Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 115
  1. #51
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    define hyper.
    you define it. that's been your standing prediction for six years now.

  2. #52
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    a stopped watch is right twice a day. you're not even close to that level of accuracy.

  3. #53
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    CC just throws on the wall and expects people to bow to it. why is anyone's guess.

  4. #54
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    I still remember the chain emails from some investment crooks about how everything was about to blow up...

    What's more intriguing to me is the cause of such prolonged deflation. Is it China's growth into a manufacturing superpower, a country that manipulates it's currency to stay compe ive?

    Is it companies hoarding cash due to, among other things, tax avoidance? IIRC, there's almost $5 trillion stashed overseas (1/3 of our annual GDP) waiting for some tax holiday.

    Any other reasons? I suspect it's a mix of all of them.
    lot of bad paper still out there. nearly busted our system of payment in 2008. debt deflation is still real.

    one bubble rolls into another. the financialization of the economy plus the global bust put capitalism on the defensive. money seeks to preserve itself, and extracts revenue from nations rather than investing it productively. neo-feudalism, if you like.
    Last edited by Winehole23; 03-06-2015 at 02:55 AM.

  5. #55
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    exigency can become the custom. like the war on terror. when is it over?

  6. #56
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    lot of bad paper still out there. nearly busted our system of payment in 2008. debt deflation is still real.

    one bubble rolls into another. the financialization of the economy plus the global bust put capitalism on the defensive. money seeks to preserve itself, and extracts revenue from nations rather than investing it productively. neo-feudalism, if you like.
    Yeah, I have no doubt we're currently on a rentier-to-the-max system. Extraction is the name of the game right now. I was just reading the just-published OOC USTR list (here), and I had to remind myself this was a government do ent, not a laundry list from the IP cartel. Although, odds are the cartel wrote it. Sigh.

  7. #57
    Yes. I sign my name. Slutter McGee's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Post Count
    498
    The data said the OBAMA stimulus saved and/or created some x M jobs.
    Bull , the unemployment rate with the stimulus went higher than the projected rate without the stimulus. You can make an argument that it would have gone even higher, but the fact is nobody knows.

    But one thing is for sure. Cutting unemployment benefits did help unemployment. New econometric studies have proven it. Can't blame Obama for taking credit for something he had absolutely nothing to do with.

  8. #58
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    But one thing is for sure. Cutting unemployment benefits did help unemployment. New econometric studies have proven it.
    cite?

  9. #59
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    [QUOTE= ter McGee;7859071Cutting unemployment benefits did help unemployment.[/QUOTE]

    not in NC, where the nasty Repugs cut payments and length of time but unemployment barely moved, even as the economy crept upward.

    Nobody can say cutting unemployment benefits/duration CAUSES people to get jobs when at the same time the economy upshifts and more jobs become available.

    I can say definitively that REPUGS cause people to stay on unemployment because the unemployed see low-wage jobs paying same as or less than unemployment.

    Repugs cause this situation by REFUSING to raise the Federal minimum wage well above unemployment checks.

    Federal minimum wage should be $20/hour, increased over 5 years, and indexed to CPI.

    $20/hour:

    1. elevates 10Ms out of poverty.

    2. entice the unemployed to look aggressively for work

    3. Forces companies to pay people's total paycheck instead of outsourcing/offloading some the paychecks to taxpayers financing public assistance. iow, taxpayers are picking up the "external" costs of employers paying wages.

    4. Stimulates the economy by put $100Bs into poor people's pockets instead into BigCorp and BigBanks' pockets.

    5. Pushes ALL wages up from the bottom to compensate for the 35 years of VRWC/Repug union busting, war on employess, and wage suppression/theft.
    Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-06-2015 at 12:30 PM.

  10. #60
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,735
    that's what killed inflation, dummy
    Pretty much a massive oversimplification.

    Not sure why you have such a hard on for me in this thread...

