Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | Next > | Last >
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: hostileuniverse]
    #22473779 - 11/03/15 10:25 PM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

hostileuniverse said:
Quote:

qman said:
I like how they included paying your mortgage payment now counts as a person making a rent payment to a landlord, homeowners now are their own landlords and contribute to GDP. :cookiemonster:




Makes about as much sense as not counting those not on unemployment as unemployed...

Number fudging, it's what the govt does best:facepalm3:



If home ownership grows, is that good, bad, or neutral for the economy?

If the Government counted only rent and not mortgage, then GDP would go down as home ownership grew.  Clearly that would make no sense.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: amp244]
    #22473967 - 11/03/15 11:17 PM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
You don't seem to get Keynesianism.  The idea is prevent both the bust AND the boom cycles.  If done correctly, you pump money into the bust cycles, and take it back during the boom cycles, keeping things relatively stable.  If you only pump money in during the bust cycles and let the boom cycles happen (which is what Greenspan allowed), then you might have a problem.



^^sounds good on paper^^ but you know that they don't curtail "irrational exuberance", to quote Greenspan.



Greenspan didn't do enough curtail "irrational exuberance"; that's essentially the mistake he confessed to in the link I provided above.

Quote:

amp244 said:
I don't think its wise to try to prevent any cycles. Im not saying I'm advocating wild fluctuations, but there should be ups and downs. Let the market set the interest rates.

Countries go through what are called credit cycles. Expansions and recessions are part of the short term cycles. Depressions may happen from time to time over the long term, if the short term cycles are interfered with.



History shows much greater fluctuations in the business cycles before the Fed, and there hasn't been a single depression since the Great Depression after which the Fed learned that large economic problems require large interventions.

Quote:

amp244 said:
We borrow money, to increase spending and facilitate transactions. This has a chain reaction effect through the economy and usually results in some substantial growth.



So far I'm with you...

Quote:

amp244 said:
If the central bank sets interest rates too low, this borrowing gets out of control and leads to irrational exuberance and the formation of asset bubbles (houses, stock market, etc.).



That's "IF" they set the rates too low.  Notice how interest rates went up as the housing market was growing:



The bubble wasn't caused by interest rates that were too low.

Quote:

amp244 said:
But remember, one mans credit, is another mans debt. This money must be paid back. Eventually the debt burden begins to grow faster than incomes and productivity. The debt repayments and interest get larger and begin to cut back on spending and transactions in the economy. The economy begins to contract, and if the asset bubbles pop, we are thrown into depression.



That's true if low interest rates cause debt to grow out of control.  But we're not seeing that right now, even with the record low interest:


Quote:

amp244 said:
The Keynesian wants to avoid any contractions at all costs, and tries to push interest rates lower, attempting to keep the economy in growth mode indefinitely.



Only if you're a 'Reagan Keynesiast' :smirk:.  A good Keynesiast knows that you have to pull back when the economy does well.

Quote:

amp244 said:
He may be able to avert a few string of recessions this way, but eventually he'll find himself in a position where interest rates cannot go any lower and the economy is still not recovering. This happens because the credit cycles have not been allowed to run their normal course. The current situation is very similar to this. Now we are on the verge of depression and the Fed has come in to save the day with drastic, income inequality inducing tactics, once again denying the credit cycle its chance to complete its natural down turns.



The economy is on the rise whether people want to acknowledge it or not.  The problem (as you've acknowledged above) is that the rich own Congress too much of the recovery money goes their way.

Quote:

amp244 said:
My point to the modern day Keynesian is that you should not try to avert the recessions that are a part of natural credit cycles, less you goad depression. You must take the bad with the good because too much of a good thing, becomes a bad thing.



A depression is MUCH less likely today than it was a few years ago, and things continue to improve, albeit not as fast as most would like.

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Real wages have always gone up faster than inflation, until Reagan took office, when they roughly stayed even with inflation:




This graph doesn't show wages vs inflation so Im not sure how it allowed you to arrive at that conclusion.



