SIAP: Quantitate Easing Explained. Awesome.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

One of those viral auto-read videos, this one explains Quantitative Easing.

Would love to hear where anyone disagrees.


I think any normal joe-blow could listen to this video and understand a lot more of this situation they might at first think is too complicated.


PTUY16CkS-k

[scott]

I disagree with... Well pretty much all of this shit video. This is worse than a Wild Cobra post.

Clearly made by and designed for people with no understanding macroeconomics.

[Parker2112]

http://americanbuilt.us/images/toons/money-press.jpg

[Parker2112]

I disagree with... Well pretty much all of this shit video. This is worse than a Wild Cobra post.

Clearly made by and designed for people with no understanding macroeconomics.

actally: spot on. Anything specific, professor?

[Parker2112]

I disagree with... Well pretty much all of this shit video. This is worse than a Wild Cobra post.

Clearly made by and designed for people with no understanding macroeconomics.

PS: werent you also the guy who missed the entire point of my thread on Greek Prime Minister and Carbon Taxes?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I disagree with... Well pretty much all of this shit video. This is worse than a Wild Cobra post.

Clearly made by and designed for people with no understanding macroeconomics.

Tell me where they were wrong about what QE2 really is fundamentally and who runs the fed and where the treasuries are bought from.

[scott]

Well... where to start? This is usually a series of about four to five 75 minute lectures, and that's at the introductory level. I'm going to simplify things considerably. Please note I'm just explaining the economics, not endorsing or criticizing Quantitative Easing.

So what is Quantitative Easing, fundamentally? It's the purposeful and deliberate increase of the money supply. Why increase the money supply? There are a number of reasons, but from the most basic fundamental approach an increase in the money supply will lead to an decrease in the value of money (or an increase in the overall price level), all else equal (see: Quantity Theory of Money). There are a number of cases where "all else equal" does not apply, so an increase in money supply would not affect an increase in the price level.

In this specific case, the Fed is concerned with deflation and a stagnant economy. More specifically, unemployment. There is an observed and theoretically justifiable short run trade off between unemployment and inflation (see: Phillips Curve, Samuelson/Solow, Fisher) where the two are inversely related to one another. In the short run, we can decrease the unemployment rate with the trade off of higher inflation.

Several economists, Friedman most notably, eventually recognized (quite vocally and critically) that because of Monetary Neutrality/the Classical Dichotomy (in the long run, nominal variables do not effect real variables) the tradeoff between unemployment and inflation was only a short-run phenomenon. Even as economists have moved beyond the simplicity of the Phillips Curve, most still recognize the short-run trade off exists, but in the long-run employment will gravitate towards its Natural Rate (Friedman/Phelps).

The idea is that QE could provide a "jump start" to the economy and that the short-run tradeoff could generate a positive economic impact so as aggregate demand would result in a lower long run natural rate of unemployment.

Second question: Who runs the Fed? Obviously Ben Bernanke. The trashing of his credentials and the supposition that a plumber is better qualified is ridiculous and barely deserves acknowledgment. Regardless of his successes or failures, the man is a brilliant and accomplished economist with a focus on monetary policy. He's also a deflation hawk, which explains why he believes in QE. He also served on the Fed's Board of Governors prior to becoming chairman. The idea that he has "no policy experience" is laughable.

The video lost most of it's credibility with me during the deflation discussion and the discussion on where treasuries are bought from.

On deflation: The video's premise is that the stuff consumer buy is more expensive than it was a year ago, so there must not be deflation. And if there were, wouldn't that be a good thing, because it would mean people would be able to buy more stuff (hint, the answer is no - because more unemployed people doesn't mean more purchasing power). Again, see Quantity Theory of Money.

On where the treasuries come from: The video makes a point that the treasuries are not bought from the treasury. That's because buying them from the treasury wouldn't have the desired effect of increase money supply. The Fed increases or decreases the money supply through Open Market Operations - the purchasing or selling of treasuries. When it wants to decrease money supply, it sells treasuries - which institutions pays for with money. Money taken out of circulation. To increase money supply, it buys treasuries which it pays for with money. Money put into circulation. If the Fed bought treasuries from the Treasury, then it would be money that is out of circulation going to another place where they are out of circulation and the government would owe money to itself. In other words, it would accomplish nothing (until the Fed sold the treasuries, in which case it would decrease the money supply, exactly the opposite of what they are trying to do).

