This coming from someone who's degenerated into calling me "fucking retarded" and then going back to edit a previous post only to add "sucked ron paul's wrinkly cock". Much like economics, you are clearly in no position to be commenting on anyone's maturity. Your comments were juvenile, therefore I concluded you were a child--seems reasonable to me. I gave you negative rep for the above reasons, not because you made me angry (I don't think that's possible); I thought that was a given. I'm disappointed that I had to explain this to you, but then again... I suppose that's expecting a bit much. It seems you, on the other hand, are easily irritated; for as much as you patronize -rep, it certainly seems to have gotten under your skin. If it bothers you that much, perhaps you might try improving your conduct in matters of discourse.
what i actually wanted to do was make public the fact that you can't come up with any thoughts on a topic you obviously know nothing about so resort to your green bars to do the thinking for you. spectacular displays of maturity.. please. cry more.
furthermore, i want to tell you that it makes you seem extremely mature when you call people juvenile over the internet. according to your logic, your comments were fucking retarded. which is why i concluded you're a retard.
I'm sorry, you're right about that. But how does that make it a poor economic indicator? It shows a trend which hasn't reversed, and it's comparing the lagging indicators of two states. It's not like I'm saying Obama's policies have failed because there's high unemployment. His policies will fail because those policies always fail. Can you read what I wrote? The statement "at least he didn't let the economy explode into the abyss" is extremely short sighted and ignorant. By assuming trillions in liabilities and printing money to pay off banksters he only temporarily averted the market correction that was trying to take place. Obama doesn't see past November 2nd, 2012. Whether you like it or not, the US is going to have to face the abyss sometime or another. Compounding our problem of credit and debt with more credit and debt will only make the future correction more painful. How can you disagree with such simple logic? The banks failed for a reason, this economy is propped up. That's more what triggered the depression, after the economy got drunk off an extremely loose monetary policy starting in WW1 and then the roaring 20's. The depression was prolonged by FDR's anti-competitive legislation, because he, after all, said it was the low prices and wages brought on by competition that caused the depression. So he artificially raised prices and wages, which was a burden on the market. Isn't it funny how the cure you prescribe, 0% interest rate, is also the root of the problem? Talk about attacking symptoms. Of course, I know you think the problem was those pesky investors with their animal spirits running rampant, over-speculating without any cause. Don't blame the $500 credit expansion in 1924, which through the mandrake mechanism became $4 billion by 1925. That or inflating the US dollar to achieve parity with the British pound. Or the moral hazard provided by a lender of last resort. Nope, it was the greedy investors!
You must be new here. I love discussing economics so long as the conversation is actually stimulating. And yet I never once resorted to unreasonable name-calling or vulgarity. So yes, you have me beat in the childish category. Bravo. The only one out of the two of us who seems to be crying, is you--over being compared to the likes of a child and for receiving -rep. Quick, moar pointless double-posts and self-quotes! Go.
unemployment claims have been decreasing in the past months as the job market stabilize. business inventories are decrease for the first time in a year, that together with increased productivity indicates that jobs are going to be growing in the future. unfortunately, simple logic is often fallible logic. this recession was caused mainly be lack of sound regulation in financial markets. banks that engage in proprietary trading did take on too much speculative risk and were over-leveraged, which is why if they failed, the financial system would completely collapse, dragging the real economy with it. regardless of how much debt is in the financial system, the credit crunch would have squeezed small businesses to death and that would have been the real economic abyss. that's GDP contracting by 5%+, a rampant deflationary spiral, etc. if you think unemployment is bad at 10% now, you aint seen nothing yet. t-bills expire 2, 5, or 10 years down the road and that gives us time. i dont really see how bailouts or the recovery act are anti-competition.
by discussing economics you mean quoting your anarcho-capitalist idols whose cocks you love so much? lol? umad? yea umad.