Actually, it does.  The graph above shows REAL wages, not nominal wages, so it is adjusting the wages against inflation.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehostileuniverse
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #22474562 - 11/04/15 05:44 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Home ownership is good, only if the loans are legit and not backed by taxpayers, that money spent for mortgage, is already spent when the house is purchased, no new money is being spent monthly. The only new money spent is upkeep, and utilities.


--------------------
http://www.countdowntotrump.com





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleamp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #22475160 - 11/04/15 09:33 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
This graph doesn't show wages vs inflation so Im not sure how it allowed you to arrive at that conclusion.



Actually, it does.  The graph above shows REAL wages, not nominal wages, so it is adjusting the wages against inflation.




Hahaha, this immediately hit me when I woke up this morning. I was laying in bed and was like, shit.


--------------------
How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer


"Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleamp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #22475371 - 11/04/15 10:23 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Quote:

amp244 said:
If the central bank sets interest rates too low, this borrowing gets out of control and leads to irrational exuberance and the formation of asset bubbles (houses, stock market, etc.).



That's "IF" they set the rates too low.  Notice how interest rates went up as the housing market was growing:




Well apparently they weren't high enough. We all know that the subprime mortgages, baited by financial wizardry (MBS/CDOs) on wall street, are what caused the housing bubble to grow and what caused it to pop, so this was a unique situation in general. But the point remains that lending was not curtailed and irrational exuberance was in full motion. I guess you can't blame poor people for being stupid, but lending institutions still thought that the number of defaults would be manageable. There were no heroic Keynesians around to save the day.

Quote:

Quote:

amp244 said:
The Keynesian wants to avoid any contractions at all costs, and tries to push interest rates lower, attempting to keep the economy in growth mode indefinitely.



Only if you're a 'Reagan Keynesiast' :smirk:.  A good Keynesiast knows that you have to pull back when the economy does well.



The problem is the economy never "does well" without tripping over itself. When's the last time you would say the economy was doing well and these Hero Keynesians managed to land the ship softly? The .com bubble in the early 2000's wasnt' averted. Shit was allowed to get way out of control, but you have your villain in Greenspan so you're still sticking to your mantra that they pull back from the boom cycles. They didn't stop a crash in '87 either, or this last one in '08. 20 years and three boom/busts. I'm sure you'll respond with some, 'the alternative was a depression so I think the ship was landed softly'. Well if you want to trade a normal credit cycle for income inequality and a welfare state, then I can see why you are a Keynesian.


Go back and look at your track record. They don't manage to curtail any booms or stop any busts, they manage only to keep a stably rising inflation, which amounts to theft.

Quote:

Quote:


The economy is on the rise whether people want to acknowledge it or not.  The problem (as you've acknowledged above) is that the rich own Congress too much of the recovery money goes their way.




A depression is MUCH less likely today than it was a few years ago, and things continue to improve, albeit not as fast as most would like.






I see a grossly overvalued stock market and near zero interest rates. I thought the good Keynesian was supposed to pull back during the good times? Too bad if they raise the rates, the economy will no longer be "on the rise". And say the stock market does go kaput, what are they gonna do then? Just buy the whole stock market?


--------------------
How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer


"Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith


Edited by amp244 (11/04/15 10:27 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinestarfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 2 days
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: amp244]
    #22475384 - 11/04/15 10:26 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

this graph tracks nicely against a couple of others and shows that INCOME EQUALITY IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO GOVERNMENT SPENDING, GOVERNMENT DEBT, This is becuase the government keeps spending more if it takes in more.

Someone should make sure this graph doesn't disappear because I've already found the graphs that can be superimposed over that will clearly show that KEYNESIAN DOGSHIT ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK--

Sorry Fal, I would prepare for doom if I were you because I going to post them after I return from work.

everyone who reads this:  You heard it here first--KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS AND DOGSHIT DEMOCRATIC/REPUBLICAN/STATIST policies are going down in flames later today thanks to this excellent graph posted by Fal.

