virtually powerless to create jobs. POTUS can recommend incentives, but the incentives only work insofar as they are implemented. Witness the attempt to grant hardship money to banks recently. Where did the money go? Certainly not to the populus. Did the U.S. automakers hire more people? No. In keeping with the topic, common sense would tell anyone that most people hoard money, they don't give it away.

Part three: Regarding the depression, you said, "I think ALL economists agree will result from doing nothing". Thank you for prefacing the statement with "I think". I disagree with your comment and would change the word "ALL" to "SOME". Anyone who screams about a repetition of the 1930's depression has no clue what that entailed. Unemployment would have to reach 30% to mirror that disaster. Remember ... this is all IMO ... Let the prices go up as high as necessary. Our country still fosters the freedom that inspires greatness, despite the loudmouths. Brilliant minds are inspired by necessity, not government waste. Henry Ford and Albert Einstein were not asked to contribute to society. They saw the need and did something about it.

Part four: Am I secure in my employment? You bet, but the reasons I am secure have nothing to do with this topic. As stated above, it is not "my employment". I have been downsized twice and found alternate means of employment. The "ax" could fall any day in my life. Rest assured the same ax can fall for anyone else. Common sense tells me not to worry about the things I can not control. As the saying goes, "don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."

[kbiggs]

Though there will be some really significant differences this time (*more on that in a moment*), the future is clearly written in "FDR's Folly" and Murray Rothbard's "America's Great Depression". Government meddling is assured. It also will guarantee a LONG depression rather than a brief adjustment.

On gold and Rothbard's "full reserve" banking system: Gold is a finite resource.  Its value fluctuates, but over time we will value it more and more.  ("Value" means what we are willing to pay for it.  Gold as such, like silver and other precious metals, has no intrinsic value.)  When there is no more gold to be mined (or it's just too expensive to extract), gold will either be the most valuable substance, or it will be worthless--or rather priceless--because no one will be able to afford it.  What will happen then to currency based on a gold standard?  It, too, will be worthless.  A banking system based on gold/silver/platinum or other commodity is not inherently stable as Rothbard and others of the so-called Austrian School state. Advocates of returning to the gold standard have never addressed inflation and devaluation sufficiently. 

Combine that with a full reserve system like Rothbard's, and you have little incentive to save, and banks have little incentive to loan because the return is so small.  Yes, economies of scale work in a bank's favor:  2% of $5,000 is only $100, but 2% of $500,000 is $10,000, so the more investors you have consolidated in one institution, the easier it is to loan money and earn interest.   But, if you have to have $500,000 in reserve in order to loan out $500,000, your ability to loan is severely decreased. 

A very conservative economic and fiscal argument that has few adherents nowadays, even (or more accurately, especially) in the midst of an economic crisis. 

The only way out is to repudiate the national debt. Neither you, I nor any of the rest are going to be able to repay the $50,000 per person we owe on promises our politicians made. Forget 'em.  Let those who loaned money to them extract their pound of flesh from the carpetbaggers.  We move on without them.

The time value of money will help to redue the per capita national debt: the face value may increase, but its "worth" in comparative dollars will decrease.  (Think of the price of a gallon of milk in 1959 and now in 2009, then compare them using 1959 dollars.  Now do the same with the average income in 1959 and in 2009.)

If by "repudiate" you mean write it off, ignore it, or devalue it, that would only make currrent matters worse.  Although Shylock was legally entitled to his "pound of flesh," to extract it from "the politicians" is to miss the target.  There are many people and institutions "responsible" for the current state of affairs: yes politicians (lax regulations, for instance) and company presidents, but also investors such as people with 401(k)'s and 503(c)'s and other deferred compensation plans, margin investors, day traders, etc.  Like a democracy/republic, we're all in this together.  The taxpayers will have to pay 'cuz there's no one else.   

A national debt is not a "bad" thing.  Debt for individuals, business, institutions, and governments, if properly managed, is a tool for growth.  Further, govt's are not businesses, and having a nat'l debt and deficit spending are not "evils" that must be avoided.  If anything, a nat'l debt promotes security and stability: it implies that the debtor--the gov't--will be around to repay it, which promotes financial security and encourages investment.   Said another way:  applying the same rules to govt's and businesses is a mistake.  Yes, fiscal and monetary responsibility are present in both, but in different ways and means.  (That's not to say that the idea of a nat'l debt hasn't been abused in the past 30 years or so.) 

 

[Exzaclee]

Forgive me if I missed your actual question. There are several parts to the answer. Part one: let the people who know how to handle money handle the money. That means no one owns their job unless they are self-employed. When you hear someone ask, "How will you save my job at Company X?" Tell them "It's not your job." The job was created by the person(s) who formed the going concern named Company X and decided to hire you. You provide a specific service for the company and the company pays you.

