Oh I wonder why. And its not because Trump saved 800 job with Carrier or IBM is bring 25,000 jobs to the market. Maybe, just maybe it's Obama's last hit on the American worker.
You folks that wanna buy a house, car, or get a student loan might wanna take a good look look at this. Also you home owners that wanted to re-fi might wanna look into this.
I say...............Audit the Feds....!
Federal Reserve is expected to raise interest rates just before Trump is sworn in
The Federal Reserve is expected to raise interest rates for the first time in a year during a key policy meeting that ends Wednesday, the Associated Press reports.
According to Politico, markets are on edge as they await the Fed's outlook for the economy under President-elect Donald Trump, which is expected to see continued growth. But economists also expect to see higher levels of inflation, which would lead to even higher interest rates.
READ MORE...........
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/14/federal-reserve-is-expected-to-raise-interest-rates-just-before-trump-is-sworn-in/
Adjusted font size.
walks
Politics, pure politics!
The interest rate should have been raised in 2009 and never lowered till the economy recovered, but it never recovered, we've been in the nation's longest depression since our inception.
We know the economy never recovered, so why raise them now? Politics, pure politics!
Now what I wanna know is if this is part of the "economic boom" that Trump inherited from the democrats
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on December 14, 2016, 04:13:47 PM
Now what I wanna know is if this is part of the "economic boom" that Trump inherited from the democrats
I think the "economic boom" Dims refer to, was actually the economy going down in flames.
No boom, just a long slow burn.
Well they would never do it before the election but it does have to be done. From a political standpoint do it now.
Quote from: Bronx on December 14, 2016, 09:35:00 AM
Oh I wonder why. And its not because Trump saved 800 job with Carrier or IBM is bring 25,000 jobs to the market. Maybe, just maybe it's Obama's last hit on the American worker.
You folks that wanna buy a house, car, or get a student loan might wanna take a good look look at this. Also you home owners that wanted to re-fi might wanna look into this.
I say...............Audit the Feds....!
Federal Reserve is expected to raise interest rates just before Trump is sworn in
The Federal Reserve is expected to raise interest rates for the first time in a year during a key policy meeting that ends Wednesday, the Associated Press reports.
According to Politico, markets are on edge as they await the Fed's outlook for the economy under President-elect Donald Trump, which is expected to see continued growth. But economists also expect to see higher levels of inflation, which would lead to even higher interest rates.
READ MORE...........
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/14/federal-reserve-is-expected-to-raise-interest-rates-just-before-trump-is-sworn-in/
Rates have been going up since the low in September/October.
http://www.bankrate.com/mortgage.aspx?type=refinance&market=236&propertyvalue=300000&loan=240000&perc=20&prods=215,393,216,392&fico=740&points=Zero&cs=0&ic_id=home_smart-spending_mortgages_globalnav
Now that optimism has returned - so have interest rates.
Adjusted font size.
walks
Quote from: Hoofer on December 15, 2016, 05:27:19 AM
Rates have been going up since the low in September/October.
http://www.bankrate.com/mortgage.aspx?type=refinance&market=236&propertyvalue=300000&loan=240000&perc=20&prods=215,393,216,392&fico=740&points=Zero&cs=0&ic_id=home_smart-spending_mortgages_globalnav
Now that optimism has returned - so have interest rates.
Obama and the Fed have kept them artificially low for too long. It is not a disaster that they rise if it is not drastic like we saw in the 70's.
Adjusted font size.
walks
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 15, 2016, 05:46:13 AM
Obama and the Fed have kept them artificially low for too long. It is not a disaster that they rise if it is not drastic like we saw in the 70's.
Whether a bump in the prime is a good thing or not, one thing we can be absolutely certain of: the INTENT of the Obama administration is anything BUT desiring to hand Trump a growing economy.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 15, 2016, 05:46:13 AM
Obama and the Fed have kept them artificially low for too long. It is not a disaster that they rise if it is not drastic like we saw in the 70's.
Which has puzzled me - why is the FED in BED with the liberals!? If the economy takes another dip, they're sure to blame it on the Pubs... like the sun rising in the morning, "SEE!!! I told you, global warming - every morning!"
Quote from: Hoofer on December 15, 2016, 06:00:02 AM
Which has puzzled me - why is the FED in BED with the liberals!? If the economy takes another dip, they're sure to blame it on the Pubs... like the sun rising in the morning, "SEE!!! I told you, global warming - every morning!"
Marxists have been infecting every aspect of business in America, the Fed is not immune, and money has a strange effect on man, some will even sell out their family for greed and power.
Hell, just look at the GOP. :biggrin:
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 15, 2016, 05:46:13 AM
Obama and the Fed have kept them artificially low for too long. It is not a disaster that they rise if it is not drastic like we saw in the 70's.
Adjusted font size.
walks
When I ask this, I'm not asking about whether rates should be higher or lower, that's a different question, but when you say "artificially lower", what do you mean?
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 24, 2016, 10:40:51 AM
When I ask this, I'm not asking about whether rates should be higher or lower, that's a different question, but when you say "artificially lower", what do you mean?
There is no reason for interest rates to be as low as they are based on our economy. It is not booming, but if we can believe the government we do have some growth. Also, the unemployment rate is very low, once again if you believe the government. The only thing these low interest rates have done is to provide fuel for Wall Street investors. Now, if one wants to say it is to keep the economy going one would have to admit the Obama economy is a disaster. Anybody who has been on this planet for any length of time knows these rates are unbelievable. In 1981 the interest rate for a 30 year mortgage was over 18% and now it is around 3%. A few 1/4% increases should not hurt the economy if Trump can generate some increased growth in GDP. I trust that provides some insight for you.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 24, 2016, 11:36:47 AM
There is no reason for interest rates to be as low as they are based on our economy.
I think the reason that is given is that higher rates would result in less consumption.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 24, 2016, 11:36:47 AMIt is not booming, but if we can believe the government we do have some growth.
I agree it's not booming as to whether I agree with the government, I think overall statistics mask real underlying trends. For example, if 99.99% of the money in the nation were controlled by 1 person, if that person got a 20% raise, the economy, measured as a whole might appear, on average (by dollars, not people) to have receved a raise.
I think media needs to stop reporting by education level, race, and geography, and simply report by economic quintile. If the media reported this way, the average person might realize that 80% of the nation is no better off than it was 18 years ago and even worse, that 60% was actually worse off.
That 60% spoke loud and clear to the Dems when they elected DT.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 24, 2016, 11:36:47 AMAlso, the unemployment rate is very low, once again if you believe the government.
Again, no I don't. The unemployment rates does not accurately reflect the quality of jobs that people have. If a person is capable of a job that pays $80,000 but can only find a job for $40,000, that person is underemployed and his/her potential productivity is being wasted, though there is no statistic that accounts for this fact.