Fal, prepare for thy doom. :highfive::smug:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 5 hours, 41 minutes
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #22475402 - 11/04/15 10:30 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

"and things continue to improve"

Really?  Since when do we call an economy that has had interest rates at 0% for 7 years an improvement? 

It's a sign that the economy is barely moving, it's not improving.  By the time Obama leaves office the US debt is going to be over $20 trillion, good times!!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 5 hours, 41 minutes
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: starfire_xes]
    #22475457 - 11/04/15 10:43 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

starfire_xes said:
this graph tracks nicely against a couple of others and shows that INCOME EQUALITY IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO GOVERNMENT SPENDING, GOVERNMENT DEBT, This is becuase the government keeps spending more if it takes in more.






"income equality is directly proportional to government spending, government debt"

I'm not sure how income and wealth inequality would be correlated with government spending.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehostileuniverse
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: qman]
    #22476012 - 11/04/15 11:19 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

qman said:
"and things continue to improve"

Really?  Since when do we call an economy that has had interest rates at 0% for 7 years an improvement? 

It's a sign that the economy is barely moving, it's not improving.  By the time Obama leaves office the US debt is going to be over $20 trillion, good times!!




:whathesaid:

And also to keep Hillary front and center



--------------------
http://www.countdowntotrump.com





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleamp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #22476129 - 11/04/15 11:49 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

hostileuniverse said:
Quote:

qman said:
I like how they included paying your mortgage payment now counts as a person making a rent payment to a landlord, homeowners now are their own landlords and contribute to GDP. :cookiemonster:




Makes about as much sense as not counting those not on unemployment as unemployed...

Number fudging, it's what the govt does best:facepalm3:



If home ownership grows, is that good, bad, or neutral for the economy?

If the Government counted only rent and not mortgage, then GDP would go down as home ownership grew.  Clearly that would make no sense.




Newly constructed houses are added to GDP when they are built and first sold. The construction costs as well as the gain made on the sale by whatever firm sold it are added to GDP up front. I can understand that interest on the mortgage should be counted as it is paid, but counting the mortgage payments on the principal is double accounting.

GDP should measure goods or services that are produced. An increase in home ownership in and of itself does not necessarily mean anything NEW has been produced. Unless I buy a newly constructed house, nothing, save for the interest on my loan, realty fees, appraisals, etc. should be included into GDP. Houses are not considered consumption goods/services like rent, they are investments. You should not be able to count them over and over again every-time they are sold. Lets say I buy a new house and pay off the mortgage (it has already been doubly accounted for). Then I sell it to Hostile Universe, who took a home loan to buy it. Now his mortgage payments are being used to triply account for the same product! If the house continues to be sold, it could be accounted for even more times!

So to answer your question on whether growing home ownership is good, bad, or neutral on the economy, I would submit a qualified answer. Neutral if the houses are used, good if the houses are new.


--------------------
How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer


"Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith


Edited by amp244 (11/04/15 11:51 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinestarfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 2 days
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #22478048 - 11/04/15 07:41 PM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

amp244 said:
But congress has always had the right to create and circulate its own currency! All of this money that they are borrowing from the Fed at interest could have all been created Debt free.  The exact same benefits you say the Fed allows, were easily obtainable in house, debt free!



And Congress still has the right to have the Fed to sell back it's Government bonds at the original purchase price; the Fed is the Government's bank and they can do what they want with it.  Ron Paul and Alan Grayson even want the Fed to forgive the entire $3 trillion in debt the Government owes it.  And Congress can do that.  The problem with that is if the debt was cancelled, the Fed couldn't sell those bonds and retire the money anymore, so the economy would be left with an extra $3 trillion that would lead to inflation problems.