Part two: The president is virtually powerless to create jobs. POTUS can recommend incentives, but the incentives only work insofar as they are implemented. Witness the attempt to grant hardship money to banks recently. Where did the money go? Certainly not to the populus. Did the U.S. automakers hire more people? No. In keeping with the topic, common sense would tell anyone that most people hoard money, they don't give it away.

Part three: Regarding the depression, you said, "I think ALL economists agree will result from doing nothing". Thank you for prefacing the statement with "I think". I disagree with your comment and would change the word "ALL" to "SOME". Anyone who screams about a repetition of the 1930's depression has no clue what that entailed. Unemployment would have to reach 30% to mirror that disaster. Remember ... this is all IMO ... Let the prices go up as high as necessary. Our country still fosters the freedom that inspires greatness, despite the loudmouths. Brilliant minds are inspired by necessity, not government waste. Henry Ford and Albert Einstein were not asked to contribute to society. They saw the need and did something about it.

Part four: Am I secure in my employment? You bet, but the reasons I am secure have nothing to do with this topic. As stated above, it is not "my employment". I have been downsized twice and found alternate means of employment. The "ax" could fall any day in my life. Rest assured the same ax can fall for anyone else. Common sense tells me not to worry about the things I can not control. As the saying goes, "don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."

1) Letting the money handlers handle it is kind of what caused this problem.  Talking about "Job Ownership" is a semantical Red Herring that does little address the actual problem, namely unemployment.  If you want to argue about Job ownership let's start another thread - we can get all philosophical and break out the economic theory in the process further obscuring the original point.  
2) Unemployment, Or namely how the govermet figures the numbers.  You are aware, assume, that the givernment doesn't actually survey the population for aht eactual number of people not working.  See: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm  for the actual definition.  People who have been out of the workforce for a certain amount of time are not considered unemployed, they are considered out of the workforce - which does not reflect on the unemployment numbers.  The numbers of underemployed are not factored in either- for instance - since i retired from cruise ships 2 months ago i've been averaging about $100 worth of income per week - definitely not enough for most in the US to live on - but I am still considered employed.  A relative who has been out of work for over a year is considered out of the work force.  Neither of us are effecting the unemployment numbers.  The same way the gov skews inflation numbers (like not including rising energy costs) to make things seem rosy is the same way they skew the unemployment numbers.  We're a lot closer to that 30% number than you think.

3)  Being secure in your employment and being secure in your belief that God Will Provide are two different things.  Ignoratio Elenchi yet again rears it's fishy head...

Gold is one of the few metals found in nature as-is.  It is also quite rare.  I think the fascination with Gold probably predates recorded history.

Silver is a little more common, but not much.  Again, it is found in nature as-is (although it also occurs in compounds).

Gold and silver were used for coins (money).  Money was invented to create a standard by which goods and services could be rated.  That way you would know that (for example) 3 sheep were equivalent to one cow, and if you wanted to get a cow you didn't need to shlep three sheep with you, just the money equivalent.

There are always some people for whom money is much more important than the goods or services it can purchase.  These people then try to get as much of the metal basis for the money as they can.

This whole idea of trade is a VERY complex subject.  Way beyond even the scope of a whole Forum.  Suffice it to say if the Chinese ship tons of Jin Bao trombones here and refuse to buy any Shires trombones there, we will have a surplus of Chinese trombones here.

I understand the history of how it came about - i guess my ???? is a more fundamental one - namely - Gold And silver are not edible, nor are they water, you can;t build a shelter with it, it doesn't get you high or make coffee for you in the mornings - it's just a shiny piece of metal with no fundamental value other than what the first narcissistic alphas ascribed to it.  it's rarity makes no diff - Platinum is usually worth about what, 4 times as much as gold (i know it fluctuates as well) but according to it's rarity it should be worth 1000 times over that (you could fit the amount of platinum discovered in the world into a large room)

Rare and pretty ... and somewhat useful in practical ways. But mostly I think just being rare and pretty drives its value. Diamonds are similar, but much more useful, I think (gotta check those suspicions with geologists or other types with pertinent expertise who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do though).
 
Byron

Yeah, but the uses have come about fairly recently - rare and pretty was pretty much it for the majority of human history.

And diamonds are not rare at all -  google the diamond myth or debunking the diamond myth - i wrote a paper about how DeBeers artificially inflates the price of diamonds by hoarding supplies - in like 97 or 96 i think - and my teacher told me i was a nut job.  Modern estimates place the number of diamonds so high that each person in the world could have a cup of jewel quality diamonds - rare my spleen!



Kbiggs brings up some good points that i think need to be understood on a fundamental level before we proceed to much further....  nice stuff K - you aren't an economist are you?

Z

[johngsteel]

OK.  Puma, John Lipton, Johngsteel, and Slidemansailor (you all seem to have a similar bent).  I am still waiting to hear how you intend to deal with the economic crisis.  And if you plan to be true laissez-faire, how you plan to deal with the consequences of another 1930 style Depression, which I think ALL economists agree will result from doing nothing.