A few minutes searching the BLS stats and you can learn what you need to know, but of course the government doesn't report meaningful numbers because people are too apathetic to be bothered to take the time to understand them.
If you are attacking Obama hoping I'll defend him and other dems, I won't. However, I can find just as many, perhaps even more problems with Republican proposals on the economy.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 24, 2016, 11:36:47 AMThe only thing these low interest rates have done is to provide fuel for Wall Street investors.
I'll agree it's helped the financial economy immensely, but I'd argue that lowering the rent paid on borrowed money helps people on Main St. as well. The problem is that the gap between those at the top and those in the middle/bottom grows with the low rates we have now.
But, can't we solve this problem through policy change? Can't we have low rates to help Main St. and prevent some of the financial shenanigans on Wall St? I mean, should companies be allowed to purchase their own stock to artificially inflate the stock price (as an example)?
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 24, 2016, 11:36:47 AMNow, if one wants to say it is to keep the economy going one would have to admit the Obama economy is a disaster.
I think its helped keep things going and yes I admit it's a disaster.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 24, 2016, 11:36:47 AMAnybody who has been on this planet for any length of time knows these rates are unbelievable. In 1981 the interest rate for a 30-year mortgage was over 18% and now it is around 3%. A few 1/4% increases should not hurt the economy if Trump can generate some increased growth in GDP. I trust that provides some insight for you.
I'd argue that 18% under Volcker was more unbelievable than .5% under Bernanke/ Yellen simply because the "natural" rate of interest in our fiat economy is zero. At least today now that there's no gold standard. In a fiat economy, money isn't scarce as the Fed can supply all the liquidity the market needs. Anything above zero is artificial by definition.
Now that doesn't mean that I think the rate should necessarily be zero, but if the reason for raising rates is to prevent the wealthy from leveraging virtually free money to invest (gamble), it seems that there are other ways to solve that problem. This way the weak private sector can have the lower rates it needs and the wealthy have proper regulation to prevent gambling with borrowed money.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 24, 2016, 10:10:34 PM
I think the reason that is given is that higher rates would result in less consumption.
I agree it's not booming as to whether I agree with the government, I think overall statistics mask real underlying trends. For example, if 99.99% of the money in the nation were controlled by 1 person, if that person got a 20% raise, the economy, measured as a whole might appear, on average (by dollars, not people) to have receved a raise.
I think media needs to stop reporting by education level, race, and geography, and simply report by economic quintile. If the media reported this way, the average person might realize that 80% of the nation is no better off than it was 18 years ago and even worse, that 60% was actually worse off.
That 60% spoke loud and clear to the Dems when they elected DT.
Again, no I don't. The unemployment rates does not accurately reflect the quality of jobs that people have. If a person is capable of a job that pays $80,000 but can only find a job for $40,000, that person is underemployed and his/her potential productivity is being wasted, though there is no statistic that accounts for this fact.
A few minutes searching the BLS stats and you can learn what you need to know, but of course the government doesn't report meaningful numbers because people are too apathetic to be bothered to take the time to understand them.
If you are attacking Obama hoping I'll defend him and other dems, I won't. However, I can find just as many, perhaps even more problems with Republican proposals on the economy.
I'll agree it's helped the financial economy immensely, but I'd argue that lowering the rent paid on borrowed money helps people on Main St. as well. The problem is that the gap between those at the top and those in the middle/bottom grows with the low rates we have now.
But, can't we solve this problem through policy change? Can't we have low rates to help Main St. and prevent some of the financial shenanigans on Wall St? I mean, should companies be allowed to purchase their own stock to artificially inflate the stock price (as an example)?
I think its helped keep things going and yes I admit it's a disaster.
I'd argue that 18% under Volcker was more unbelievable than .5% under Bernanke/ Yellen simply because the "natural" rate of interest in our fiat economy is zero. At least today now that there's no gold standard. In a fiat economy, money isn't scarce as the Fed can supply all the liquidity the market needs. Anything above zero is artificial by definition. Now that doesn't mean that I think the rate should necessarily be zero, but if the reason for raising rates is to prevent the wealthy from leveraging virtually free money to invest (gamble), it seems that there are other ways to solve that problem. This way the weak private sector can have the lower rates it needs and the wealthy have proper regulation to prevent gambling with borrowed money.
It seems we agree for the most part. The question is what is a reasonable level for interest rates which are good for the most. I suggest we go back to the 1950's for a base line. We had a booming economy and the interest rate for a 30 year mortgage was around 5%-6%. This level does not impede borrowing and provides some comfort for those depending on interest income.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 25, 2016, 06:19:17 AM
It seems we agree for the most part. The question is what is a reasonable level for interest rates which are good for the most. I suggest we go back to the 1950's for a base line. We had a booming economy and the interest rate for a 30 year mortgage was around 5%-6%. This level does not impede borrowing and provides some comfort for those depending on interest income.
With all due respect, that's a simple correlation. One of the reasons the 50's were such a good time is the enormous deficit spending that occurred just a few years earlier. Coincidently, private debt was at an all-time low and savings was extremely high. Interest rates at the time reflected the availability of money.
Today, debt to income ratios are extremely high, savings is extremely low and deficit spending, with the exception of 2016 fell for 5 straight years (2009-2016).
Lastly, the amount banks have to lend has nothing to do with savings.
If you wish to raise rates simply too slow down the immoral profit taking banks, there are other less destructive ways to accomplish that goal.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 26, 2016, 08:56:23 PM
With all due respect, that's a simple correlation. One of the reasons the 50's were such a good time is the enormous deficit spending that occurred just a few years earlier. Coincidently, private debt was at an all-time low and savings was extremely high. Interest rates at the time reflected the availability of money.
Today, debt to income ratios are extremely high, savings is extremely low and deficit spending, with the exception of 2016 fell for 5 straight years (2009-2016).
Lastly, the amount banks have to lend has nothing to do with savings.
If you wish to raise rates simply too slow down the immoral profit taking banks, there are other less destructive ways to accomplish that goal.
So you have a problem with banks being profitable. Fine, don't use them.
"there are other less destructive ways to accomplish that goal." So what we would these be?
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 27, 2016, 04:53:17 AM
So you have a problem with banks being profitable. Fine, don't use them.
"there are other less destructive ways to accomplish that goal." So what we would these be?
Yeah, it's all the bank's fault and never the govt's for over taxation and stifling business growth, noooo, it's the big bad banksters that control our economy. :rolleyes:
He's another perfect example of a little knowledge is just that, very little knowledge, and never enough to grasp the big picture of an overbearing govt, the very thing our Founders tried to contain via a Republic with three separate branches of govt.
Quote from: Solar on December 27, 2016, 05:41:53 AM
Yeah, it's all the bank's fault and never the govt's for over taxation and stifling business growth, noooo, it's the big bad banksters that control our economy. :rolleyes:
He's another perfect example of a little knowledge is just that, very little knowledge, and never enough to grasp the big picture of an overbearing govt, the very thing our Founders tried to contain via a Republic with three separate branches of govt.
