What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[mercury14]

yes they did, the British did!

Huh? Jen you've moved past being just wrong. You're just bizarre and puzzling now.

 

[mercury14]

No it means they live in a shithole and die an early death from some preventable disease.

But as long as the rest of the country is living in a shithole (literally), it's perfectly okay to take advantage of their desperation.

 

[mercury14]

My sister is a child protective social worker for the county. She makes like 32K with a master's degree. She's constantly working unpaid overtime and evenings because it's not possible for her to maintain contact with her 45 kid caseload during a 40 hour work week.

So please explain how my sister is:

1) "Evil"

2) Self-serving (she could have gotten her master's in business and made triple her tiny salary)

3) Wrong (she works with girls who were neglected, physically, and sexually abused by their parents. They've been often pimped by their mothers for drugs or raped by their fathers)

Jen will never be able to respond to this. Nothing in her belief system holds up in daylight.

 

[JenAltArmy]

Huh? Jen you've moved past being just wrong. You're just bizarre and puzzling now.

what are you talking about. I'm always right. The Britsh based America when we started taking jobs away. its a fact. don't be so stupid.

the fact is, if a person earning $1.00 while other are only earning $.50, well that person is making a good living. this HAS NOTHING to do with other countries.

you and bad babysitter are just wrong and ignorant

 

[JenAltArmy]

Jen will never be able to respond to this. Nothing in her belief system holds up in daylight.

please, if she isn't happy with the pay tell her to find a different job

its just that simple

 

[mercury14]

please, if she isn't happy with the pay tell her to find a different job

its just that simple

So no answer to his question? Admitting you're wrong?

 

[JenAltArmy]

So no answer to his question? Admitting you're wrong?

more government workers should be earning 32k a year. however, under obama he has bumped a million government workers to 100,000 or more per year.

government is not the place for those types of salaries, and free pension.

 

[JenAltArmy]

So no answer to his question? Admitting you're wrong?

we need to cut your government salary down to 32k a year, stop sticking it to the tax payer. why do you hate america?

 

[Sean Renaud]

what are you talking about. I'm always right. The Britsh based America when we started taking jobs away. its a fact. don't be so stupid.

the fact is, if a person earning $1.00 while other are only earning $.50, well that person is making a good living. this HAS NOTHING to do with other countries.

you and bad babysitter are just wrong and ignorant

Can someone translate this back into english?

 

[JenAltArmy]

Can someone translate this back into english?

how about this, "you are stupid"

you want your cheep crap at wal mart, well you are looking at the down side. you are the reason why things are made in other coutires at lower wages.

 

[Sean Renaud]

This shit was well past that point before I was even spending money.

Oh and I never shop at Wal-Mart unless it's midnight and I NEED something. Other than that I make a point to go and purchase things elsewhere.

 

[JenAltArmy]

This shit was well past that point before I was even spending money.

Oh and I never shop at Wal-Mart unless it's midnight and I NEED something. Other than that I make a point to go and purchase things elsewhere.

what ever, you have shown zero out of the box thinking. you show the thinking of a government fuc&tard.

unskilled and unable to run a circle k for a week. sure, you can operate a circle jerk but that is a different story, right?

 

[badbabysitter]

Can someone translate this back into english?

there is no translation , its just a series of talking points

 

[badbabysitter]

how about this, "you are stupid"

you want your cheep crap at wal mart, well you are looking at the down side. you are the reason why things are made in other coutires at lower wages.

things are made in countries for lower wages because our homegrown corporations prefer it that way

why pay the american worker minimum wage, when you can pay a nigerian a dollar a day

it's profit coming and profit going


then again, this is the model you have already clearly demonstrated a liking for


cheap oversea labour.. then blame Obama


rinse and repeat

 

[badbabysitter]

what are you talking about. I'm always right. The Britsh based America when we started taking jobs away. its a fact. don't be so stupid.

the fact is, if a person earning $1.00 while other are only earning $.50, well that person is making a good living. this HAS NOTHING to do with other countries.

you and bad babysitter are just wrong and ignorant

this is one of the most moronic statements on economics I've ever seen

how the hell is borderline slave labour in other countries a great thing.. correction.. borderline slave labour at our corporate and political behest

corporations lobby many nations to fight employee rights overseas...take Haiti for example..where direct corporate influnece has reversed minimum wage laws


one day.. i pray to god.. you actually use FACTS for any of your counter-arguements

 

[badbabysitter]

jesus we have sooooo many stupid people here with no real world experience.

don't any of you freaking left wing fuc& tards work?