The "Fed didn't buy them from the Treasury" is the "well no shit" part of that video that eliminates any shred of credibility the directors might have had.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Well... where to start? This is usually a series of about four to five 75 minute lectures, and that's at the introductory level. I'm going to simplify things considerably. Please note I'm just explaining the economics, not endorsing or criticizing Quantitative Easing.

So what is Quantitative Easing, fundamentally? It's the purposeful and deliberate increase of the money supply. Why increase the money supply? There are a number of reasons, but from the most basic fundamental approach an increase in the money supply will lead to an decrease in the value of money (or an increase in the overall price level), all else equal (see: Quantity Theory of Money). There are a number of cases where "all else equal" does not apply, so an increase in money supply would not affect an increase in the price level.

In this specific case, the Fed is concerned with deflation and a stagnant economy. More specifically, unemployment. There is an observed and theoretically justifiable short run trade off between unemployment and inflation (see: Phillips Curve, Samuelson/Solow, Fisher) where the two are inversely related to one another. In the short run, we can decrease the unemployment rate with the trade off of higher inflation.

Several economists, Friedman most notably, eventually recognized (quite vocally and critically) that because of Monetary Neutrality/the Classical Dichotomy (in the long run, nominal variables do not effect real variables) the tradeoff between unemployment and inflation was only a short-run phenomenon. Even as economists have moved beyond the simplicity of the Phillips Curve, most still recognize the short-run trade off exists, but in the long-run employment will gravitate towards its Natural Rate (Friedman/Phelps).

The idea is that QE could provide a "jump start" to the economy and that the short-run tradeoff could generate a positive economic impact so as aggregate demand would result in a lower long run natural rate of unemployment.

Second question: Who runs the Fed? Obviously Ben Bernanke. The trashing of his credentials and the supposition that a plumber is better qualified is ridiculous and barely deserves acknowledgment. Regardless of his successes or failures, the man is a brilliant and accomplished economist with a focus on monetary policy. He's also a deflation hawk, which explains why he believes in QE. He also served on the Fed's Board of Governors prior to becoming chairman. The idea that he has "no policy experience" is laughable.

The video lost most of it's credibility with me during the deflation discussion and the discussion on where treasuries are bought from.

On deflation: The video's premise is that the stuff consumer buy is more expensive than it was a year ago, so there must not be deflation. And if there were, wouldn't that be a good thing, because it would mean people would be able to buy more stuff (hint, the answer is no - because more unemployed people doesn't mean more purchasing power). Again, see Quantity Theory of Money.

On where the treasuries come from: The video makes a point that the treasuries are not bought from the treasury. That's because buying them from the treasury wouldn't have the desired effect of increase money supply. The Fed increases or decreases the money supply through Open Market Operations - the purchasing or selling of treasuries. When it wants to decrease money supply, it sells treasuries - which institutions pays for with money. Money taken out of circulation. To increase money supply, it buys treasuries which it pays for with money. Money put into circulation. If the Fed bought treasuries from the Treasury, then it would be money that is out of circulation going to another place where they are out of circulation and the government would owe money to itself. In other words, it would accomplish nothing (until the Fed sold the treasuries, in which case it would decrease the money supply, exactly the opposite of what they are trying to do).

The "Fed didn't buy them from the Treasury" is the "well no shit" part of that video that eliminates any shred of credibility the directors might have had.

Cool. I actually grasped most of what you said. You should post more often about these matters.

I heard it on the radio earlier did not listen to it again and did not mean to tout the whole "a plumber could do ben's job" part". Naturally.

I wasn't aware of the latter part of your response about the desired effect. However, are you saying that by buying the treasuries through an intermediary such as GS, there is assuredly no auto-gain by GS? Or is it understood that they are to benefit from such a transaction because we are america and thats the way it is?

Also if you're so high on Ben Bernanke, and aware of his past work and exploits...wasn't he a hardcore student of the great depression and used to write papers about how increasing the money supply and delaying a true recovery is the wrong way to go about crisis? I've read before he was more of an Austrian economist than a Keynesian. Why did he change once he was top of the Fed?

One last question, faced with the current financial problems, and with interest rates as close to Zero as they are....Scott, what other option or tool or action can the Fed possibly take besides increasing the money supply?


Thanks, your response was great.

[scott]

Of course Goldman Sachs, or whoever owns the treasuries or whoever acts as a broken stands to gain. No one works for free, right?