Yep. It is the banks' fault the government made them make loans to people who have proven they would not pay them back.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 27, 2016, 06:36:47 AM
Yep. It is the banks' fault the government made them make loans to people who have proven they would not pay them back.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Good point!
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 27, 2016, 04:53:17 AM
So you have a problem with banks being profitable. Fine, don't use them.
"there are other less destructive ways to accomplish that goal." So what we would these be?
To the contrary, banks deserve to make a profit, but even Milton Freidman, the laissez-faire capitalist he was, recognized that banks were in a unique position to work against the public interest if left unregulated. He hoped that someday the solution could be found, but until then he believe that banks, only banks, needed to be regulated.
Banking and profits aren't an all or nothing arrangement. It's not a binary choice between state-run banks and totally unregulated banks.
As far as what proposals I'd agree with?
I think Warren Mosler covers it pretty well with the following:
Quote1. Banks should only be allowed to lend directly to borrowers and then service and keep
those loans on their own balance sheets.
2. US banks should not be allowed to contract in LIBOR
3. Banks should not be allowed to have subsidiaries of any kind.
4. Banks should not be allowed to accept financial assets as collateral for loans.
5. US Banks should not be allowed to lend off shore.
6. Banks should not be allowed to buy (or sell) credit default insurance
7. Banks should not be allowed to engage in proprietary trading or any profit making
ventures beyond basic lending.
8. My last proposal for the banks in this draft is to utilize FDIC approved credit models
for evaluation of bank assets.
For a full explanation to each of these proposals, follow this link: http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/pdfs/Proposals.pdf
I'd also add other things like reinstating the uptick rule and I wouldn't allow corporations to buy back stock simply for the purpose of artificially valuating it, at least the way that it's done today.
Quote from: Solar on December 27, 2016, 05:41:53 AM
Yeah, it's all the bank's fault and never the govt's for over taxation and stifling business growth, noooo, it's the big bad banksters that control our economy. :rolleyes:
He's another perfect example of a little knowledge is just that, very little knowledge, and never enough to grasp the big picture of an overbearing govt, the very thing our Founders tried to contain via a Republic with three separate branches of govt.
Why the strawman?
I agree, I think the government over taxes. It may come as a surprise to you, but I'm in favor of virtually eliminating all corporate taxes. Taxes on corporations are regressive and penalize businesses for doing business. From a personal tax perspective, I'm not in favor of taxing those with money because they have money. You won't ever find me advocating ideas like "make the rich pay their fair share". That's non-sense. You could take all the wealth away from the top 1% and you'd barely make a dent in "paying for things". Which is precisely why I don't believe that taxes can be used to pay for spending.
I never said bankers control the economy. What I said is that private debt is stifling consumption as the number of people seeing their debt rise relative to income increases. That means more and more people are paying debt today for yesterday's productivity leaving less to drive demand.
There is an argument to be made (not here, not now) for income inequality, but that's not solved by taking money and wealth away from those at the top, but please, let's not distract ourselves from the point of this thread.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 27, 2016, 06:36:47 AM
Yep. It is the banks' fault the government made them make loans to people who have proven they would not pay them back.
The government and the private sector have a role to play in recent failures. However, I'd say it all hinged on one simple false belief that both government and the private sector all over the world believed, that the value of real estate would never drop precipitously. Which lead to the creation of CDS' and the misappropriation of risk and insurance that insured more dollars in mortgage contracts that there is value in all the land in the world.
Banking greed didn't create the crash all by itself, gov had a role to play, but it's like speed in a car accident. It made it much worse than it would have been had the government made better choices.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 27, 2016, 09:34:34 AM
Why the strawman?
I agree, I think the government over taxes. It may come as a surprise to you, but I'm in favor of virtually eliminating all corporate taxes. Taxes on corporations are regressive and penalize businesses for doing business. From a personal tax perspective, I'm not in favor of taxing those with money because they have money. You won't ever find me advocating ideas like "make the rich pay their fair share". That's non-sense. You could take all the wealth away from the top 1% and you'd barely make a dent in "paying for things". Which is precisely why I don't believe that taxes can be used to pay for spending.
I never said bankers control the economy. What I said is that private debt is stifling consumption as the number of people seeing their debt rise relative to income increases. That means more and more people are paying debt today for yesterday's productivity leaving less to drive demand.
There is an argument to be made for income inequality, but that's not solved by taking money and wealth away from those at the top, but please, let's not distract ourselves from the point of this thread.
Now is as good a time as any. I really have to hear your reasoning for socialism. :lol:
Quote from: Solar on December 27, 2016, 06:51:00 PM
Now is as good a time as any. I really have to hear your reasoning for socialism. :lol:
First, I'd like to note that you
again failed to address my reply, but how do you get socialism from my last reply?
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 27, 2016, 09:27:23 PM
First, I'd like to note that you again failed to address my reply, but how do you get socialism from my last reply?
Read your own replies and you might see where it comes from.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 27, 2016, 09:27:23 PM
First, I'd like to note that you again failed to address my reply, but how do you get socialism from my last reply?
I didn't address your bull shit because it doesn't interest me in any way.
Do you honestly believe anyone here takes your beliefs seriously?
"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".
So make it, and quit pissing around.
Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2016, 05:53:33 AM
I didn't address your bull shit because it doesn't interest me in any way.
Do you honestly believe anyone here takes your beliefs seriously?
"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".
So make it, and quit pissing around.
I don't care what you think I believe or take seriously, what matters is the arguments you can put up to show I'm wrong. So far you've offered very little unless you think you're silly and diversionary accusations of plagiarism count as an argument...lol
Clearly what you say and what you do are at odds.
Taxed, isn't interested as he was in the conversations we were having and he has since chosen not to reply. You, on the other hand, Solar, are
very interested despite the fact that you say you are not. Your actions betray your words.
Now, please address my point. Where in what I said supports socialism?
Now if you'd like to discuss wealth/ income inequality, create a thread and make your case, otherwise I'm not going to derail my own thread as it's not the point. It has however allowed you, once again, to deflect from the statements I've made. Neutral readers will read what I've written and your consistent deflection, name calling, and strawmen as weak an ineffectual and I'm sure they will be curious why you can't address my points despite your conflicting words and actions.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 28, 2016, 08:09:47 AM
I don't care what you think I believe or take seriously, what matters is the arguments you can put up to show I'm wrong. So far you've offered very little unless you think you're silly and diversionary accusations of plagiarism count as an argument...lol
Clearly what you say and what you do are at odds.
Taxed, isn't interested as he was in the conversations we were having and he has since chosen not to reply. You, on the other hand, Solar, are very interested despite the fact that you say you are not. Your actions betray your words.
Now, please address my point. Where in what I said supports socialism?