The preferred method for the Government to take on debt is to sell bonds on the open market.  That way, money doesn't have to be created out of thin air, and they don't have to worry about inflation risks.  They could even set the discount rate to 0%, but of course that would mean the bonds are worthless (unless we had negative inflation) and the only way to sell them would be for the Government to create money out of thin air, leading once again to the inflation problem.

Quote:

amp244 said:
Yes the Fed gives its profits back to the Treasury, but lets not forget about those 6% dividends (typical sp 500 dividends are from 2-4%).



I'm not clear on your point.  The average return of an S&P 500 stock is about 10% per year (dividends plus stock gain).  So 6% isn't that great relative to the S&P.  And yes, all the rest of that interest the Government pays the Fed goes right back to the Treasury.

Quote:

amp244 said:
The Federal Reserve is just another way for private bankers to control the government through the issuance of credit, and even worse, the monopoly of its currency. By masquerading as a "quasi-government entity" and calling it the "Federal" Reserve, it gives you the impression that it is part of the government, when in fact it receives no funding appropriated by congress and its decisions do not have to be approved by anyone in the Executive or Legislative branches. All they have to do is attempt to satisfy their subjective mission statement.



Debt is the choice of Congress, not the Fed.  If Congress had the balls to raise enough taxes and cut enough spending to pay down the debt, we would be debt free, whether the Fed liked it or not (though the Fed couldn't care less).

Quote:

amp244 said:
Lets look at their duties as described in said mission statement and assess how good of a job they have been doing:

1.) Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates
Hmm. Employment not at all in good shape, prices stable alright - stably rising, interest-rates lower than ever.



Maybe the Fed should have let the economy slip into a Great Depression, so we can see how great that would be in comparison.

Quote:

amp244 said:

I can see how someone could make the argument that prices have been more stable from year to year since the Fed, although that certainly wasn't the case for the first 40 years or so. You may find it interesting that $1 in 1800 was worth roughly the same as $1 in 1945. How did we manage the back end of the industrial revolution and WWI without our beloved inflation? Also note that ever since we went off the gold standard in 1933 the value of the dollar has been destroyed. As we have all seen in the most recent increases to the money supply, the new dollars disproportionately go to the rich, meaning the working class's purchasing power has greatly diminished.



Real wages have always gone up faster than inflation, until Reagan took office, when they roughly stayed even with inflation:


Yes, the rich are doing a lot better than ever before, but that's because Congress helps those who get them elected.

Quote:

amp244 said:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are now more people on some form of government relief (TANF, Food Stamps, Medicaid) than there are full-time year round workers. I'm by no means a Republican, but I can't ignore that fact. But hey, if you like big government, ballooning welfare, income inequality, destruction of currency, and diminishing purchasing power, than I suppose the Fed is doing a great job!



Please stop with the straw man arguments - they really aren't helping you make your point.

The Fed has nothing to do with any of the above.  As the graph I just presented shows, there's more real wages out there than ever before; it's the fault of Congress for helping those all go to Wall Street rather than Main St.

Quote:

amp244 said:
2.) Supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers
Sure could have used some of that supervision 8 years ago. Im glad they are there to "ensure the safety and soundness" of our capital.

3.) Maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
Sure could have used that risk assessment 8 years ago when banks were leveraged to the gills with risky derivatives.



I actually agree with you 100% on these two.  Alan Greenspan was in charge of Fed when the bubble went up exponentially.  He apologized after he stepped down for not doing his job:
Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation
Quote:

a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.



In Greenspan's defense, he's exactly the kind of free market chairman Ronald Reagan wanted in charge of the Fed, and still another reason Reagan failed America.

Quote:

amp244 said:
4.) Providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system

I guess 1 out of 4 ain't bad.

Yes the businesses are doing surprisingly well because they are being bolstered by Keynesian pseudo-demand. None of this is a natural market reaction. You can't just keep employing tactics to circumvent correction periods forever. Eventually the world will stop taking your dollar. Otherwise we could all stop working and have the FED just print us money.