I noticed how you have yet to directly counter this


an insult isn't an answer


put up or shut up

 

[Sean Renaud]

what ever, you have shown zero out of the box thinking. you show the thinking of a government fuc&tard.

unskilled and unable to run a circle k for a week. sure, you can operate a circle jerk but that is a different story, right?

You haven't shown any out of the box thinking, or really any thinking. I was a government worker but I got over it and started up my own company. Something youv'e yet to accomplish.

 

[eyer]

Let's allow the author of "It's the economy, stupid" throw his two cents into this thread:

Carville: 2012 could be ‘very rough’ for Obama, says civil unrest ‘imminently possible’

"That expression made its way into the campaign in 2008, and according to Carville, it could be the theme of the 2012 campaign as well as President Barack Obama seeks reelection. In an appearance on Monday’s “Imus in the Morning” on the Fox Business Network, the former Clinton adviser said that, based on the May jobs number, if the unemployment picture doesn’t improve, 2012 could be rough for the president."

"But Carville said the consequences aren’t limited to politics alone. He warned of heightened risk of civil unrest with the bleak economic picture.

“You know, look — this is a humanitarian — you know, you’re smart enough to see this,” Carville said. “People, you know, if it continues, we’re going to start to see civil unrest in this country. I hate to say that, but I think it’s imminently possible.”

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/06/c...-obama-says-civil-unrest-imminently-possible/

 

[eyer]

Decline and fall of the American empire

The economic powerhouse of the 20th century emerged stronger from the Depression. But faced with cultural decay, structural weaknesses and reliance on finance, can the US do it again?

"Let me put an alternative hypothesis. America in 2011 is Rome in 200AD or Britain on the eve of the first world war: an empire at the zenith of its power but with cracks beginning to show."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/06/us-economy-decline-recovery-challenges

 

[eyer]

The hits...

...they just keep on coming:

Cut taxes to boost economy, IMF tells George Osborne

George Osborne should reduce taxes rather than relax his austerity spending cuts if Britain’s economy continues to struggle, the International Monetary Fund has said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...o-boost-economy-IMF-tells-George-Osborne.html

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Dude, I JUST showed you a link from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:



So there's minus a half-million government jobs right there.

The number of federal employees is the same as when Clinton was in office.

"From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.

Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.

The administration says 79 percent of the increases in recent years are from departments related to the war on terrorism: Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, State and Veterans Affairs."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/

So um, we added a new cabinet department, entered into two wars, and are currently being flooded with demands for Veterans' services, and we still DECREASED the number of federal employees from 2.15 million to 2.11 million between 2010-2011. Add that to a -446,000 decrease in local government jobs and you have a total loss of half a million government jobs.

Sorry, your right wing narrative isn't supported by facts or data. It relies on stupid people not checking facts for themselves and just putting blind faith into their right wing overlords.

Merc, those aren't numbers, those are projections.

Now, go to the Federal web site and show us the facts.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

That's the thing though, we do sell iron ore. We had a massive iron industry. There was no painless trade off for one industry to another, we just lost a monumental amount of market share and became economically weaker.

Again, zero-sum thinking. While we were shedding the industries of the 20th century, we were at once evolving the technologies of the 21st century.

As government grows and central planning gets more entrenched, then we see the end of technological advances as DC makes it harder for the little guy to start-up while it also takes capital out of the private sector to hand it out to political winners...

So what the nation begins to degrade into is an Oligarchy where only the most powerful are in business, business begins to stagnate and the only way to stay in business is to bribe politicians to write the laws that favor you and hurt potential competition. You end up with an Anthem-like situation in which everything is held in stasis; you make it illegal for iron-ore and iron-works to go out of business while you heavily subsidize them and put tariffs on the economies that do it cheaper thus hurting the consumer and thus hurting the economy.
__________________
"The more communal enterprise extends, the more attention is drawn to the bad business results of nationalized and municipalized undertakings. It is impossible to miss the cause of the difficulty: a child could see where something was lacking. So that it cannot be said that this problem has not been tackled. But the way in which it has been tackled has been deplorably inadequate. Its organic connection with the essential nature of socialist enterprise has been regarded as merely a question of better selection of persons. It has not been realized that even exceptionally gifted men of high character cannot solve the problems created by socialist control of industry."
Ludwig Heinrich Elder von Mises

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Pacific Investment Management Company co-founder Bill Gross is starting to talk about what "financial repression" means for the bond markets, which America has not seen since the darkest days of the 1930's when the term was first used. I'm starting to talk about what financial repression means for Americans.