Now if you'd like to discuss wealth/ income inequality, create a thread and make your case, otherwise I'm not going to derail my own thread as it's not the point. It has however allowed you, once again, to deflect from the statements I've made. Neutral readers will read what I've written and your consistent deflection, name calling, and strawmen as weak an ineffectual and I'm sure they will be curious why you can't address my points despite your conflicting words and actions.
You do not dictate the rules of the forum. You broached the topic, so you are obligated to address it. If you do not want to address it here, then fine, start another thread, but it's not incumbent upon me to make your case for you.
You started it, now back up what you are claiming.
As to this thread, it doesn't interest me in the least, because truth is, everything the Marxist does, is designed to hurt capitalism.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 28, 2016, 08:09:47 AM
Taxed, isn't interested as he was in the conversations we were having and he has since chosen not to reply. You, on the other hand, Solar, are very interested despite the fact that you say you are not. Your actions betray your words.
I love discussing economics, business, etc., but you don't even have a basic understanding of such topics, so it's more fun for me to watch Solar smack you around like a hooker who didn't come up with his money.
E4E, some of us have made money in business and investing. You haven't. To put another way, you literally have the business experience of my 4 year old nephew. As a man in my 40s, I wouldn't be able to handle knowing I was just a drone my entire life, never having the confidence to put my money where my mouth is. You never did that because you don't know how to, and would have no idea where to start. You never did venture into the business world because [insert your excuse here]. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend you know more about doing than those of us who have done.
If you want to safely gain some experience, maybe start small, like a lemonade stand. It would be low risk, so you wouldn't have to cut your dependency on those who actually took risk and started the company you work for, but you'd baby-step into entrepreneurship. The only trick would be to convince your bosses to let you out of work early enough to catch people coming home from work to sell them some lemonade, but you think you're smart, so you should be able to pull that off. Until then, listening to you about economics and business is like taking business advice from the homeless man in back of the gas station. If you could do, you would have done, so until then, keep telling your wife how you coulda' woulda' and your kids who are jealous of their friends who have daddies who were man enough to venture out and become successful business owners. I'm glad you acquired enough of a skill to provide for your family, but don't pretend you have any insight beyond that, because you don't. Instead, know your place and continue to be envious of people like us who are self sufficient.
Now go play son, because you're not in my league.
Quote from: taxed on December 28, 2016, 06:18:42 PM
I love discussing economics, business, etc., but you don't even have a basic understanding of such topics, so it's more fun for me to watch Solar smack you around like a hooker who didn't come up with his money.
E4E, some of us have made money in business and investing. You haven't. To put another way, you literally have the business experience of my 4 year old nephew. As a man in my 40s, I wouldn't be able to handle knowing I was just a drone my entire life, never having the confidence to put my money where my mouth is. You never did that because you don't know how to, and would have no idea where to start. You never did venture into the business world because [insert your excuse here]. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend you know more about doing than those of us who have done.
If you want to safely gain some experience, maybe start small, like a lemonade stand. It would be low risk, so you wouldn't have to cut your dependency on those who actually took risk and started the company you work for, but you'd baby-step into entrepreneurship. The only trick would be to convince your bosses to let you out of work early enough to catch people coming home from work to sell them some lemonade, but you think you're smart, so you should be able to pull that off. Until then, listening to you about economics and business is like taking business advice from the homeless man in back of the gas station. If you could do, you would have done, so until then, keep telling your wife how you coulda' woulda' and your kids who are jealous of their friends who have daddies who were man enough to venture out and become successful business owners. I'm glad you acquired enough of a skill to provide for your family, but don't pretend you have any insight beyond that, because you don't. Instead, know your place and continue to be envious of people like us who are self sufficient.
Now go play son, because you're not in my league.
You guys are so adorable. Nice passive-aggressive rant.
Here's the problem, you think because you've run a business, that makes you an expert in economics. It's sort of like believing that because you know how to drive a car makes you a master mechanic. What's really laughable is that you can't see the difference.
Now, any time you'd like to debate economics, you let me know, or you keep pretending, like Solar to be disinterested to keep from actually having to have your ignorance exposed.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 28, 2016, 09:55:32 PM
You guys are so adorable. Nice passive-aggressive rant.
Don't be defensive. When you can finally accept your place in society, it will be a big burden off your shoulders and people will start to take you more seriously.
Quote
Here's the problem, you think because you've run a business, that makes you an expert in economics. It's sort of like believing that because you know how to drive a car makes you a master mechanic. What's really laughable is that you can't see the difference.
Again, your being too defensive. You don't understand business nor economics. You've never had to. That's fine. Maybe someday. I don't think you're ever too old to take that step. If you do, I hope you post about it here because I'd be very happy for you.
Quote
Now, any time you'd like to debate economics, you let me know, or you keep pretending, like Solar to be disinterested to keep from actually having to have your ignorance exposed.
Why would I want to discuss economics with someone who has no idea about it? That's silly and doesn't make any sense. I haven't worked for someone else since 2003 (or 02, I can't remember now). Even before that I had my own consulting company on the side. You have no idea what that's like, so what could someone like you possibly tell someone like me? You are much better suited in your current role for people like myself to laugh at.
I'm sure you understand a lot about economics, but your views on it just don't make sense to those of us who actually partake in it.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 28, 2016, 09:55:32 PM
You guys are so adorable. Nice passive-aggressive rant.
Here's the problem, you think because you've run a business, that makes you an expert in economics. It's sort of like believing that because you know how to drive a car makes you a master mechanic. What's really laughable is that you can't see the difference.
Now, any time you'd like to debate economics, you let me know, or you keep pretending, like Solar to be disinterested to keep from actually having to have your ignorance exposed.
I don't care who you voted for, never asked. My only point was voting for the individual and party should never be an obstacle.
Still waiting for you to address this crap.
"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".
So lets hear it. What's your argument?
Quote from: taxed on December 28, 2016, 11:45:16 PM
Don't be defensive. When you can finally accept your place in society, it will be a big burden off your shoulders and people will start to take you more seriously.
Again, your being too defensive. You don't understand business nor economics. You've never had to. That's fine. Maybe someday. I don't think you're ever too old to take that step. If you do, I hope you post about it here because I'd be very happy for you.
Why would I want to discuss economics with someone who has no idea about it? That's silly and doesn't make any sense. I haven't worked for someone else since 2003 (or 02, I can't remember now). Even before that I had my own consulting company on the side. You have no idea what that's like, so what could someone like you possibly tell someone like me? You are much better suited in your current role for people like myself to laugh at.
I'm sure you understand a lot about economics, but your views on it just don't make sense to those of us who actually partake in it.
Picture this. We're spiraling to earth in a plane without a tail, you and I are trying our damnedest to keep the plane level and do our best to slow it down, while numbnuts wants to discuss the minutiae of gravity and the effects of velocity vs friction.