You don't seem to get Keynesianism.  The idea is prevent both the bust AND the boom cycles.  If done correctly, you pump money into the bust cycles, and take it back during the boom cycles, keeping things relatively stable.  If you only pump money in during the bust cycles and let the boom cycles happen (which is what Greenspan allowed), then you might have a problem.








OUUUUUCCHHHHH!!!  Since government debt has climbed out of control since 1980 income equality tracks right along with it.  :highfive:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: amp244]
    #22479072 - 11/05/15 12:16 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

amp244 said:
This graph doesn't show wages vs inflation so Im not sure how it allowed you to arrive at that conclusion.



Actually, it does.  The graph above shows REAL wages, not nominal wages, so it is adjusting the wages against inflation.



Hahaha, this immediately hit me when I woke up this morning. I was laying in bed and was like, shit.



I actually knew you would get it, which is why I didn't explain it further.  I was going to explain real vs nominal for everyone else's benefit, but it appears our discussion is over most people's heads.  :smirk:

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Notice how interest rates went up as the housing market was growing:



Well apparently they weren't high enough.



I think the only way to have stopped the bubble through interest rates would have been to raise interest rates faster than the housing prices were growing.  But that would have been really bad for the rest of the economy, and for people that just wanted to buy a home using a regular (non-subprime) loan.  Banks knew their loans were bad; which is why they resold them immediately.  I'm not sure if the ratings agencies understood that the repackaged loans were garbage, but then they never should have rated them as low risk.

Quote:

amp244 said:
We all know that the subprime mortgages, baited by financial wizardry (MBS/CDOs) on wall street, are what caused the housing bubble to grow and what caused it to pop, so this was a unique situation in general. But the point remains that lending was not curtailed and irrational exuberance was in full motion. I guess you can't blame poor people for being stupid, but lending institutions still thought that the number of defaults would be manageable.



I agree with you here, except the lending institutions offloaded their loans.

Quote:

amp244 said:
There were no heroic Keynesians around to save the day.



Hopefully, we learned from the crisis.  :smirk:

Quote:

amp244 said:
When's the last time you would say the economy was doing well and these Hero Keynesians managed to land the ship softly? The .com bubble in the early 2000's wasnt' averted. Shit was allowed to get way out of control, but you have your villain in Greenspan so you're still sticking to your mantra that they pull back from the boom cycles. They didn't stop a crash in '87 either, or this last one in '08. 20 years and three boom/busts. I'm sure you'll respond with some, 'the alternative was a depression so I think the ship was landed softly'.



Not quite.  When the economy is in a boom cycle, you're supposed to do the opposite of what you do in a bust - you take in a little extra money to slow things down (and pay down the deficit at the same time).  But you're right, what Congress wants to do that?

Quote:

amp244 said:
Well if you want to trade a normal credit cycle for income inequality and a welfare state, then I can see why you are a Keynesian.



I don't understand how you think smoothing the boom/bust cycles leads to income inequality.  I would argue it's irrelevant to income inequality, or even that the opposite is true.

Quote:

amp244 said:
Go back and look at your track record. They don't manage to curtail any booms or stop any busts, they manage only to keep a stably rising inflation, which amounts to theft.



Small stable inflation is there by design.  Again, income has kept up with inflation, so people aren't making less as a result.  The only ones really losing out are people that stuff cash under their mattress.

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
A depression is MUCH less likely today than it was a few years ago, and things continue to improve, albeit not as fast as most would like.



I see a grossly overvalued stock market and near zero interest rates. I thought the good Keynesian was supposed to pull back during the good times?



I never claimed we were in good times yet, or even back to normal.  I just pointed out that things are improving.  And things are MUCH better than they would have been.

Quote:

amp244 said:
Too bad if they raise the rates, the economy will no longer be "on the rise". And say the stock market does go kaput, what are they gonna do then? Just buy the whole stock market?