I'm not particularly high on Bernanke (though I've used his textbook in the past) and what he has done with the Fed since becoming chairman, but I don't think there is any doubting his credentials. (Another factual inaccuracy of the video, that Obama "reappointed" Bernanke. The Chairman is a lifetime appointment, not subject to being "fired" by a new president - the Fed is designed to be sheltered from political pressure, whether that is reality or not). He was a big student of the Great Depression and actually his belief was that a primary cause was the Fed's reduction of the money supply. Historically he was in the Friedman camp of Monetary Policy, but lately has been acting suspiciously Keynesian.

Another interesting thing to note about Ben is what you can take away from this statement he made earlier this decade: "people know that inflation erodes the real value of the government's debt and, therefore, that it is in the interest of the government to create some inflation." This is a true statement. But it was also the German governments way of dealing with the Treaty of Versailles, and that didn't work out so well.

On your last question: the Fed is fairly limited on its scope and what it can do. For the most part, increasing, decreasing, or keeping constant the money supply is all it really does (unless you count the regulatory arm of the Fed, which is another topic). There are a lot of reasons to do any of those things - but it doesn't have a tool kit. We used to always talk about the raising or lowering of the Fed Funds rate. The Fed doesn't actually "set" the rate, it adjusts money supply so that the resulting equilibrium rate is at or near the target (if you look at a histogram of the Fed Funds rate, you'll see if fluctuates a few basis points around the target rate).

So... what can the Fed do to help the economy? Well if I knew that I'd be a very in-demand person!

[Parker2112]

Scott, you have touched on maybe 3 issues from the vid. And none of the biggies.
- You fail to address unreflected rising consumer prices, you point elsewhere.
- You fail to address the affect of QE (inflation), you point elsewhere.
- You fail to address the conflict of interest w/Bernie and GS.
- You fail to address Bernie's record with the Fed.
- You fail to address GS as THE major backer for the Obama campaign, and Obama's decision to keep Bernanke.


Keep in mind that many of the "best" economists (read: the same ones who defrauded us all and wrecked our country in the process) would cite the same sources/theories to justify economic policy over the last decade...all while our country wound up in the shitter. You selling the same fraud?

Essentially what you are doing is stating (or worse, waving towards) what you have been taught, not applying what you have been told to the facts at hand, and concluding that the film is full of flaws without showing your work.

I understand they dont teach these things in college/graduate schools, but if you have a solid foundation in the area (as you lead on) you should be able to do a little better than this.

[Parker2112]

For the most part, increasing, decreasing, or keeping constant the money supply is all it really does

this is enough to destroy an entire country, enough to cause a global recession even. Just ask why the Chinese are condemning our economic policies as we speak.

[Parker2112]

that is also enough to make mountains of money for former cohorts/current conspirators on Wall St, with a little inside info. Ever wonder why GS continues to make money hand over fist when everyone else is lossing their ass?

[SnakeBoy]

Excellent post scott.

I think any normal joe-blow could listen to this video and understand a lot more of this situation they might at first think is too complicated.

It is an excellent post though.:toast

[scott]

Scott, you have touched on maybe 3 issues from the vid. And none of the biggies.
- You fail to address unreflected rising consumer prices, you point elsewhere.
- You fail to address the affect of QE (inflation), you point elsewhere.
- You fail to address the conflict of interest w/Bernie and GS.
- You fail to address Bernie's record with the Fed.
- You fail to address GS as THE major backer for the Obama campaign, and Obama's decision to keep Bernanke.


Keep in mind that many of the "best" economists (read: the same ones who defrauded us all and wrecked our country in the process) would cite the same sources/theories to justify economic policy over the last decade...all while our country wound up in the shitter. You selling the same fraud?

Essentially what you are doing is stating (or worse, waving towards) what you have been taught, not applying what you have been told to the facts at hand, and concluding that the film is full of flaws without showing your work.

I understand they dont teach these things in college/graduate schools, but if you have a solid foundation in the area (as you lead on) you should be able to do a little better than this.

Uhhh... okay. I'll look forward to your next exciting copy and paste from your blogroll.

Jesus Christ, I stop being active on this board for a few years and THIS is what we've been left with?