The damn plane is on a crash course for earth, and he's still stuck on the effect of inconsequential nonsense.
Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 06:51:48 AM
I don't care who you voted for, never asked. My only point was voting for the individual and party should never be an obstacle.
Once again, do you actually read what I write? where is there anything about voting in what you responded to?
Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 07:39:39 AM
Still waiting for you to address this crap.
"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".
So lets hear it. What's your argument?
I've made lots of other arguments you were happy to skip...Adress those than I'll be happy to respond in kind.
Quote from: taxed on December 28, 2016, 11:45:16 PM
Don't be defensive. When you can finally accept your place in society, it will be a big burden off your shoulders and people will start to take you more seriously.
Again, your being too defensive. You don't understand business nor economics. You've never had to. That's fine. Maybe someday. I don't think you're ever too old to take that step. If you do, I hope you post about it here because I'd be very happy for you.
Why would I want to discuss economics with someone who has no idea about it? That's silly and doesn't make any sense. I haven't worked for someone else since 2003 (or 02, I can't remember now). Even before that I had my own consulting company on the side. You have no idea what that's like, so what could someone like you possibly tell someone like me? You are much better suited in your current role for people like myself to laugh at.
I'm sure you understand a lot about economics, but your views on it just don't make sense to those of us who actually partake in it.
If you think you can get a rise out of me with those sorts of childish taunts you severely underestimate me.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 08:06:41 AM
Once again, do you actually read what I write? where is there anything about voting in what you responded to?
If you were actually following the threads in Financial, you'd know that wasn't actually addressed to you. Shit happens when the server is lagging like it did this morning..
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 08:07:35 AM
I've made lots of other arguments you were happy to skip...Adress those than I'll be happy to respond in kind.
Shock, and this is the only one that with a small indefinite quantity of interest.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 08:09:06 AM
If you think you can get a rise out of me with those sorts of childish taunts you severely underestimate me.
Why in the world would that get a rise out of you?
Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 07:40:32 AM
Picture this. We're spiraling to earth in a plane without a tail, you and I are trying our damnedest to keep the plane level and do our best to slow it down, while numbnuts wants to discuss the minutiae of gravity and the effects of velocity vs friction.
The damn plane is on a crash course for earth, and he's still stuck on the effect of inconsequential nonsense.
We're spiraling trying to pull up while he's in coach bitching about the turbulence isn't fair...
Quote from: taxed on December 29, 2016, 09:13:39 AM
We're spiraling trying to pull up while he's in coach bitching about the turbulence isn't fair...
:lol:
Besides being a stowaway and complaining about the decor and how seat dispersion needs to be greatly improved upon.
Minutiae, always about the inconsequential shit and completely missing the big picture, that we're heading for certain demise, because no matter how hard one tries, you can't make fuel out of existing fuel.
Point being, he thinks the govt can simply create value by printing money, though he refuses to admit that's his ARGUMENT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE'S DOING.
Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 09:46:36 AMhe thinks the govt can simply create value by printing money, though he refuses to admit that's his ARGUMENT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE'S DOING.
No that's not what I'm doing and the reason you believe that is because you don't actually understand what I've been saying.
Assuming that you value the experience of attending the Superbowl more than the cost to acquire the tickets to attend and the only way to attend is to acquire the tickets, question is, do Superbowl
tickets have value despite the fact they are made of worthless paper?
If no, explain.
(See what I'm doing here is trying to have an adult conversation)
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 11:21:22 AM
No that's not what I'm doing and the reason you believe that is because you don't actually understand what I've been saying.
Assuming that you value the experience of attending the Superbowl more than the cost to acquire the tickets to attend and the only way to attend is to acquire the tickets, question is, do Superbowl tickets have value despite the fact they are made of worthless paper?
If no, explain.
(See what I'm doing here is trying to have an adult conversation)
I know exactly what you're doing. That's why I'm giving you such a hard time.
Picture a huge circle and your point being the center of said circle. My point is all the points supporting said circle are completely made up of Unicorn farts and pixie dust.
The system you claim to understand is not a working system when at any moment your worthless paper is deemed utterly useless.
See Zimbabwe Somalia.
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F84%2F253458330_27a6b67b06.jpg%3Fv%3D0&f=1)
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 11:21:22 AM
No that's not what I'm doing and the reason you believe that is because you don't actually understand what I've been saying.
Assuming that you value the experience of attending the Superbowl more than the cost to acquire the tickets to attend and the only way to attend is to acquire the tickets, question is, do Superbowl tickets have value despite the fact they are made of worthless paper?
If no, explain.
(See what I'm doing here is trying to have an adult conversation)
As long as each ticket get you into the game, there is a value. What would the value be if there were 500,000 tickets printed but only 50,000 seats?
Quote from: s3779m on December 29, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
As long as each ticket get you into the game, there is a value. What would the value be if there were 500,000 tickets printed but only 50,000 seats?
Or to put it as Ayn Rand put it:
When we were on the gold standard, an ounce of gold could buy you 20 sacks of groceries
Now that we're off the gold standard, an ounce of gold would still buy you 20 sacks of groceries, it just takes more dollars to back it up
The lesson: The more unbacked dollars you print, the higher the rate of inflation
Quote from: s3779m on December 29, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
As long as each ticket get you into the game, there is a value. What would the value be if there were 500,000 tickets printed but only 50,000 seats?
Of course, we both know the answer to that question.
But that really wasn't the point I was making. The point was that tokens like gift cards, tickets and dollars have value because they are a claim on real productivity. Dollars in this case, are worthless on Mars, but because you can purchase things of real value here, then they do have value as long as that arangment is in place.
Now if the claim being made here is that creating dollars by default creates price inflation, that is false.
Let's take your question, but change it slightly. Not to manipulate the outcome, but to keep with the point.
What if instead of the Superbowl, which has only one game and very real physical limitations, there was a broadway show that had a venue of 5k seats and planned 10 shows (50k total seats), but they accidently sold 500K tickets? Could it not be said that the tickets printed and sold created more work for the actors if the number of shows were increased to 100?
The ticket, as I'm sure we can agree, is a claim on something of real value. Creating more tickets and the income that comes with it, may have made it possible to pay the actors and rent the venue ect for the time needed to honor all 500k of the tickets.
So when creating dollars, it doesn't automatically cause inflation, it causes inflation IF the new level of demand created by those dollars cannot be met with an increase in productivity to ensure that anyone that wants to use a dollar to buy a good or service can find it. Price inflation happens when the demand for goods and services outpaces the supply or the efficiency which those goods can be delivered to market decreases, or some other outside variable rises.
It's not the dollars that create inflation, but the ratio of dollars to the potential of the economy they are issued in to meet the new level of demand that causes inflation.