The Federal Reserve Bank has eighteen middlemen known as primary dealers. These are, for the most part, investment banks that have access to the Federal Reserve discount window, which is operated by the Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC).
Primary dealers are part of an exclusive club -- they have access to the discount rate (which is near zero), and they supply regional and local banks with cash. Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, UBS, and Deutsche Bank are some of the institutions that deal directly with the Fed. Investment banks are a crucial part of the global financial system, and for the most part, do their jobs honestly and efficiently.

There is no worldwide "banking conspiracy," as some say. The ECB, the IMF, the World Bank, and others are not "ganging up" on America to bring it down. However, the central bank in America has added to its balance sheet unprecedented amounts of non-cash assets -- $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities and $1 trillion in treasury securities (from QE1 and QE2). This $2.4 trillion is clogging up the Federal Reserve's balance sheet and must be moved somewhere when the Fed wraps up its bond-buying program later this month.

The Federal Reserve has very little real money. Hence, it has bought these assets by borrowing from the vast reserves on deposit from its member banks (which it can legally do). The Fed borrows at zero percent and lends at 3%. This is what's called "borrowing short-term and lending long-term." The Fed's dilemma is that if interest rates rise, their bond portfolio loses value. According to an analysis by former Atlanta Fed president William F. Ford, a 1% rise in long-term interest rates would lower the value of the Fed's bond holdings by $100 billion (essentially wiping out its 2010 earnings of $81.7 billion). Unlike private banks, the Federal Reserve does not adhere to asset-to-capital requirements. This means that they can be overleveraged indefinitely, as evidenced by the 98-1 leverage ratio, which is astronomical by any banking standard.

It is being speculated in some circles that the undercapitalized Fed will force the broker-dealers into buying chunks of its massive portfolio, effectively taking it off their hands. This will get it off the books and allow them to buy more in the future if they want to try to keep interest rates low. The Wall Street Journal's Matt Phillips on May 25 reported on the Fed's exit strategy.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced it was further broadening the pool of those eligible to take part in reverse-repurchase agreements, expected to be a key tool the Fed will use to exit from the accommodative stance it has been in since the financial crisis hit in 2008.Under the arrangement, the buyers essentially lend cash to the Fed, removing excess reserves from the system.

This is true, except that buyers won't be lending cash to anyone. The cash will be confiscated. If it pursues this policy, the Federal Reserve is going to strong-arm the broker-dealers into buying these things, which would be pawned off onto us, the taxpayer. Here's what the result would look like:

When your local bank is forced into buying treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, it will have to pay for them in cash. This will create an intractable credit freeze, because banks will have spent the money buying treasuries and other securitized products.

There would be no cash left in the vaults and no cash left in the drawers. Without cash reserves, banks would not be able to fund credit card purchases, debit card purchases, or supply ATM machines with dollar bills. They would not be able to underwrite small business loans either. There simply wouldn't be any cash available because they will have used it to buy securities.

Anthony J. Tarquinto
The American Thinker

 

[busybody..]

IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID: Carville: 2012 could be ‘very rough’ for Obama, says civil unrest ‘imminently possible.’

Related: Daily economic briefings disappear from Obama’s White House schedule. The country’s in the very best of hands.

Also: Obama’s head of economic council, Austan Goolsbee, to leave, plans return to academia.

Plus: College grads not doing so well.



NIGGERS, UD and MO CURRY dont get it

 

[rosco rathbone]

What are basic economic principles?


Whenever someone says that all policy problems can be solved by markets, they appeal to something they call "basic economic principles."

If one goes to the open course page for the intermediate micro course offered at MIT, one finds the following topics on the syllabus:



Consumer Theory
2 Choice, Preferences, Utility
3 Demand, Revealed Preferences, Comparative Statics
4 Consumer Surplus, Aggregation
5 Variations to the Basic Choice Model (Time, Uncertainty)

Producer Theory
6 Technology, Profit Maximization, Cost Minimization
7 Supply, Aggregation

Markets
8 Monopoly
9 Oligopoly and Game Theory
10 Walrasian Equilibrium

Market Failures
11 Externalities
12 Public Goods
13 Small Number of Agents, Nash Bargaining

Asymmetric Information
14 Adverse Selection, Moral Hazard, Principal-Agent Model
15 Auction Design
16 Voting and Other Applications


Six out of fifteen of topics (8-9, 11-14) are about ways the market can produce suboptimal outcomes. These topics are not esoteric any more (they are showing up in intermediate courses), and they have rigorous economic theory behind them. It was time we stopped using the phrase "basic economics" to refer to idealized market conditions that often do not exist.

http://real-estate-and-urban.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-are-basic-economic-principles.html