That sounds even more optimistic than Bernanke's assessment he gave today. You're ignoring a lot when you say this tired statist line. The banks that lent like crazy and created derivative markets on shaky assets were acting under a huge moral hazard. They were not only encouraged by the Federal government to fuel the housing market, but they were guaranteed insurance if anything went wrong. The government will always scapegoat the market to grab more power for their friends, because more regulations only mean less competition. Big business loves regulation. I don't disagree, I think it will come. The commercial real estate market hasn't even collapsed yet... Keeping failed institutions alive rather then letting them fail so that successful competitors can consume their market share... If we keep bailing losers out they will never have competition. The US government gave Wells Fargo a $25 billion loan and they used the opportunity to buy out Wachovia. That's anti-competitive. Furthermore, what the state chooses to spend our money on is more often based on special interests rather than market interests. Who's going to get a handout; someone who's politically connected or someone who's not? The largest recipient of bailout funds was a nuclear stockpiling facility... how is that going to stimulate the economy? The market wouldn't choose GM, it wouldn't choose corn ethanol... we probably wouldn't spend trillions on an endless war either.
and that is why you want regulation so that systemically critical firms can fail without taking everyone else down with it. like you said, it's easy to blame the derivative traders and turn a blind eye to a fundamentally flawed system. when you condemn the bailouts you don't keep in mind that if they didn't happen no one would be able to predict what kind of fucked we'd all be. and regardless of how the recovery act is carried out, the fact of the matter is action is still better than inaction.
What about everything I said about the moral hazards and stuff? That doesn't mean anything to you? What you're trying to do is double the work. First you take away the risks of the market by centralizing credit with a fiat currency and planning the economy from DC, then you want to regulate these banks that are now acting like chickens with their heads cut off. What I say is we just let the market risks regulate the banks. If they suck they fail, simple as that. Yes we can predict, and we have accurately predicted the outcomes of bailouts and stimulus. They fuel bubbles that shouldn't be fueled. It's like shooting heroine into a drug addict; quick fix. In the short run, sure... but not in the long run. You know what your boy Keynes said in response to this, right? "In the long run we're all dead"
what about this don't you get? banks are not other businesses, the "if they suck, they fail" rhetoric sounds good yea but you tell me what would have happened if it was lehman*3? and when did anyone ever say anything about long term stimulus? and you need to stop with all this bubble talk. unless you have a 100% sure way of valuation you don't know when asset prices are inflated.
No, they haven't. ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report And even if they had, you're assertion is hollow. Even if new claims do decrease, however mildly, that doesn't necessarily mean employment has improved; that just means there were fewer new claims filed, which could be representative of any number of things other than employment improving. No. Fed drastically manipulates interest rates, eventually cutting them down to 1% before inflation. Mortgage rates follow suit, as a result Borrowing/lending dramatically increase due to low rates, as well as other government interventions such as the CRA, SEC, . Mortgage-backed securities and credit derivatives were just the chosen channels for the seemingly less risky malinvestments; but malinvestments were necessarily created by this manipulated environment thanks, in large part, to the Fed. But really, this bubble has been inflating since the 90s with the Fed's practice of gross credit expansion, increasing the money supply (M3) by 10% per year on average. What we're going to see now is the bubble being re-inflated before the market has even had a chance to liquidate the malinvestments and reassert itself. I'm fairly positive the financial system necessarily has to collapse at this point; certainly if we keep on doing what we have been doing, just as we are right now. And we could use some deflation right about now, as the alternative--with the way we continue to inflate--we'll eventually see the dollar crash as hyperinflation sets in. And unemployment is not 10%, unless you really think U3 is real unemployment--though I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would. Hence my reference to ABCT before, a reference which apparently you failed to recognize. ABCT saw this all coming from miles away. Perhaps if you weren't so busy mocking one of the greatest philosophical and economic minds of the 20th century, you might see the logic there. Time for a re-inflation of the bubble and subsequent burst? That's reassuring. You don't see how government-sponsored corporations are anti-competition? Really?
I get what you're trying to say, I've seen the news headlines over the past year. But it's wrong. That would have been a good thing, the market would have contracted or even collapsed and we could have started fresh. Don't tell me you're happy with the current fascistic economy we have? The lower and middle classes are clearly being robbed by big business and big government. And for the hundredth time, we cannot print our way out of this mess. The correction has to occur, it's been brooding since 1971. I said long term impacts of stimulus, such as inflation, debt, loss of international credit standing, loss of global dollar standard.... Keynes knew full well a nation could not survive forever on his system, but it would get really rich along the short ride. Are you denying there was a housing bubble? You don't think there is a bailout bubble? You think that artificial spending is always allocated properly? You're quick to mock Rothbard, a genius, yet you don't seem to understand the competing theories on business cycles. I hope you've fully researched both.
first of all. lol @ start fresh. second, housing bubble was 2007-2008. i thought we were talking about now. third. wtf is artifical spending? afk. talk to me tomorrow.