    I don't see how it's possible to continue to expand the money supply and debt faster than the growth rate forever without consequences. That doesn't make me a "sky is falling" hyperinflation alarmist either. Just a return to normalized interest rates at say 7% will present problems of their own with US debt service on trillions of dollars of debt. Lets say when the debt is 20 trillion the debt service will require 1.4 trillion a year. Considering total tax revenue now is a little over 3 trillion you could see how this could be a problem.

  11. #61
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "I don't see how it's possible to continue to expand the money supply and debt faster than the growth rate forever without consequences"

    QE money went into the financial sector, where it mostly stopped, to be gambled in the world wide financial casino, including piling into the stock market because T-bonds have been paying .

    QE didn't go to the 99% to increase spending and demand pull on inflation. Consumer demand is quite flat, eg, 4th qtr 2014 Christmas season.

    who said "forever" besides you?

    "
    Americans made more progress in repairing their post recession finances and have increased their overall borrowing, yet they are also showing an aversion to credit cards and new mortgages that could hinder the economic recovery.
    Household debt—including mortgages, credit cards, auto loans and student loans—rose $129 billion between January and March to $11.65 trillion, new figures from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed Tuesday. That was the third consecutive quarterly increase.

    Behind the uptick: Mortgage balances—which make up the bulk of U.S. household debt—rose $116 billion to $8.2 trillion, thanks in part to fewer people going into foreclosure, which drags down mortgage debt. Auto-loan balances grew $12 billion to $875 billion. Student-loan balances increased $31 billion to $1.1 trillion, maintaining its place as the fastest-growing debt category.

    Despite all their progress digging out of the downturn, however, U.S. consumers are displaying a heightened wariness about using credit cards or taking out new mortgages."

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304081804579559813544267206


    "aversion to new mortgages" is mostly the difficulty for the 99% to obtain them. The rental business is booming, as are rental prices.



  12. #62
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,735
    Who says "forever" besides me?



    The US will NEVER again match expenditures to revenue. It simply can't happen. We will ALWAYS spend more than we bring in for revenue.

    Boo if you think they can or will you are even more bat crazy than I though.

  13. #63
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Who says "forever" besides me?



    The US will NEVER again match expenditures to revenue. It simply can't happen. We will ALWAYS spend more than we bring in for revenue.

    Boo if you think they can or will you are even more bat crazy than I though.
    When did the USA have NO national debt?

  14. #64
    Yes. I sign my name. Slutter McGee's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Post Count
    498
    Nobody can say cutting unemployment benefits/duration CAUSES people to get jobs when at the same time the economy upshifts and more jobs become available.
    Kurt Mitman; Look him up. There is a new working paper where they use the data from bordering counties on state lines to study the effect. In essence they take advantage of this discontinuity of policy in different states to study the effects of unemployment. The data disagree with you.

    I can say definitively that REPUGS cause people to stay on unemployment because the unemployed see low-wage jobs paying same as or less than unemployment.
    The rest of this I can handle myself. You just admitted that unemployment extensions cause people not to want to work.

    Repugs cause this situation by REFUSING to raise the Federal minimum wage well above unemployment checks.

    Federal minimum wage should be $20/hour, increased over 5 years, and indexed to CPI.
    And here is where your argument falls apart. Most Republican’s are incorrect when they say that raising the minimum wage is going to destroy so many jobs that it makes the economy fall apart. But raising it by the amount you suggest certainly would.

    Hopefully, god…I hope, you are aware of the perfectly compe ive model of supply and demand. And artificial price floor (a minimum wage) creates a surplus of supply, in this case since we are looking at a labor market, it causes unemployment.

    So now, in or analysis, lets look at the problems with this. Even if you don’t understand what I am saying, you will probably agree with my first conclusion.

    1.Elasticity of labor demand. That is the percent change in employment for every percent change in the wage rate. The perfectly compe ive model for an individual firm assumes that wage is perfectly elastic. Firms are wage takers. But looking at most data actual aggregate elasticity is around -.25. That means it is relatively inelastic. For every 10% increase in the minimum wage we are looking at a drop of employment of 2.5%. That isn’t good, but it is no where as bad as republicans suggest.