[Parker2112]

please go on to explain fractional reserve lending, the constitutional authority under which the federal reserve dictates currency supply, the circumstances of the federal reserve act's passage, the implication behind the term "government sachs," the manipulation of the CIP, the manipulation of the stated unemployment rate, and the reasons why the US Treasury can issue US Bonds with only the FF&C of the US, whereas that is not enough to back our currency at current.

[Parker2112]

Uhhh... okay. I'll look forward to your next exciting copy and paste from your blogroll.

Jesus Christ, I stop being active on this board for a few years and THIS is what we've been left with?

dude, you came charging in calling the vid shit. be prepared to back up YOUR shit. New and improved ST, I guess. Welcome back :toast

[SnakeBoy]

I understand they dont teach these things in college/graduate schools, but if you have a solid foundation in the area (as you lead on) you should be able to do a little better than this.

Just out of curiosity Parker, where did you recieve your solid foundation in this area?

[Parker2112]

Just out of curiosity Parker, where did you recieve your solid foundation in this area?

Post-doctoral self-study.

[Parker2112]

I've only been interested in the Fed since I began to follow Ron Paul last year.

[MannyIsGod]

Uhhh... okay. I'll look forward to your next exciting copy and paste from your blogroll.

Jesus Christ, I stop being active on this board for a few years and THIS is what we've been left with?

:depressed

[Winehole23]

Jesus Christ, I stop being active on this board for a few years and THIS is what we've been left with?I blame you.

[Winehole23]

j/k :lol

[Winehole23]

Post-doctoral self-study.Plain folks just call that studyin'.

[Winehole23]

(Also, sigworthy)

[Parker2112]

Bump.

[The Reckoning]

it's all about business cycle theory and OMOs (buying of treasury bonds and "creating" money). from what i remember from macro, it increases wealth in the short term to jumpstart employment and up wages. however, as wages go up so does the price of goods (you have more money to spend, so simple supply/demand increases prices --- inflation), so in the long run wealth stays the same.

it's the fed's job to make sure the economy doesn't collapse from short term events like unemployment or mass-inflation/deflation. in the long term, like i said, our purchasing power stays the same - no matter the value of the dollar. that's why i laugh at naysayers who are convinced the fed will ruin the economy for years to come.

the fed can also issue bonds and essentially destroy the money used to pay for them, so they can take money out of the market as well.

once the fed prints more currency to buy bonds, it's not going to cause mass inflation because they have the means to take money out of the system.

to oversimplify it, fed buys bonds = inflation. fed issues bonds = deflation.

when in macro i had to calculate through some pyramid chart of how the fed "creates wealth" through the banking system by some exponential formula. the amount of money in the system is exponentially greater than the amount of currency.

that's all i remember off the top of my head because i switched majors when i got into the economic statistics portion of the degree and had to find the derivatives of curves and fit an explanation for short term fluctuation. that's why im oversimplifying and am probably wrong on all accounts. im doing something completely different now with school, and it's much more satisfying.

[Parker2112]

ji_G0MqAqq8

[The Reckoning]

i agree with ron paul on all of his stances except for economics. if we went back to the gold-standard, we would be the only economy in the world to do so and will collapse.

[Parker2112]

i agree with ron paul on all of his stances except for economics. if we went back to the gold-standard, we would be the only economy in the world to do so and will collapse.

he advocates a currency based on gold AND silver. silver is very plentiful and allows for more liquidity, and as he says keeps our lawmakers from driving our debt into the stratosphere to keep getting reelected.

[The Reckoning]

parker, i dont care about your "post-doctoral self-study" credentials (whatever the hell that means). you cannot in anyway maintain an economy as vast and global as the US' based on the price of a precious metal. with the amount of transactions happening everyday, it's impossible. it's borderline retarded.

you can, however, mandate solid fiscal legislation and budgeting like the Texas constitution does. there's other ways of regulating lawmakers than sending us back into a mercantilism economy.

[RandomGuy]

:rollin

Parker ripping on a guy with a PhD in economics for not "knowing anything" about the topic of economics.

(my understanding is that scott is a professor of economics teaching somewhere, with a specialty in oil industry, if memory serves)

[RandomGuy]

parker, i dont care about your "post-doctoral self-study" credentials (whatever the hell that means). you cannot in anyway maintain an economy as vast and global as the US' based on the price of a precious metal. with the amount of transactions happening everyday, it's impossible. it's borderline retarded.

you can, however, mandate solid fiscal legislation and budgeting like the Texas constitution does. there's other ways of regulating lawmakers than sending us back into a mercantilism economy.