If the government decided to create $1 trillion new dollars to create a state of the art bullet train from NY to LA. Are you telling me that we can't afford it? That's ridiculous, the government can create all the dollars it wants. Will the creation of $1 trillion new dollars cause price inflation? If yes what you're saying is that the US does not have enough labor and raw materials to build a train without causing widespread shortages in either labor or raw materials such that prices rise. Yet we funded 2 major wars for trillions of dollars without creating hyperinflation...?? Hmmmm? How did we do that? We did it because the labor and real raw materials existed in the economy to create the things necessary to fight 2 wars.
Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 29, 2016, 12:15:44 PM
Or to put it as Ayn Rand put it:
When we were on the gold standard, an ounce of gold could buy you 20 sacks of groceries
Now that we're off the gold standard, an ounce of gold would still buy you 20 sacks of groceries, it just takes more dollars to back it up
The lesson: The more unbacked dollars you print, the higher the rate of inflation
You've completely ignored the fact that salaries are not static. If salaries grow as the increase in dollars grows, it is possible for the dollars to cost less in real terms even if it takes more dollars in nominal terms. And indeed that's exactly what we see.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:14:07 PM
You've completely ignored the fact that salaries are not static.
And a praying mantis is the only insect that can sneeze. So?
Quote
If salaries grow as the increase in dollars grows, it is possible for the dollars to cost less in real terms even if it takes more dollars in nominal terms. And indeed that's exactly what we see.
And who cares? Most of us are concerned with buying power
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:14:07 PM
You've completely ignored the fact that salaries are not static. If salaries grow as the increase in dollars grows, it is possible for the dollars to cost less in real terms even if it takes more dollars in nominal terms. And indeed that's exactly what we see.
You ignore the fact that wages and salaries invariably lag behind inflation, and therefore the buying power of the citizenry is still diminished. The end result is Joe Average Citizen cannot purchase what they could purchase before deficit spending on the part of government caused inflation to decrease the value of their labor.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:14:07 PM
You've completely ignored the fact that salaries are not static. If salaries grow as the increase in dollars grows, it is possible for the dollars to cost less in real terms even if it takes more dollars in nominal terms. And indeed that's exactly what we see.
You've scoffed at both Solar and Taxed's credentials of being businessmen.
What are your credentials to lecture on econ?
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:12:08 PM
Of course, we both know the answer to that question.
Just to be sure, the answer would be that the tickets have almost no value?
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:12:08 PMBut that really wasn't the point I was making. The point was that tokens like gift cards, tickets and dollars have value because they are a claim on real productivity. Dollars in this case, are worthless on Mars, but because you can purchase things of real value here, then they do have value as long as that arangment is in place.
Even the tokens, gift cards, tickets and, you get the point, would be worthless on Mars. Even if the government would print billions, that too would be worthless on mars.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:12:08 PMNow if the claim being made here is that creating dollars by default creates price inflation, that is false.
Who has claimed that??
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:12:08 PMLet's take your question, but change it slightly. Not to manipulate the outcome, but to keep with the point.
What if instead of the Superbowl, which has only one game and very real physical limitations, there was a broadway show that had a venue of 5k seats and planned 10 shows (50k total seats), but they accidently sold 500K tickets? Could it not be said that the tickets printed and sold created more work for the actors if the number of shows were increased to 100?
Not at all. How, with limited space for shows and limited "star" actors can this take place for the day on the ticket, unless you have to change the dates to something that the customer might not want but you are forcing them to accept. And if no one wants the new dates, or new places , or the new actors what has happened to the value of the tickets?
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:12:08 PMThe ticket, as I'm sure we can agree, is a claim on something of real value. Creating more tickets and the income that comes with it, may have made it possible to pay the actors and rent the venue ect for the time needed to honor all 500k of the tickets.
No, you are assuming that each new show will have the same value to the consumer, if it does not, the consumer loses. A much better way to increase the profits would be to create the shows first and then sell the tickets. In which case the tickets would hold their value.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:12:08 PMSo when creating dollars, it doesn't automatically cause inflation, it causes inflation IF the new level of demand created by those dollars cannot be met with an increase in productivity to ensure that anyone that wants to use a dollar to buy a good or service can find it. Price inflation happens when the demand for goods and services outpaces the supply or the efficiency which those goods can be delivered to market decreases, or some other outside variable rises.
Just like your example of the tickets for the super bowl, which was a good example by the way, creating the "extra" tickets made them worth less, and creating far too many made them worthless. Kinda of like when governments just print money.
It's not the dollars that create inflation, but the ratio of dollars to the potential of the economy they are issued in to meet the new level of demand that causes inflation.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:12:08 PMIf the government decided to create $1 trillion new dollars to create a state of the art bullet train from NY to LA. Are you telling me that we can't afford it? That's ridiculous, the government can create all the dollars it wants. Will the creation of $1 trillion new dollars cause price inflation? If yes what you're saying is that the US does not have enough labor and raw materials to build a train without causing widespread shortages in either labor or raw materials such that prices rise.
Have you forgotten that even with printing mills running full time, the government has no money unless it takes it from someone who has earned it, either now or later. When private business builds a railroad it does not costs me anything unless I use it.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:12:08 PMYet we funded 2 major wars for trillions of dollars without creating hyperinflation...?? Hmmmm? How did we do that? We did it because the labor and real raw materials existed in the economy to create the things necessary to fight 2 wars.
Wars are financed thru the sale of treasury notes and bonds.
Hmm... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Mom told me there would be days like this.
Quote from: zewazir on December 29, 2016, 01:45:56 PM
You ignore the fact that wages and salaries invariably lag behind inflation, and therefore the buying power of the citizenry is still diminished. The end result is Joe Average Citizen cannot purchase what they could purchase before deficit spending on the part of government caused inflation to decrease the value of their labor.
Can you provide me a source on that?
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 06:26:52 PM
Can you provide me a source on that?
You scoffed at Solar's and Taxed's credentials as businessmen.
Just what are your credentials?
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 06:26:52 PM
Can you provide me a source on that?
Hmm... More seniors are going back to work just to make ends meet. Inflation has wiped out their nest egg.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 06:26:52 PM
Can you provide me a source on that?
This right here, this is why I refuse to entertain your lunacy.
You haven't the first clue how our economy is supposed to function, it's why you asked him to provide the most basic knowledge, something you would find in a first year econ class.
Crack a damn book and come back in a year.
Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 09:46:36 AM
:lol:
Besides being a stowaway and complaining about the decor and how seat dispersion needs to be greatly improved upon.
Minutiae, always about the inconsequential shit and completely missing the big picture, that we're heading for certain demise, because no matter how hard one tries, you can't make fuel out of existing fuel.
Point being, he thinks the govt can simply create value by printing money, though he refuses to admit that's his ARGUMENT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE'S DOING.
How creepy is it that he's in his late 40s with this perspective on things? I'm going to lock my doors and make sure my camera is recording....