    But lets now look at what your wage would do in this model. You are suggesting a 175.86% increase in the minimum wage….so you are looking at a corresponding drop of 43.965% in employment. That is obviously overstated as I am still using a compe ive model, but is still catastrophic. It helps prove my point.

    Now that I have shown how Republican arguments are overstated, and demonstrated that a 20 dollar minimum wage would be disastrous, lets admit that raising the minimum wage could lead to increased aggregate employment and take a look at how or why that might be affective.


    1. It could happen in a monopsony situation where all labor demanded in one market goes to one firm. This is theoretical and you all most never see it in real life. It has to do with lowering marginal expense. I can go into more detail if you want.



    1. Let us now look at ways you can define employment. Et = E(t-1) +Ht – St. Let Et be current employment, E(t-1) be employment from a previous period, Ht is the hiring rate, and St is the separation rate. Basically this means that employment is affected by flows. An increase in the minimum wage would lower Ht but also lower St. People are going to higher less, but less people are going to quit their jobs. So yes, employment may stay constant. Employment can even go up in the aggregate because of the marginal expense of hiring new workers is decreased. That is why a low separation rate can lead to these results. The firms make more and hire more.


    But here is the key. This can only happen with an just binding wage. Or a small increase in the minimum wage. A strictly binding wage, or a large increase would be totally different. I can show you some differential calculus as proof if you want.

    And here is another thing you don’t seem to get. Large firms; those mega corporations that you hate so much….They can absorb a wage increase that small businesses can’t and the benefits on retention and lowering marginal expense are help? Why do you think Walmart raised their wage? They are counting on the savings from retention.

    This increased wage that you want so bad creates barriers to entry. What new firm is going to start up if the cost of labor is so high? Few, unless they can subs ute to capital or outsource. This means that an increase in the minimum wage has an rust issues. Artifical barriers to entry have been constructed by your silly idea, and now only those mega corporations exist.

    Lets hear all for Boutons; The New Champion for Corporate Power.

    1. elevates 10Ms out of poverty.
    It does, if they can keep their jobs. And if the wage increase doesn’t have inflationary influence.

    2. entice the unemployed to look aggressively for work
    They won’t be able to find work because the separation rate will drop

    3. Forces companies to pay people's total paycheck instead of outsourcing/offloading some the paychecks to taxpayers financing public assistance. iow, taxpayers are picking up the "external" costs of employers paying wages.
    No, I just proved to you that it is going to force companies to outsource more.

    4. Stimulates the economy by put $100Bs into poor people's pockets instead into BigCorp and BigBanks' pockets.

    I’ve already proven you are a big supporter of Big Corporations.

    5. Pushes ALL wages up from the bottom to compensate for the 35 years of VRWC/Repug union busting, war on employess, and wage suppression/theft.
    Real wage has gone up slightly in the last 20 years.

    Once last thing; CPI is overstated because it doesn’t take into account subs ution bias or quality bias.

    Basically, with this giant wall of text. TLDR etc….I hope I made one point. You have no idea what the you are talking about.

    ter McGee

  15. #65
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Who says "forever" besides me?



    The US will NEVER again match expenditures to revenue. It simply can't happen. We will ALWAYS spend more than we bring in for revenue.

    Boo if you think they can or will you are even more bat crazy than I though.
    That's a fairly bold claim. Didn't we match and even exceed revenue a little over 20 years ago?

  16. #66
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    That's a fairly bold claim. Didn't we match and even exceed revenue a little over 20 years ago?
    We did but blustering on bull like unprovable arguments is exactly what the old man does.

  17. #67
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,735
    When did the USA have NO national debt?
    You are intentionally missing the point Boo. There is a difference between reasonable debt to GDP but when it climbs over 100% headed for 200% it's not reasonable anymore.

    Debt service eventually eats the budget for all discretionary spending.

    Personally, I see no fix for the problem from either party and I don't claim to have the answer either. From my standpoint personally the trend is favorable for my lifetime...I am able to borrow money cheaply and expand my net worth during my working years and build a nice nest egg for retirement. Then when interest rates and inflation do go up and I retire my two big expenses (housing, paid for) (medical expenses paid by medicare) I can then drop that multimillion dollar nest egg into bonds and clip coupons at 10% and live fat and happy.