"post-doctoral self-study" = "I read it on the internet"

or in this case, "I read what Ron Paul thinks".

[LnGrrrR]

please go on to explain fractional reserve lending, the constitutional authority under which the federal reserve dictates currency supply, the circumstances of the federal reserve act's passage, the implication behind the term "government sachs," the manipulation of the CIP, the manipulation of the stated unemployment rate, and the reasons why the US Treasury can issue US Bonds with only the FF&C of the US, whereas that is not enough to back our currency at current.

Why don't you explain it first?

[RandomGuy]

Why don't you explain it first?

Oh fuck, not another thread about the Fed???

AAAHRRRHRGHGHGGFHRRHGHGHGTRFHTFGHGGH!!!!!!11111

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=585

[RandomGuy]

Scott, you have touched on maybe 3 issues from the vid. And none of the biggies.
- You fail to address unreflected rising consumer prices, you point elsewhere.
- You fail to address the affect of QE (inflation), you point elsewhere.
- You fail to address the conflict of interest w/Bernie and GS.
- You fail to address Bernie's record with the Fed.
- You fail to address GS as THE major backer for the Obama campaign, and Obama's decision to keep Bernanke.


Keep in mind that many of the "best" economists (read: the same ones who defrauded us all and wrecked our country in the process) would cite the same sources/theories to justify economic policy over the last decade...all while our country wound up in the shitter. You selling the same fraud?

Essentially what you are doing is stating (or worse, waving towards) what you have been taught, not applying what you have been told to the facts at hand, and concluding that the film is full of flaws without showing your work.

I understand they dont teach these things in college/graduate schools, but if you have a solid foundation in the area (as you lead on) you should be able to do a little better than this.

I don't think you understand the true nature of inflation, labor and capital, and their interrelationships

Even if he were to address it, you lack the conceptual framework to understand it.

[Parker2112]

Why don't you explain it first?

each has been done. If you didnt pay attention then you wont now.

[Parker2112]

:rollin

Parker ripping on a guy with a PhD in economics for not "knowing anything" about the topic of economics.

(my understanding is that scott is a professor of economics teaching somewhere, with a specialty in oil industry, if memory serves)

Please cite this quote.

[Parker2112]

I don't think you understand the true nature of inflation, labor and capital, and their interrelationships

Even if he were to address it, you lack the conceptual framework to understand it.

but he DIDNT. which was my point. You can have tons of theory on tap, but you have to apply it for it to mean anything.

[Parker2112]

you can, however, mandate solid fiscal legislation and budgeting like the Texas constitution does. there's other ways of regulating lawmakers than sending us back into a mercantilism economy.

gold/silver std will never happen. Paul admits we will be lucky to audit the fed.

What I know is: our system is failing miserably. its full of criminals who are above the law. And anyone who tells me that this system is the one for us...I dont care what their cred is, is FOS.

And one more thing: if you earn a doctorate in economics these days, barring a miracle you will have the same blind faith/blind allegiance to the status quo that led us down this path in the first place. that being the path to 15%+ unemployment, record profits for the biggest banks, imploding working class, and criminals beyond prosecution.

[RandomGuy]

Please cite this quote.



I understand they dont teach these things in college/graduate schools, but if you have a solid foundation in the area (as you lead on) you should be able to do a little better than this.

While clearly not the word for word iteration, the implication is clear.

I will try to get around to reading Mr. Paul's book over Thanksgiving. :toast

[Parker2112]

While clearly not the word for word iteration, the implication is clear.

I will try to get around to reading Mr. Paul's book over Thanksgiving. :toast

I am halfway there. I look forward to it. :toast

[RandomGuy]

And one more thing: if you earn a doctorate in economics these days, barring a miracle you will have the same blind faith/blind allegiance to the status quo that led us down this path in the first place.

If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.

--George Bernard Shaw
Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 - 1950)

[RandomGuy]

He did address a lot of it. he addressed it by rightfully dismissing it as garbage.

Most of it is simply overly conspiratorial theorizing.

You have, to date, never provided a whiff of actual proof for any "evil motive" you have ascribed to anyone.

No first hand statements, no documentary evidence, nada.

If you like, I can go back through your threads and pull out the specific assertions you have made, here and elsewhere about grand sweeping conspiracies to enslave people.