Quote from: taxed on December 29, 2016, 10:16:50 PM
How creepy is it that he's in his late 40s with this perspective on things? I'm going to lock my doors and make sure my camera is recording....
I give him Mises, he responds with a Washpo article, I quote Milton Friedman, he spews socialist dogma.
I'm willing to bet he thinks Ayn Rand had horns and cloven feet, assuming he even knows who she is...
I'm still waiting to hear his sage wisdom over his claim:
"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".Maybe he can school us on the OWS movement, or the Social inequalities under Supply Side economics.
My guess would be, based on what he's written, he has a wealth envy issue, kind of like those born with a mental illness and go into psychiatry, instead, he takes an interest in the field of economics 'only' while completely neglecting our Constitution in regards to capitalism and free mkt ideals.
Quote from: Solar on December 30, 2016, 03:59:35 AM
I give him Mises, he responds with a Washpo article, I quote Milton Friedman, he spews socialist dogma.
I'm willing to bet he thinks Ayn Rand had horns and cloven feet, assuming he even knows who she is...
I'm still waiting to hear his sage wisdom over his claim:
"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".
Maybe he can school us on the OWS movement, or the Social inequalities under Supply Side economics.
My guess would be, based on what he's written, he has a wealth envy issue, kind of like those born with a mental illness and go into psychiatry, instead, he takes an interest in the field of economics 'only' while completely neglecting our Constitution in regards to capitalism and free mkt ideals.
I hope he isn't spewing this crap to his kids. That's all we need -- more Bernie kids...
Quote from: Solar on December 30, 2016, 03:59:35 AM
I give him Mises, he responds with a Washpo article, I quote Milton Friedman, he spews socialist dogma.
I'm willing to bet he thinks Ayn Rand had horns and cloven feet, assuming he even knows who she is...
I'm still waiting to hear his sage wisdom over his claim:
"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".
Maybe he can school us on the OWS movement, or the Social inequalities under Supply Side economics.
My guess would be, based on what he's written, he has a wealth envy issue, kind of like those born with a mental illness and go into psychiatry, instead, he takes an interest in the field of economics 'only' while completely neglecting our Constitution in regards to capitalism and free mkt ideals.
This is the kind of demonization of "the other side" that is contributing to the breakdown of Amercian politics.
You have no idea my experiences, my social status or my income. Even if I were to prove that one or all of your accusations is false, would it make any difference? Of course not. All just hot air spoken to end a conversation, not take part in it. So I won't be baited into trying to prove anything to you about who I am. It's irrelevant and the facts speak for themselves.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 01:17:53 PM
This is the kind of demonization of "the other side" that is contributing to the breakdown of Amercian politics.
Who's demonizing who? The name Saul Alinsky ring anything in your belfry? I notice when you guys used his tactics and were winning you laughed your tail ends off. Now that your butts in a sling, suddenly it's not so funny
Quote
You have no idea my experiences, my social status or my income.
No we don't, and thereby hangs the rub. We don't need to know anything about you to guage whether or not you know what your talking about
However, when he starts critiquing others credentials, he better have some pretty impressive credentials himself.
Considering the fact you turned down the opportunity to present thosse impressive credentials three times, I have to presume they don't exist and all the following rhetoric is bs attempting to be a smoke screen.
Quote.
Even if I were to prove that one or all of your accusations is false, would it make any difference? Of course not. All just hot air spoken to end a conversation, not take part in it.
Translation: I expect you to take every word I give you as golden
Quote
So I won't be baited into trying to prove anything to you about who I am. It's irrelevant and the facts speak for themselves.
Translation: I'm nobody important anyway and what I claim to be facts are bits and pieces I pulled from progressive propaganda, spin, and talking points.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 01:17:53 PM
This is the kind of demonization of "the other side" that is contributing to the breakdown of Amercian politics.
You have no idea my experiences, my social status or my income. Even if I were to prove that one or all of your accusations is false, would it make any difference? Of course not. All just hot air spoken to end a conversation, not take part in it. So I won't be baited into trying to prove anything to you about who I am. It's irrelevant and the facts speak for themselves.
Demonization?
I respond to your "farewell" thread, and you dig back to a post you ignored earlier and claim I was baiting you? All to avoid my latest post, cowturd, umm, meant coward, but either will suffice!
Troll, your shit is getting old real fast, and it's far from obvious you're out of your league and way in over your head here, so instead of a long farewell, with 'the little snowflake is tearfully melting post', just leave and quit wasting our time.
Can anyone here actually put something up...Some facts with respect to economics and debate them? I tried and everyone ignored it.
Do taxes pay for spending at the Federal Level?
Does the market determine interest rates?
Is the "loanable funds theory" correct?
If the government could go broke, what exactly would that look like?
You guys don't want to talk economics. You want to tell me I have an agenda, or I'm a serial plagiarist.
Does anyone actually want to put their ideas on the line? Come on, please share some insights gained with all that business acumen.
Let's ask each other questions that actually require evidence. Oh, wait, you don't accept evidence, because if it goes against what you believe it's obviously been altered by the government.
That leaves us at somewhat of a stalemate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3dpwxl4E18
Quote from: Solar on January 01, 2017, 08:27:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3dpwxl4E18
Again, you pretend to have knowledge due to business skills you may or may not have (I don't know), but when the rubber meets the road, you have no idea how to respond.
You and Taxed keep telling me how little I understand, but neither of you will actually debate me with respect to real economics.
Please, tell me, in your own words what it is I don't understand. Don't post an entire article or site, it only proves you don't actually understand what it is you're claiming.
Talk to me about trade deficits or why I'm wrong when I say that the government doesn't actually "print" money to pay for anything (actual money printing is simply to meet the demand for cash at the ATM machine). Government credits accounts when it spends and debits them when it taxes.
When the government prints money and gives it to banks, it debt's those banks reserve accounts dollar for dollar. The net result is no new money enters the system when "cash" is created. Did you know that? If you did I suspect we'd be arguing actual economics rather than throwing accusations of marxism or threating to ban me for not answering a question about income inequality.
Now please astound all of your fellow forum mates by actually discussing economics with me, in your own words, with sources if necessary. Try to keep the Ad Hominem attacks to a minimum.
Or you could just ban me and get this over with because we all know that's where this is going. You're just looking for the excuse.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 09:28:46 PM
Again, you pretend to have knowledge due to business skills you may or may not have (I don't know), but when the rubber meets the road, you have no idea how to respond.
You and Taxed keep telling me how little I understand, but neither of you will actually debate me with respect to real economics.
Please, tell me, in your own words what it is I don't understand. Don't post an entire article or site, it only proves you don't actually understand what it is you're claiming.
Talk to me about trade deficits or why I'm wrong when I say that the government doesn't actually "print" money to pay for anything (actual money printing is simply to meet the demand for cash at the ATM machine). Government credits accounts when it spends and debits them when it taxes.