Are you all so secure in your employment that you are convinced you are Depression-proof?

I guess that nobody does get what I am saying.  My critical analysis is consistant.  I do fight political biasness in myself.

I do hold the GOP in disrespect.  I do hold the Dems in greater disrespect.

Throwing money is NOT the way to get consumer confidence.
There are so many things that both sides of the isles have failed policies.  Outsourcing jobs, manufacturing, greed, excessive taxes, death tax, and what is next? farting tax? Exhale tax? I am going to go for a walk in my neighberhood tax?

Good regulations are good.  Bad regulations are bad.  Ignoring the regulators is worse.  That is what the dems did (if it was that important, then why did not the GOP stand up and shout really loud?)

That is the meaning of this thread.  Both sides of the isle are wrong. 

To fix it? get our jobs back, our manufacturing back, our foodstuff growers back.  A country that dreams, creates, produces, and consumes, is a country with a healthy econemy.  Specifically if it rewards EVERBODY that works hard, not punish with excessive taxes for their success.

With that said, I am not addressing greed, which is a major negitive character trait, that only causes problems.

[Andrew Meronek]

The time value of money will help to redue the per capita national debt: the face value may increase, but its "worth" in comparative dollars will decrease.  (Think of the price of a gallon of milk in 1959 and now in 2009, then compare them using 1959 dollars.  Now do the same with the average income in 1959 and in 2009.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this only applies during inflation, yes? Thus, a government in debt has this specific incentive to keep inflation going?

A national debt is not a "bad" thing.  Debt for individuals, business, institutions, and governments, if properly managed, is a tool for growth.  Further, govt's are not businesses, and having a nat'l debt and deficit spending are not "evils" that must be avoided.  If anything, a nat'l debt promotes security and stability: it implies that the debtor--the gov't--will be around to repay it, which promotes financial security and encourages investment.   Said another way:  applying the same rules to govt's and businesses is a mistake.  Yes, fiscal and monetary responsibility are present in both, but in different ways and means.  (That's not to say that the idea of a nat'l debt hasn't been abused in the past 30 years or so.) 

A national debt is not a bad thing in the short term. We know that it means that the government is investing in the economy and creating jobs, increasing the money flow, etc. But what jobs are created and where does the money flow just by paying interest on the debt?

Also, I fail to see how the debt really promotes stability, given current events. It seems to me that it hasn't affected stability noticeably either positively or negatively. Except perhaps historically; I'll provide two extreme examples of negatively affected stability:

Augustus Caesar ran up huge debts during his ascension to being Emperor. He paid those debts by killing and seizing the property of political enemies and people he otherwise just didn't like. By modern standards, this would be the equivalent of the U.S. government seizing and liquidating a large number of companies and estates.

The Soviet Union famously ran up a huge debt before it collapsed.

[BGuttman]

I guess that nobody does get what I am saying.  My critical analysis is consistant.  I do fight political biasness in myself.

... 

To fix it? get our jobs back, our manufacturing back, our foodstuff growers back.  A country that dreams, creates, produces, and consumes, is a country with a healthy econemy.  Specifically if it rewards EVERBODY that works hard, not punish with excessive taxes for their success.
...

As someone who has been in and out of work for the last 7 years due to offshoring, I laud your sentiments.

How do you plan to get our jobs and manufacturing back?

Right now a Chinese can do assembly labor for under $10 per day (let's not talk about the phony exchange rate for the moment) where an American is going to want at least $10 per hour.  The Chinese factory can emit any number of hazardous substances where the American plant must find a way to sequester these materials and dispose of them safely.  The Chinese factory owner does not have to pay taxes to educate the children in his city, or pay for any kind of health care for his employees.  Nor is there any Unemployment Insurance.  His expenses are much lower than an American plant.

This goes to the "level playing field" argument.  If the Chinese had to pay for all the things that Americans did, the relative low cost of their products (with the very high cost of shipping them halfway around the world) would not be as great.  This would allow American factories, with high levels of automation and high efficiencies to compete (one would hope).

But the fact of the matter is, we will buy on price.  Get the cheapest oats you can find, even if they have already been through the horse once.

But I rant.

[johngsteel]

ah, how to get our jobs, manufacturing back?

Tax outsourced effort.  Make it not worth the investment.

A reasonable tax change would have layers of tax "penalties"
- owned here, designed, manufactured, distributed here.
- not owned here, designed ........
- Owned here, not designed....
- Not owned here, not.....

And, if you want to add a pollution tax, have it based upon our environmental standards.  Remember, the enviornmentalist attack the US first, the rest of the world 2nd.  So, in support of that, have a % layered polution tax.  the bigger the polutants (China, India, etc), the bigger the tax.  that would discourage businessses from doing business until they implemented actions to change their polution problem.

Just a thought....  So who does not want our jobs back? Who wants to let other countries that we outsource to get a free ride on polution?