You ascribe an awful lot of motive without proof, and that is why I remain skeptical, and will continue to do so.

[Parker2112]

If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.

--George Bernard Shaw
Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 - 1950) :toast

[Parker2112]

He did address a lot of it. he addressed it by rightfully dismissing it as garbage. matter of opinion

Most of it is simply overly conspiratorial theorizing.

You have, to date, never provided a whiff of actual proof for any "evil motive" you have ascribed to anyone. $$$ is all you need. unless your the beatles.

No first hand statements, no documentary evidence, nada. You want bank statments? :lol

If you like, I can go back through your threads and pull out the specific assertions you have made, here and elsewhere about grand sweeping conspiracies to enslave people.

You ascribe an awful lot of motive without proof, and that is why I remain skeptical, and will continue to do so.

If you can point out one quote I ever made about "enslavement," I will bow down, sir.

[Parker2112]

If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.

--George Bernard Shaw
Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 - 1950)

Economics is a tool, and I like what the Paul approach offers. It agrees with my opinion on what this country needs right now.

[RandomGuy]

If you can point out one quote I ever made about "enslavement," I will bow down, sir.

I seem to remember more than one quote saying that the purpose of the Fed was to make us serfs/slaves to the "man" or something similar.

I'll check. My memory has been known to be fallible. :D

[Parker2112]

I seem to remember more than one quote saying that the purpose of the Fed was to make us serfs/slaves to the "man" or something similar.

I'll check. My memory has been known to be fallible. :D

no that one was mine. But it was not meant in a literal bondage sense...more of cradle to grave indebtedness sense. How could anyone argue this point?

[Parker2112]

I dont know that I should bow on that though.

[Winehole23]

no that one was mine. But it was not meant in a literal bondage sense...more of cradle to grave indebtedness sense. How could anyone argue this point?Guilty of exaggeration? I don't see how anyone could argue with that.

[Parker2112]

ask the evaporating middle class how they feel about indebtedness and bondage. Exaggeration?

http://www.startribune.com/local/95692619.html

you tell me, hoss.

[Winehole23]

Oh, now it is enslavement again?


Please pick a lane.

[Parker2112]

Oh, now it is enslavement again?


Please pick a lane.

I guess the answer is: its whatever creditors are allowed to do.

[RandomGuy]

no that one was mine. But it was not meant in a literal bondage sense...more of cradle to grave indebtedness sense. How could anyone argue this point?

Fair enough.

I think you are exaggerating a weensy bit to make your case, but that is your perogative.

I would prefer a bit less overall debt as well, at all levels, but am not anywhere near freaked out about it, as Mr. Paul is.

There is some argument to be made that it is all irrelevant anyways, and hardly the stuff of debt serfdom.

I will though, be teaching my kids the virtue of borrowing as little as possible and saving.

[RandomGuy]

I guess the answer is: its whatever creditors are allowed to do.

Which, in Texas, is not as much as they would like. (no garnishment)

[Parker2112]

Fair enough.

I think you are exaggerating a weensy bit to make your case, but that is your perogative.




ask the evaporating middle class how they feel about indebtedness and bondage. Exaggeration?

http://www.startribune.com/local/95692619.html

you tell me, hoss.

[Parker2112]

Which, in Texas, is not as much as they would like. (no garnishment)

true, and short collection sol.

[Winehole23]

(http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4754735#post4754735)

Fair enough.

I think you are exaggerating a weensy bit to make your case, but that is your perogative.











(http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4754724#post4754724)

ask the evaporating middle class how they feel about indebtedness and bondage. Exaggeration?

http://www.startribune.com/local/95692619.html

you tell me, hoss. Not since mogrovejo have we had a poster so fond of quoting himself.

[Parker2112]

it was at the end of the page, dickhole.

[Winehole23]

you do it with a certain regularity.

[Parker2112]

you dont resort to dickish behavior on a regular basis?

[Winehole23]

do you cry about dickish behavior on a regular basis?

[TeyshaBlue]

"dickhole."

Sorry. I lol'd.:p:

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm not generally known for good taste and sophisticated humor.

:depressed

[Winehole23]

Me neither. It struck me as mildly amusing.

[Winehole23]

Lately I've been more of a "sh!t stain" user.