They'll raise interest rates when the economy is closer to normal.  And there's no reason the stock market would 'go kaput' right now; businesses in general are making decent money.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: qman]
    #22479104 - 11/05/15 12:23 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

starfire_xes said:
this graph tracks nicely against a couple of others and shows that INCOME EQUALITY IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO GOVERNMENT SPENDING, GOVERNMENT DEBT, This is becuase the government keeps spending more if it takes in more.




"income equality is directly proportional to government spending, government debt"

I'm not sure how income and wealth inequality would be correlated with government spending.



:highfive::smug:




--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: amp244]
    #22479116 - 11/05/15 12:27 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
Newly constructed houses are added to GDP when they are built and first sold. The construction costs as well as the gain made on the sale by whatever firm sold it are added to GDP up front. I can understand that interest on the mortgage should be counted as it is paid, but counting the mortgage payments on the principal is double accounting.

GDP should measure goods or services that are produced. An increase in home ownership in and of itself does not necessarily mean anything NEW has been produced. Unless I buy a newly constructed house, nothing, save for the interest on my loan, realty fees, appraisals, etc. should be included into GDP. Houses are not considered consumption goods/services like rent, they are investments. You should not be able to count them over and over again every-time they are sold. Lets say I buy a new house and pay off the mortgage (it has already been doubly accounted for). Then I sell it to Hostile Universe, who took a home loan to buy it. Now his mortgage payments are being used to triply account for the same product! If the house continues to be sold, it could be accounted for even more times!

So to answer your question on whether growing home ownership is good, bad, or neutral on the economy, I would submit a qualified answer. Neutral if the houses are used, good if the houses are new.



I agree with what you're saying; I was just explaining to qman/hostileuniverse why it's done that way.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: starfire_xes]
    #22479124 - 11/05/15 12:31 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

starfire_xes said:





OUUUUUCCHHHHH!!!  Since government debt has climbed out of control since 1980 income equality tracks right along with it.  :highfive:



So what I hear you saying is that Reagan really fucked things up by reversing the downward debt/gdp trend; tax cuts for the rich were a big mistake as they led to income inequality.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroom Detective
Stranger
Registered: 07/02/14
Posts: 1,699
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: starfire_xes]
    #22479152 - 11/05/15 12:45 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

671 classified emails, 4 highly sensitive, 2 top secret with one of which discussing N.K. Nuclear capabilities...that lowlife Alinsky lover will be indicted for gross negligence and obstruction of justice.


--------------------
"I, Falcon91Wolvrn03, am a BIG FAT LIAR; so much so, that my pants are on fire."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleamp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #22480428 - 11/05/15 10:07 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:


Quote:

amp244 said:
We all know that the subprime mortgages, baited by financial wizardry (MBS/CDOs) on wall street, are what caused the housing bubble to grow and what caused it to pop, so this was a unique situation in general. But the point remains that lending was not curtailed and irrational exuberance was in full motion. I guess you can't blame poor people for being stupid, but lending institutions still thought that the number of defaults would be manageable.



I agree with you here, except the lending institutions offloaded their loans.



understood, but they still would want their product to be marketable. They were still seeking continued operations.


Quote:

Quote:

amp244 said:
When's the last time you would say the economy was doing well and these Hero Keynesians managed to land the ship softly? The .com bubble in the early 2000's wasnt' averted. Shit was allowed to get way out of control, but you have your villain in Greenspan so you're still sticking to your mantra that they pull back from the boom cycles. They didn't stop a crash in '87 either, or this last one in '08. 20 years and three boom/busts. I'm sure you'll respond with some, 'the alternative was a depression so I think the ship was landed softly'.



Not quite.  When the economy is in a boom cycle, you're supposed to do the opposite of what you do in a bust - you take in a little extra money to slow things down (and pay down the deficit at the same time).  But you're right, what Congress wants to do that?