When the government prints money and gives it to banks, it debt's those banks reserve accounts dollar for dollar. The net result is no new money enters the system when "cash" is created. Did you know that? If you did I suspect we'd be arguing actual economics rather than throwing accusations of marxism or threating to ban me for not answering a question about income inequality.
Now please astound all of your fellow forum mates by actually discussing economics with me, in your own words, with sources if necessary. Try to keep the Ad Hominem attacks to a minimum.
Or you could just ban me and get this over with because we all know that's where this is going. You're just looking for the excuse.
More drivel from the troll that refuses to answer questions, and you have the audacity to call people out for something you're now known for in your every post?
If I wanted to boot you, I don't need an excuse, the only reason you haven't been booted is because it's not often we get real Marxists through here.
But you do not control the forum, you are still a noob.
Problem is, you refuse to debate, you ask questions, then when someone responds, you say "fascinating", then ask another series of hyper focused, innocuously questions without an inkling of how the big picture works, no, you'd rather take a myopic look at the intricacies of interest in hopes of boring us to death.
You seem to forget, you are a guest, a noob at that, and etiquette demands you join existing conversations, not jump in and start threads to push your own leftist agenda.
We gave you your own thread as requested:
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:38:24 AM
Oh, and for the record, I never refused to discuss, I told Solar he should start a new thread and we could discuss. That would allow for an answer to the question and keep from derailing the thread. Of course, this has never really been about me answering questions.
And like every other time, you dodge and weave, ask more silly questions and claim no one ever answers your questions.
So my suggestion would be for you to join in the conversation until you're actually welcomed into the forum as a contributing member, presently of which, you are not.
So return to the thread that was started for you, the very one you requested and expand on your claim "There is an argument to be made for income inequality".
Though it's worded as a polite suggestion, I think you know what's at stake here.
I knew it was too much to ask that you might actually debate economics with me.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 02, 2017, 07:27:15 AM
I knew it was too much to ask that you might actually debate economics with me.
Somebody has a one-track mind.
We're still waiting for you to defend your there is a case to be made for inccome inequality claim.
You've wasted how much bandwidth stalling, then you needed a thread staarted, now what' s your excuse?
Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 02, 2017, 07:29:12 AM
Somebody has a one-track mind.
We're still waiting for you to defend your there is a case to be made for inccome inequality claim.
You've wasted how much bandwidth stalling, then you needed a thread staarted, now what' s your excuse?
Yeah, Derailed. :biggrin:
I laid out my case, I was told that I was wrong. No facts, no arguments, what's left to say.
Now, please debate actual economics with me. All this posturing is childish.
Do taxes pay for spending at the Federal Level?
Does the market determine interest rates?
Is the "loanable funds theory" correct?
If the government could go broke, what exactly would that look like?
See you claim you understand the economy, but if you can't answer these questions, you don't really understand the economy.
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 02, 2017, 08:46:23 AM
I laid out my case, I was told that I was wrong. No facts, no arguments, what's left to say.
Now, please debate actual economics with me. All this posturing is childish.
Do taxes pay for spending at the Federal Level?
Does the market determine interest rates?
Is the "loanable funds theory" correct?
If the government could go broke, what exactly would that look like?
See you claim you understand the economy, but if you can't answer these questions, you don't really understand the economy.
I notice "posturing" , as you call it, isn't childish when you do it.
Likee how much posturing have you done before you got to answering you claim about income inequality? Were you being childish?
Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 02, 2017, 08:54:28 AM
I notice "posturing" , as you call it, isn't childish when you do it.
Likee how much posturing have you done before you got to answering you claim about income inequality? Were you being childish?
Ya know, every communist I've met share these same traits. They never want to debate.
No, they want you to let them make a case for Marxism, they want to convince you that everyone is repressed by capitalism, that only the rich have the true power, that only govt can right this wrong via control of the free mkt. and micro-management by big brother picking the winners it wants to further its grip on the free mkt system.
Yet he can't see where all of this leads, or he can, which explains why he refuses to debate the actual principle behind a free mkt.
Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2017, 09:08:16 AM
Ya know, every communist I've met share these same traits. They never want to debate.
No, they want you to let them make a case for Marxism, they want to convince you that everyone is repressed by capitalism, that only the rich have the true power, that only govt can right this wrong via control of the free mkt. and micro-management by big brother picking the winners it wants to further its grip on the free mkt system.
Yet he can't see where all of this leads, or he can, which explains why he refuses to debate the actual principle behind a free mkt.
I've discussed communism with a grad student once that was trying to sell me on Cuba.
He pulled a fiver out of his pocket and said. "This is my life. I'm exploited in this country."
"You think your not exploited in the Russia?" I asked.
"How am I exploited?" he asked.
"Does Putin wait in line for his food? Does Putin get the same medical attention as the average citizen?"
He shrugged his shoulders. "Well, every system has its problems"
"Then why are you complaining about the problems in this one?"
Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 02, 2017, 09:21:01 AM
I've discussed communism with a grad student once that was trying to sell me on Cuba.
He pulled a fiver out of his pocket and said. "This is my life. I'm exploited in this country."
"You think your not exploited in the Russia?" I asked.
"How am I exploited?" he asked.
"Does Putin wait in line for his food? Does Putin get the same medical attention as the average citizen?"
He shrugged his shoulders. "Well, every system has its problems"
"Then why are you complaining about the problems in this one?"
What I find so ironic is that every time they point out the failings in our system, it's all because of govt intervention trying to level the playing field.
Point this out and they say "govt had the right idea". :rolleyes:
Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2017, 09:29:56 AM
What I find so ironic is that every time they point out the failings in our system, it's all because of govt intervention trying to level the playing field.
Point this out and they say "govt had the right idea". :rolleyes:
I had one guy once try and sell me on the idea that the US Department of Education was an example of successful government intervention
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstream1.gifsoup.com%2Fview6%2F2529342%2Fnelson-laughing-o.gif&hash=705714103ca44542a4528d6bc3396818fb3dab4d)
So I can put these back in the drawer for now.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Me3e0a3c1e95ae305723111abb9758071o0%26amp%3Bpid%3D15.1&hash=d33522e4ee402f355ed37ae1ed546368fc68b30d)
Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 02, 2017, 09:39:34 AM
I had one guy once try and sell me on the idea that the US Department of Education was an example of successful government intervention
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstream1.gifsoup.com%2Fview6%2F2529342%2Fnelson-laughing-o.gif&hash=705714103ca44542a4528d6bc3396818fb3dab4d)
Did he go on to explain why?
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 02, 2017, 11:02:12 AM
Did he go on to explain why?
No, he originally put it in a list of Departments where he thought centralized govermnment worked.
Are you sure you want to use that as an example?, I asked him.
Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 02, 2017, 09:39:34 AM
I had one guy once try and sell me on the idea that the US Department of Education was an example of successful government intervention
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Fuckin classic example of govt failure, or rather, communist success.