[Parker2112]

I'm glad you guys got some light-hearted enjoyment from that. It wasnt meant in bad faith. Some of my life-long friends are dicks. Some would say I lean towards dickish behavior at times. It can be a blessing as well as a curse

[Winehole23]

I'm glad you guys got some light-hearted enjoyment from that.Cheap laughs. Are cheap.

Thx for helping us maintain high standards and for generally elevating the tone.

[Winehole23]

It can be a blessing as well as a curseQuit kidding yourself. It's a curse.

[Parker2112]

Quit kidding yourself. It's a curse.

So we both wear the sh!t stain I suppose.

[Winehole23]

I do not subscribe to what you say. Period.

[Parker2112]

I do not subscribe to what you say. Period.

We'll call it free delivery, comma.

[Winehole23]

I didn't order a pizza.

[The Reckoning]

an engineer, a physicist and an economist were stranded on an island. the island was barren except for an active volcano in the center. the volcano looked as if it were to erupt, so they knew they needed to get off the island quickly. they decided to put their great minds together to try to figure out how to construct a boat.

all they had were food rations and a couple of pieces of metal strewn across the beach.

when contemplating how to build the boat, the engineer said "i can use the volcano as a kiln and fashion a boat out of the sand. the metal on the beach will serve as a solid framework for the boat and can be used to hold the sand while i fashion it."

the physicist and economist thought it was a great idea. the physicist said "i can test the buoyancy of the craft and weigh it against the tides, so we can judge the best time to get the boat out into the water and take us to safety."

however, all three specialists new there was one vital element left to make constructing the boat a feasible idea. the physicist and engineer looked to the economist for an answer. the economist sat for awhile in deep thought then jumped up in revelation. he boomed with pride at his solution.

"assume you have a sail."

[RandomGuy]

ask the evaporating middle class how they feel about indebtedness and bondage. Exaggeration?

http://www.startribune.com/local/95692619.html

you tell me, hoss.

Wow. I am honestly astonished at that.

I know you can go to jail for missing court appearances, but that article, if correct, says that people can be jailed for missing debt payments, if ordered by a court, something I have not heard of in the modern US.

I will do some digging on that. I would guess it is fairly rare, and probably in only in a narrow scope of things.

[RandomGuy]

an engineer, a physicist and an economist were stranded on an island. the island was barren except for an active volcano in the center. the volcano looked as if it were to erupt, so they knew they needed to get off the island quickly. they decided to put their great minds together to try to figure out how to construct a boat.

all they had were food rations and a couple of pieces of metal strewn across the beach.

when contemplating how to build the boat, the engineer said "i can use the volcano as a kiln and fashion a boat out of the sand. the metal on the beach will serve as a solid framework for the boat and can be used to hold the sand while i fashion it."

the physicist and economist thought it was a great idea. the physicist said "i can test the buoyancy of the craft and weigh it against the tides, so we can judge the best time to get the boat out into the water and take us to safety."

however, all three specialists new there was one vital element left to make constructing the boat a feasible idea. the physicist and engineer looked to the economist for an answer. the economist sat for awhile in deep thought then jumped up in revelation. he boomed with pride at his solution.

"assume you have a sail."

Heh, the version I heard involved the economist assuming a ladder to get out of a hole.

Here's to the "dismal science" :toast

[RandomGuy]

I'm glad you guys got some light-hearted enjoyment from that. It wasnt meant in bad faith. Some of my life-long friends are dicks. Some would say I lean towards dickish behavior at times.

some?


HA!


I would guess that number of people who have never gotten pissed off enough to do a dick move in a politics forum can be counted on no fingers.

[LnGrrrR]

I know you can go to jail for missing court appearances, but that article, if correct, says that people can be jailed for missing debt payments, if ordered by a court, something I have not heard of in the modern US.


In essence though, people are being sent to jail not for non-payment, but for missing a mandatory court sentence, right?

[RandomGuy]

In essence though, people are being sent to jail not for non-payment, but for missing a mandatory court [date], right?

I went back in and re-read the thing more carefully. No one is actually going to jail simply because they were in debt. They all went because they missed court appearances. The article wasn't all that clear about the distinction, probably on purpose IMO.

Correct. Miss a court date and face a warrant.

[LnGrrrR]

I went back in and re-read the thing more carefully. No one is actually going to jail simply because they were in debt. They all went because they missed court appearances. The article wasn't all that clear about the distinction, probably on purpose IMO.

Correct. Miss a court date and face a warrant.

Yes, that severely tempered my righteous wrath. :D