    Not so much fun for you younger guys that will have to figure out a way to pay for all that. lets call 2030 debt 50 trillion...I would consider that a reasonable expectation. Debt service just eats the out of revenues and you can kiss any spending beyond SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and the military goodbye.

  18. #68
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,735
    The Congressional Budget Office’s long-term budget forecasts on the national fiscal health are highly educated guesswork, but guesswork just the same. The 2030s are pretty far off, and the degree of forecasting uncertainty is higher than it once was. As CBO explains “the current degree of economic dislocation exceeds that of any previous period in the past half-century, so the uncertainty inherent in current forecasts probably exceeds the historical average.” But let’s imagine that the 2030s have arrived, and that CBO’s budget projections have come true. What would America look like?

    For starters, Social Security would be flat broke. All U.S. Treasury’s IOUs to Social Security will have been cashed in. Since the Social Security trust funds will be completely depleted and, because Social Security is barred by law from borrowing from the federal government, the program will be unable to meet its obligations. Thus, by the end of the 2030s, payable benefits would have to be cut by 20 percent. Is it possible to imagine that the government will suddenly cut 20 percent of the benefits it hands out? That seems unlikely — the law would be changed and borrowing would resume.

    In fact, Social Security’s problems would start much earlier. In 2016, according to CBO, its outlays would begin to regularly exceed its revenues, and consequently Social Security would first start to regularly call in its IOUs. Thus, the Treasury Department would need to borrow billions of dollars each year to pay back what it borrowed from Social Security’s trust funds.

    If Social Security is expected to be in bad shape by the 2030s, the big public health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, would be doing even worse. The culprits being an aging population and expanding health care costs, which are scheduled to grow faster than the U.S. economy. By the 2030s the number of people over the age of 65 — the beneficiaries – will have increased by 90 percent while those between 20 and 65 — the contributors — will have grown by a meager 10 percent.

    In the 2030s, federal spending on mandatory health care programs accounts for 11 percent of GDP, about twice the level in 2010. Add in Social Security, and the big three en lements cost about 16 percent of GDP. Keep in mind that primary spending for the 40 year period before 2010 averaged 18.5 percent of GDP. This means that in 2030, the U.S. government will either be unable to direct resources to other priorities (like education,) or will have to increase a tax rate by roughly double that of 2010.

    Finally, America in the 2030s will groan under mind-boggling public debt, assuming the country’s fiscal fortunes are calculated by the CBO under what’s called a “current policy” scenario. In this case, the CBO assumes that no major public policy innovations will occur throughout the lifetime of its projection. This scenario reflects the political reality we face today. For example, congress is currently debating whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and “patch” the Alternative Minimum Tax. If political inaction prevails, debt-to-GDP ratio would exceed 200 percent by the 2030s, even with an economic recovery.

    It is true that the U.S. holds a privileged position by virtue of the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. But we have no idea how a debt of this magnitude would affect our ability to invest in future growth, and to keep borrowing from abroad. Moreover, in the 2030s, interest payments on the national debt are nine percent of GDP, from just one percent of GDP in 2010. If we continue borrowing at the projected rates beyond 2030, interest spending would exceed total federal revenues 15 years thereafter.

    Finally, this grim fiscal portrait of America in the 2030s rests on optimistic assumptions. CBO projections assume that revenue will average around 19 percent of GDP and that long-term interest rates remain low. They also assume away the strong likelihood that America will face another economic crisis or armed conflict between 2010 and 2030.

  19. #69
    Yes. I sign my name. Slutter McGee's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Post Count
    498
    When did the USA have NO national debt?
    Deficit vs debt....how does it work? I learned the difference when i was 12.

    ter McGee

  20. #70
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    The 2030 deadline used to be the 2010 deadline, which used to be the 2000 deadline, which was the reason to balance the budget in 1990...