I still think too much of the blame is being put on congress. Yes they are the ones in the position of power, yes they are the ones borrowing/spending, but you have to understand who got them there. The congress has no incentive to curtail spending because spending is what the corporate powers that got them there want them to do. If they stop spending, they probably wont be  congressmen/women anymore. More wars, more welfare, more debt, its all in the interest of wall street. This isn't a result of some inept congress, that's trying its damnedest. This is a result of the money behind the curtain.

Quote:

Quote:

amp244 said:
Well if you want to trade a normal credit cycle for income inequality and a welfare state, then I can see why you are a Keynesian.



I don't understand how you think smoothing the boom/bust cycles leads to income inequality.  I would argue it's irrelevant to income inequality, or even that the opposite is true.



I think its quite clear why it leads to income inequality. There is no de-leveraging taking place to correct the economy. A massive deleveraging would effect everyone, but it would effect the upper 1% the hardest. They have more of their money tied into financial assets. To avoid the market correction, they put more money, and consequently more wealth, into the hands of that upper percentile. Bailout, Stimulus, QE, they are no different in respect to who they help.


--------------------
How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer


"Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleamp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #22480437 - 11/05/15 10:10 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

amp244 said:
Newly constructed houses are added to GDP when they are built and first sold. The construction costs as well as the gain made on the sale by whatever firm sold it are added to GDP up front. I can understand that interest on the mortgage should be counted as it is paid, but counting the mortgage payments on the principal is double accounting.

GDP should measure goods or services that are produced. An increase in home ownership in and of itself does not necessarily mean anything NEW has been produced. Unless I buy a newly constructed house, nothing, save for the interest on my loan, realty fees, appraisals, etc. should be included into GDP. Houses are not considered consumption goods/services like rent, they are investments. You should not be able to count them over and over again every-time they are sold. Lets say I buy a new house and pay off the mortgage (it has already been doubly accounted for). Then I sell it to Hostile Universe, who took a home loan to buy it. Now his mortgage payments are being used to triply account for the same product! If the house continues to be sold, it could be accounted for even more times!

So to answer your question on whether growing home ownership is good, bad, or neutral on the economy, I would submit a qualified answer. Neutral if the houses are used, good if the houses are new.



I agree with what you're saying; I was just explaining to qman/hostileuniverse why it's done that way.



Yea I was just saying that it shouldn't be done this way. When the same product can be counted 3 times in the GDP, your GDP isn't exactly realistic information.


--------------------
How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer


"Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 5 hours, 41 minutes
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: amp244]
    #22480641 - 11/05/15 11:02 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:


Quote:

amp244 said:
We all know that the subprime mortgages, baited by financial wizardry (MBS/CDOs) on wall street, are what caused the housing bubble to grow and what caused it to pop, so this was a unique situation in general. But the point remains that lending was not curtailed and irrational exuberance was in full motion. I guess you can't blame poor people for being stupid, but lending institutions still thought that the number of defaults would be manageable.



I agree with you here, except the lending institutions offloaded their loans.



understood, but they still would want their product to be marketable. They were still seeking continued operations.


Quote:

Quote:

amp244 said:
When's the last time you would say the economy was doing well and these Hero Keynesians managed to land the ship softly? The .com bubble in the early 2000's wasnt' averted. Shit was allowed to get way out of control, but you have your villain in Greenspan so you're still sticking to your mantra that they pull back from the boom cycles. They didn't stop a crash in '87 either, or this last one in '08. 20 years and three boom/busts. I'm sure you'll respond with some, 'the alternative was a depression so I think the ship was landed softly'.



Not quite.  When the economy is in a boom cycle, you're supposed to do the opposite of what you do in a bust - you take in a little extra money to slow things down (and pay down the deficit at the same time).  But you're right, what Congress wants to do that?



I still think too much of the blame is being put on congress. Yes they are the ones in the position of power, yes they are the ones borrowing/spending, but you have to understand who got them there. The congress has no incentive to curtail spending because spending is what the corporate powers that got them there want them to do. If they stop spending, they probably wont be  congressmen/women anymore. More wars, more welfare, more debt, its all in the interest of wall street. This isn't a result of some inept congress, that's trying its damnedest. This is a result of the money behind the curtain.

Quote:

Quote:

amp244 said:
Well if you want to trade a normal credit cycle for income inequality and a welfare state, then I can see why you are a Keynesian.



I don't understand how you think smoothing the boom/bust cycles leads to income inequality.  I would argue it's irrelevant to income inequality, or even that the opposite is true.



I think its quite clear why it leads to income inequality. There is no de-leveraging taking place to correct the economy. A massive deleveraging would effect everyone, but it would effect the upper 1% the hardest. They have more of their money tied into financial assets. To avoid the market correction, they put more money, and consequently more wealth, into the hands of that upper percentile. Bailout, Stimulus, QE, they are no different in respect to who they help.




Fal is against income and wealth inequality, but every time we point out the polices that produce that outcome, he defends it claiming it "saved the economy and avoided a depression".  He can't have it both ways, either one supports the policies and their outcomes or they don't.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 5 hours, 41 minutes
Re: Hillary 'Turns Over' E-mail Server and Thumbnail drive to FBI [Re: amp244]
    #22480756 - 11/05/15 11:33 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

amp244 said:
Newly constructed houses are added to GDP when they are built and first sold. The construction costs as well as the gain made on the sale by whatever firm sold it are added to GDP up front. I can understand that interest on the mortgage should be counted as it is paid, but counting the mortgage payments on the principal is double accounting.

GDP should measure goods or services that are produced. An increase in home ownership in and of itself does not necessarily mean anything NEW has been produced. Unless I buy a newly constructed house, nothing, save for the interest on my loan, realty fees, appraisals, etc. should be included into GDP. Houses are not considered consumption goods/services like rent, they are investments. You should not be able to count them over and over again every-time they are sold. Lets say I buy a new house and pay off the mortgage (it has already been doubly accounted for). Then I sell it to Hostile Universe, who took a home loan to buy it. Now his mortgage payments are being used to triply account for the same product! If the house continues to be sold, it could be accounted for even more times!

So to answer your question on whether growing home ownership is good, bad, or neutral on the economy, I would submit a qualified answer. Neutral if the houses are used, good if the houses are new.



I agree with what you're saying; I was just explaining to qman/hostileuniverse why it's done that way.



Yea I was just saying that it shouldn't be done this way. When the same product can be counted 3 times in the GDP, your GDP isn't exactly realistic information.




What about the quality of GDP, is performing a $500k surgery for a unjustified operation on a 80 year old productive?

What about arresting drug users and putting them through the criminal justice system and then incarcerating them for 10 years?

I mean all of that does contribute to GDP, but does it really have any value?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | Next > | Last >

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Hillary 2008 Already in Gear
( 1 2 all )
ekomstop 3,845 30 11/04/04 01:36 PM
by Innvertigo
* Interesting E-mail....and it all checks out
( 1 2 all )
wmammoth 3,998 25 12/16/02 04:20 PM
by Evolving
* Why people love Hillary Clinton
( 1 2 all )
Ellis Dee 2,817 32 06/30/03 05:43 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Swift Vets Mailing in PA retread 1,944 17 10/19/04 10:00 PM
by Swami
* Will Hillary run in 2004? (poll) LearyfanS 660 4 09/20/03 05:51 PM
by shakta
* Coalition Launches Anti-Empire Drive SquattingMarmot 605 2 10/17/03 04:38 PM
by PsiloKitten
* HILLARY'S CHUTZPAH luvdemshrooms 409 0 11/02/03 05:27 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* He turned himself blue. bivalve 1,070 8 10/15/02 07:27 PM
by dee_N_ae

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
86,874 topic views. 3 members, 3 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.04 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.