  21. #71
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,735
    The 2030 deadline used to be the 2010 deadline, which used to be the 2000 deadline, which was the reason to balance the budget in 1990...
    Well, since there is no political will to increase taxes or reduce benefits I guess we will find out in 2030. You are a pretty bright guy with a math/science background as best I remember. Seems you would be able to look at it and realize that at some point the math doesn't work anymore.

  22. #72
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,735
    Short term on a global scale we will definitely see deflation as property markets in China and the rest of the Pacific Rim countries implode. Also when you see condos in New York and London breaking "most expensive" records every month it pretty much tells you there are some bubbles out there that are bound to pop eventually.

  23. #73
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    The Congressional Budget Office’s long-term budget forecasts on the national fiscal health are highly educated guesswork, but guesswork just the same. The 2030s are pretty far off, and the degree of forecasting uncertainty is higher than it once was. As CBO explains “the current degree of economic dislocation exceeds that of any previous period in the past half-century, so the uncertainty inherent in current forecasts probably exceeds the historical average.” But let’s imagine that the 2030s have arrived, and that CBO’s budget projections have come true. What would America look like?

    For starters, Social Security would be flat broke. All U.S. Treasury’s IOUs to Social Security will have been cashed in. Since the Social Security trust funds will be completely depleted and, because Social Security is barred by law from borrowing from the federal government, the program will be unable to meet its obligations. Thus, by the end of the 2030s, payable benefits would have to be cut by 20 percent. Is it possible to imagine that the government will suddenly cut 20 percent of the benefits it hands out? That seems unlikely — the law would be changed and borrowing would resume.

    In fact, Social Security’s problems would start much earlier. In 2016, according to CBO, its outlays would begin to regularly exceed its revenues, and consequently Social Security would first start to regularly call in its IOUs. Thus, the Treasury Department would need to borrow billions of dollars each year to pay back what it borrowed from Social Security’s trust funds.

    If Social Security is expected to be in bad shape by the 2030s, the big public health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, would be doing even worse. The culprits being an aging population and expanding health care costs, which are scheduled to grow faster than the U.S. economy. By the 2030s the number of people over the age of 65 — the beneficiaries – will have increased by 90 percent while those between 20 and 65 — the contributors — will have grown by a meager 10 percent.

    In the 2030s, federal spending on mandatory health care programs accounts for 11 percent of GDP, about twice the level in 2010. Add in Social Security, and the big three en lements cost about 16 percent of GDP. Keep in mind that primary spending for the 40 year period before 2010 averaged 18.5 percent of GDP. This means that in 2030, the U.S. government will either be unable to direct resources to other priorities (like education,) or will have to increase a tax rate by roughly double that of 2010.

    Finally, America in the 2030s will groan under mind-boggling public debt, assuming the country’s fiscal fortunes are calculated by the CBO under what’s called a “current policy” scenario. In this case, the CBO assumes that no major public policy innovations will occur throughout the lifetime of its projection. This scenario reflects the political reality we face today. For example, congress is currently debating whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and “patch” the Alternative Minimum Tax. If political inaction prevails, debt-to-GDP ratio would exceed 200 percent by the 2030s, even with an economic recovery.

    It is true that the U.S. holds a privileged position by virtue of the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. But we have no idea how a debt of this magnitude would affect our ability to invest in future growth, and to keep borrowing from abroad. Moreover, in the 2030s, interest payments on the national debt are nine percent of GDP, from just one percent of GDP in 2010. If we continue borrowing at the projected rates beyond 2030, interest spending would exceed total federal revenues 15 years thereafter.

    Finally, this grim fiscal portrait of America in the 2030s rests on optimistic assumptions. CBO projections assume that revenue will average around 19 percent of GDP and that long-term interest rates remain low. They also assume away the strong likelihood that America will face another economic crisis or armed conflict between 2010 and 2030.
    http://www.progressivepolicy.org/iss...scal-portrait/

  24. #74
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    it's either PFA or ripped off without attribution with you, isn't?

  25. #75
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,735
    I didn't write it. Sorry about the bibliography error. Is is not a credible source? It was mostly just an economic analysis and extension based on CBO's numbers.

    Not a spittle stained blog from the far right or left.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •