subject: Re: %10.2

text:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:10:13 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:

What a strange definition you have for "poor people".

Rich people have lots of money and poor people don't.  What sort of
training (brain washing) does it take to claim that a decrease in the
value of money hurts people who have no money.  Most of the middle class
has had their 401ks looted but that is NOT money in a saving account at
the bank.  It is shares of ownership in the means of production.  And
inflation will not harm these real capital assets.  This crap about fixed
incomes is yet another brain washing.  SS benefits are tied to CPI.

I don't see why not. As the dollar is worth less to foreigners then the
cost of foreign goods rises and the advantage to domestic production
improves.  That is a pretty well understood economic reality.

Boogerman, Boogerman, Boogerman!!!  Hyped  like a true defender of the
rich.

there is no particular reason to believe that,

The working middle class has investments in their 401K.  They do not have
any serious amount of money stuffed in a mattress or in a savings account
and aver diversified regarding government bonds. If not then these people
will lose some purchasing power.  Bur the _VAST_ majority will be better
off.  We not the continued apparent health of the equities market in
spite of the fact that demand is very slack.  It is currency devaluation
that causes that to happen.

That is what curbs the amount of inflation that can be tolerated, but at
present we have NO internal inflation.


author: Yadda

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/6/09 3:15 PM *Anarcissie* said the following:
Looks like a big crash is coming across all asset classes.  The tsunami
will be Option ARMs, Commercial Real Estate, and Leveraged Commodity and
Carry Trade.  Probably not until early next year as the FED/Treasury
will be propping up the economy on funny money until the moment of
reckoning.  I am wondering if money market funds will be safe in this
forthcoming storm...


author: Phlip

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 6, 1:15 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <[email]> wrote:

Aaaand once again we twist around and stick our head up our ass to
avoid blaming...

  --> rich people
  --> Republicans

The former are holding onto their money, waiting for someone else to
stimulate the economy for them.

And the latter? Well, they tried everything they could to prevent
libruls and Democrats from getting us into this mess, and they failed!


subject: Re: Whining about unemployment and promoting dollar idiocy

text:
On Nov 6, 4:24 pm, Michael Coburn <[email]> wrote:

The 'solutions' you propose sound identical to those tried by Mexico's
corrupt ruling PRI party in the 1980s.  The devaluation of the peso
was supposed to ease Mexico's debt burden, and help the middle class
by lifting wages.  Instead, net purchasing power declined, and half
the population attempted to flee the country to work in the USA.  The
ruling elite was unaffected by the devaluation, since they were smart
enough to keep their fabulous wealth in hard-currency Swiss bank
accounts.

Mexico also bailed-out its manufacturing and banking sectors, and
imposed steep tariffs on imported goods to protect Mexican
industries.  This did not work and led to inefficiency, corruption,
and massive smuggling of consumer goods from the USA.  Today most
Mexican goods that are manufactured in Mexico are produced by U.S. and
other foreign companies.

The bailed-out banks were first nationalized so that their dollar
deposits could be converted to devalued pesos, protected with monopoly
status for a decade or so, before finally being privatized by selling
them to friends of El Presidente for a pittance and a dollar-
denominated bribe transferred to his personal Swiss bank account.  The
new privatized bank owners became instant billionaires, then lent the
banks' money to their friends and relatives who then defaulted,
requiring the Mexican congress to authorize a US$50 billion bailout.


author: Michael Coburn

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:14:46 -0800, Phlip wrote:

So the solution is quite simple.   Your bring back the very progressive
tax code of 1941 and you print more money and blow it into the bottom of
the economy with stimulus.  The money held in the mattresses of the rich
will decline in value and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_ or see
their wealth eaten by the inflation monster.  It really is a no brainer.

WOW!!!  That has to be the biggest whopper I have ever seen!!!!!!


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:57:23 -0600, Yadda wrote:

Why would there be a crash of asset prices unless the government isn't
blowing enough money into the bottom of the economy??????


subject: Re: Whining about unemployment and  promoting dollar idiocy

text:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:55:27 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

That is an outright lie.  The government failed to regulate credit thus
producing the crash of 1929.  It was not until the country was placed
firmly in the Great depression that government tried to intervene in any
positive way.

What a tin hat nut case.

Yes...  It did.

What an idiot.  The percentage unemployed may continue to rise, but the
number employed will typically keep pace with rising population.

Nope.  When the owners of the means of production don't suck enough
economic rent out of the economy we have a technical recession.  So long
as the rich people continue to haul in money there isn't a recession.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:05:10 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

The Virus again shows that it is brainless.  Government creates money and
spends it into existence.  What good will it do a person with loads of
money to take the money out of the mattress and run away to Biminy?  the
answer is, of course, that such a move would be useless.  In a proper tax
system where true investment is _NOT_ heavily taxed while income from
economic rent (i.e. income from government backed bonds) _IS_ heavily
taxed we will not see the rich running away to foreign shores.  They will
be much better off staying right here and actually INVESTING.


author: *Anarcissie*

subject: Re: %10.2

text:
On Nov 7, 1:06 am, Michael Coburn <[email]> wrote:

I am using poor as in poor versus rich.  The poor include working-
and lower-middle-class people for me.  These are people who have
savings accounts, fixed pensions, life insurance and the like (if they
have anything -- and a lot of them have a little something).  Usually
they are wage-earners, with their wages or salaries set in currency
amounts which are often changed upward only with great difficulty.
At least, this has been my experience as such a person.  These
are the people you appear to be proposing to tax through
inflation.  By contrast, while the rich may keep a certain amount
of cash around to facilitate transactions, most of their wealth is
held in equities, commodities, real estate, collectibles, and the
like.  They are far more able to deal with inflation and escape
its bad effects than the not-rich.

The CPI is a joke as far as I am concerned.  It will become more
of a joke if any serious inflation sets in, since the government
will be interested in limiting payouts to Social Security
beneficiaries.

Assuming there is any serious domestic production of
exportable goods, beyond movies, bombs, bullets and
bullshit.

That's not much of an argument.

That depends on what you're trying to buy.  Note also that many
areas of the labor market are somewhat deflationary.  There is a
limit to how far _that_ can be carried on, and in any case it
exacerbates the bad effects which the inflation you're proposing
if it goes into effect (and I think it will, because I think your
advocacy of inflation channels ruling-class intentions).


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:05:10 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Moving the money to Kooka-Monga is not going to preserve its value,
virus.  And who you traded with for the gold now has the money.  No
matter where the money tries to hide or who owns it the money will be
devalued by the creation of new money.

On the subject of taxation you have a leg on which to stand in that it
might be possible to move yourself outside the tax jurisdiction in order
to evade an income tax.  But in the larger scheme of things it is
government that protects all assets and all ownership.  If the rich
attempt to escape to a jurisdiction that is untaxed by the US government
then that jurisdiction should be unprotected.  In other words, if the
Chinese wish to nationalize your factory and your trade names and tell
you to suck eggs then you can sue them in a Chinese court.  How's that
"capital flight" workin' out for ya?


subject: Re: %10.2

text:
On Nov 8, 2:18 am, Michael Coburn <[email]> wrote:

All that means to me is that you can't deal with the objections
raised.  I went through the last major inflation in the 1970s as
a working-class person and it was not the picnic you seem to
envision.  As for its political consequences, we didn't get
Hitler, but we did get Reagan.

You can go back to your mantra now, but it's a lot less
impressive than you think.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 8, 2:49 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:

Do you know what the term _socialism_ means?


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 8, 1:27 pm, "5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09" <[email]>
wrote:

The unemployment percentage measure is probably too easy
to manipulate, like the CPI, to be worth very much, but as far as
I know it's all we've got.  Any suggestions for an available
replacement?


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:15:07 -0600, Yadda wrote:

Have you noticed that the record keeping prior to the time the Fed was
founded is very poor?  But this seems to say that your assessment of the
Fed is a little bit shaded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
You contradict yourself. Tax the rich feed the poor problem solved.
And start shredding the dollar bills, too...


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 7, 12:26 pm, Michael Coburn <[email]> wrote:

I wish I could claim credit but Rush Limbaugh seems to have invented
it exactly one year ago. The "Obama Recession" seems to have started
then! C-:


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 7, 1:40 pm, James A. Donald <[email]> wrote:

WOW!!!  That has to be the biggest whopper I have ever seen!!!!!!


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
The crisis was already reaching boiling point when Ronny Raygun
slashed taxes for the extreme rich, and started borrowing to buy huge
death machines...


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 7, 4:57 am, Yadda <[email]> wrote:

Good. Looks like only the rich will get hit...

Oh, yeah, then they respond by firing as many people as it takes to
generate a tiny bounce in their shares. All with the blessings of the
finance industry & regulators.

Spread out the social safety nets, and tax them to pay for them!


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:40:20 -0600, Yadda wrote:

We're not out of the woods yet.  Not even close.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:40:30 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Irrelevant.  Your AI handlers made a stupid claim regarding money and now
attempt to change the subject.

No, Virus.  The creation of new money is a  tax on the existing money and
there is no way to run away with the full value of the existing mattress
full of money.  No place to hide.

Personal attacks are all your handlers can do, virus.  Your handlers have
totally pooped in their pants.

As I have said, virus: that is a different subject if one relies upon the
income tax.  Inflation is s a tax on money.  And when combined with a tax
on natural resources and assets it can capture even expatriated profits.
A simpler mechanism is import duties on produced goods and export duties
on raw materials.

Nothing they can ever do, virus, will stop the taxation of money hoards
imposed by printing additional money.  There is _NO_ escape.

Yet another personal attack from a brain dead virus.


subject: Re: %10.2

text:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:41:18 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:

That would be the definition of _stupid_ people.  Only stupid people have
money in a "savings account".  Only stupid people are invested in
something like an annuity that is not tied to the CPI. Only stupid people
would think that GM could ever make good on its pensions.

Wages will increase as wage push inflation happens.  Wage push inflation
happens whenever government blows money into the bottom of the economy as
a stimulus.  Giving money to banks and Wall Street is not a stimulus.  It
is a rich bitch bailout.

The very rich are more able to deal with anything and everything than are
the poor.  That sort of asinine observation is pretty much worthless.  It
does not matter how the rich have stored their wealth, the injection of
money at the bottom of the economy, reduces the actual value of hoarded
wealth even while it may increase prices. The houses held by the banks is
awaiting the inflation of wages so as to clear the market.

I thought that was the case with Bush, but looking back it wasn't.  So
lets get away from the conspiracy crap and look at the economics.

We do not need to export a damned thing.  All we need do is stop slurping
so much foreign oil.

Boogerman, boogerman, boogerman.


text:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:35:33 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

OOPS!!!  Hold it right there, pal.  You are actually correct so far on
your history, but for some shading.  But you are now proceeding into the
area where government intervention did good instead of harm.  Roosevelt
_DID_ screw up by supporting the cartels and even handedly supporting the
unions.  But there were not a lot of choices because there was not a lot
of free financial capital.  The gold standard really limited what could
be done.  He screwed up just like we are currently screwing up.  He did
not cut the hours of work as he should have.

I would suggest that you actually look at the data as opposed to just
making shit up:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg

Those terms have Jack Shit to do with the relaxation of anti-trust laws
that took place during the Roosevelt administration.

That would be the normal result of technological innovation and real
capital development while asininely sticking with a 40 hour work week.

This is actually true.  We are INVENTING more work to do.  Really stupid.

as the
jobs : :	   lost in

OK.  You make a valid point here.  But the solution to the problem
remains the same.  Cut the @#$^#&@#*^ work week per person and employ
more people.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:23:20 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

No. virus...  The money just gets a new owner.  You traded the money for
the gold or the different currency and whoever "sold" you the other asset
now holds the money.  The money is worth less than it was if more money
is being created.

You seem to think that the devaluation of the money is "aimed" at certain
individuals.  It isn't.  The INTENTION of devaluation through money
infusion is itself a devaluation. That devaluation causes a rise in the
price of other assets (like houses).

IDIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<<<<<<<<<< further stupidity deleted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:33:07 -0800, Phlip wrote:

I see no contradiction.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:13:41 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

17.5% "real" unemployment, and nearly all of the "economic growth"
existing as an economic bubble regrowing in the financial sector?

Oh, we're still in the woods all right.


author: Old Pif

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 6, 4:15 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <[email]> wrote:

Couple of time more, as you said.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:39:35 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Let's take a look at the actual BLS definition, instead of your Scrooge
McDuck take on it:

NOTE:  Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither
working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and
  are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent
past.  Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached,
  have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a
job.  Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those
  who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle
for a part-time schedule.  For more information, see "BLS
  introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures," in the
October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review.  Updated population
  controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

That's in ADDITION to the unemployed, "discouraged workers" and all that.

If your household needs $2000 a month to survive, and the only work you
can find is part time paying $1,000 a month, then you aren't "employed"--
your just falling off the same cliff, only more slowly.


text:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:01:28 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

I have been "tuned in" to that for a while.  It seems to be serving them
very well.

I suppose it is possible to assign different religious beliefs to the
37-38 recession but that is what you are looking at.  Your "uptick" was a
recovery from that recession, not a real upward trend caused by Roosevelt
dumping.  There is little, if any, difference in the slope of gdp before
and after the recession.  The recession was caused by Fed tightening and
spending cuts.  The Fed and the elected government saw the screw up and
corrected it and the gdp resumed its upward slope.

http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/DepressionSpending.html

In 1979 Paul Volcker peed all over the bill you are touting.  The _CAUSE_
of boom bust is too much reward to speculation.  Always has been and
always will be.


text:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:45:20 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

I though I had already agreed wit this.  Why belabor the issue?

Yes.  I agree.  As Smoot-Hawley-knee-jerk-Republicans and Hoover tried to
"save big business" and balance the budget things got very bad indeed.

The problem is that the economy recovers after Roosevelt comes to town
and poops all over Hoovers stupid across the board tax hikes and spending
cuts.  But I will admit AGAIN that cartelization and labor union sucking
up tended to hurt the real economy and prolong the unemployment.

You tend to jump around quite a bit here.  Joining all the wrong dots in
support of a religious affliction.

Yes.

All very nicely preached.

I see no reason for hammering on "broken window fallacy".  I have NEVER
been an advocate of using GDP as a barometer of the economy.  It is,
however, being used by all the so called economists and it is the data
that are cataloged and presented.  The unemployment rate is the only
current data that is cataloged and presented that is indicative of the
real economy.

That's what I said.

Cutting the work week will not reduce the output.  More people will have
jobs creating the same output as before and those who currently have jobs
will have smaller incomes.  But that is more than offset by the reduction
in unemployment.

It does not take a long tome to learn how to operated a forklift or how
to sell shoes or how to drive a truck and labor is, in fact, mobile.

Cutting the work week for all will increase the number of employment
opportunities.  There will be relocation and retraining.  That is how
reality is.  Health care revamp is a big part of labor mobility although
the current effort falls short.  Labor _IS_ mobile and needs to be even
more mobile within the USA.


author: phil scott

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 7, 7:34 pm, Phlip <[email]> wrote:

the recession was well underway 6 months before bush left office and
he had already begun the bank bail outs... in Dec of his final year in
office to the tune of 750 billion.

fact checking is always a good idea


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 7, 8:31 pm, James A. Donald <[email]> wrote:

and intelligent discertation... thanks   Ill make sure to follow your
posts

Phil scott


text:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:32:47 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

So why bother with the hole digging????  Just shape the stimulus checks
exactly as the checks were shaped for the 2008 stimulus and send them out
each month until wages rise to the point that the homes are "cheap" and
the stuff from China costs too much????  HMMMMMMM????

Keynesianism is old hat.  He had to contend with the gold standard.  We
don't.

Dollars have value because the government demands them in settlement of
tax obligations.  The rich are determined by _WHO_ is taxed.  When the
money flows into the bottom of the economy and the owners are taxed then
the producers get rich and the owners get poor.  It really is THAT simple.


text:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:53:59 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Well, good.  This means we can cut the military budget by some 90%.  Less
to defend here, and no moral obligation to defend the wealth that is over
seas.


text:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:53:59 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

The Virus again demonstrates the lack of analytical ability of a virus.
Taxation is the _ONLY_ thing that imparts value to fiat money:

http://www.gate.net/~mosler/frame001.htm --------------

The concept of fiat money can be illuminated by a simple model: Assume a
world of a parent and several children. One day the parent announces that
the children may earn business cards by completing various household
chores. At this point the children won't care a bit about accumulating
their parent's business cards because the cards are virtually worthless.
But when the parent also announces that any child who wants to eat and
live in the house must pay the parent, say, 200 business cards each
month, the cards are instantly given value and chores begin to get done.
Value has been given to the business cards by requiring them to be used
to fulfill a tax obligation. Taxes function to create the demand for
federal expenditures of fiat money, not to raise revenue per se. In fact,
a tax will create a demand for at LEAST that amount of federal spending.
A balanced budget is, from inception, the MINIMUM that can be spent,
without a continuous deflation. The children will likely desire to earn a
few more cards than they need for the immediate tax bill, so the parent
can expect to run a deficit as a matter of course.

To illustrate the nature of federal debt under a fiat monetary system,
the model of family currency can be taken a step further. Suppose the
parent offers to pay overnight interest on the outstanding business cards
(payable in more business cards). The children might want to hold on to
some cards to use among themselves for convenience. Extra cards not
needed overnight for inter-sibling transactions would probably be
deposited with the parent. That is, the parent would have borrowed back
some of the business cards from the children. The business card deposits
are the national debt that the parent owes.

The reason for the borrowing is to support a minimum overnight lending
rate by giving the holders of the business cards a place to earn
interest. The parent might decide to pay (support) a high rate of
interest to encourage saving. Conversely, a low rate may discourage
saving. In any case, the amount of cards lent to the parent each night
will generally equal the number of cards the parent has spent, but not
taxed - the parent's deficit. Notice that the parent is not borrowing to
fund expenditures, and that offering to pay interest (funding the
deficit) does not reduce the wealth (measured by the number of cards) of
each child.

In the U. S., the 12 members of the Federal Open Market Committee decide
on the overnight interest rate. That, along with what Congress decides to
spend, tax, and borrow (that is, pay interest on the untaxed spending),
determines the value of the money and, in general, regulates the economy.

Federal borrowing and taxation were once part of the process of managing
the Treasury's gold reserves. Unfortunately, discussions about monetary
economics and the U. S. banking system still rely on many of the
relationships observed and understood during the time when the U. S.
monetary regime operated under a gold standard, a system in which
arguably the government was required to tax or borrow sufficient revenue
to fund government spending. Some of the old models are still useful in
accurately explaining the mechanics of the banking system. Others have
outlived their usefulness and have led to misleading constructs. Two such
vestiges of the gold standard are the role of bank reserves (including
the money multiplier) and the concept of monetization. An examination of
the workings of the market for bank reserves reveals the essential
concepts. (Additional monetary history and a more detailed explanation is
provided in the appendix.

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

I can just see that Texas oil man boxing up his ranch and that pool of
oil underneath it and hauling it off to Bimini.  I can see all the high
rise office buildings and Manhattan being roped by a tug and hauled out
of the US.  All the highways and hydroelectric dams can also be uprooted
and hauled away too, I suppose.

The nice thing about a tax imposed by INFLATION is that no matter where
the bank account may reside, the value of the money is going to shrink
while _REAL_ assets remain as _REAL_ assets and labor remains as that
which produces just about EVERYTHING we might use as productive capital
and almost everything we consume.

http://GreaterVoice.org/essays/LaborTheoryOfCost.php

I retired, idiot.  And I am quite comfy.


author: Michael Price

text:
On Nov 10, 11:32 am, Les Cargill <[email]> wrote:

  That assumes that a deflationary trend is something to repair.   It
is not.
There is nothing wrong with prices going down, unless you're a debtor.
The problem is that less stuff is being made not that people are not
paying
enough for it.  Digging holes doesn't solve the problem of stuff not
being
produced, unless there's an urgent need for holes.
  No it's not likely to work because there is no psychology under it
at all.
People do not naturally believe that because their government is
spending
money like a drunken sailor they should invest in new production.
Quite
the opposite.


text:
On Nov 10, 1:26 pm, "5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09" <[email]>
wrote:

  Since when was 90% of the US military budget spent to defend
anything?
And don't say "it was spent to defend the oil in the middle east",
that oil is
less secure for Western markets now than ever.  Arguably that was the
point.


text:
On Nov 7, 4:27 pm, "Rod Speed" <[email]> wrote:

  As usual you have nothing intelligent to say, 1929 did not see the
government stop wrecking the market as anyone with a half-decent
economic history education knows.  You really have nothing but
lies and abuse do you?

  Which merely makes clear how bad the technical definition of
recession is.
Things are not better, employment is not up significantly even by the
goverment's
corrupt measures.  The government is further in debt and no net value
has been
created, a vital point since value is needed to repay various debts.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 8, 1:01 am, hal wrote:

 Since when did Rod Speed seem like a smart fellow?  He's wrong
almost
all the time and resorts to abuse at the drop of a hat.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 8, 12:14 am, Phlip <[email]> wrote:

  Who's doing that?  The Republicans are just as responsible, hell
more so,
for the funny money.   As for rich people you don't have to twist
anything to
see that, while many were part of the problem, government was much
more of it.

  That's already happened and they are still holding their money so
clearly they're
not waiting for more government intervention.  They're waiting for
less.  In any case
holding on to their money is a rational response to government idiocy
like the
"stimulus".  Why should we blame them for not investing in a
disasterous market?

  Well no, they tried everything to get us into this mess before the
opposition could,
and succeeded.


text:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:17:35 -0800, Michael Price wrote:

While I agree that things are not "better" than they were last week or
last month or the month before, that does not mean that I believe things
are not better than they would have been absent the government spending.
So how would the government go about making things "better" from this
point forward?  Not from some imaginary point after the economy totally
self destructs, mind you, but from this very moment looking forward?

I don't want to here how we got here or who did it or how horrible the
government has been.  I want to here how you think government can have a
positive effect moving forward even if you believe that government can do
that by NOT governing.  But I want you to describe clear actions like
government should adjust taxes and stop doing all the things that
government does immediately or _which_ things need to be curtailed
immediately and which things should be curtailed more slowly.  And
remember that there must be an IMMEDIATE improvement in the unemployment
rate because that seems to be your metric.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 8, 3:49 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:

So you don't know what it means.


text:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:23:29 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

That is a correlation that totally ignores the real causes of better
economic performance.  At least three things must be taken into account
in any macro treatment of the economy and possible four.

1.  The level and _SHAPE_ of taxation.

2.  The level and _SHAPE_ of spending.

3.  The monetary policies of the Fed.

4.  The price of energy.

Another lie. Tax cuts on very high incomes do nothing but make the rich
still richer while impoverishing the middle class.  And targeted tax
breaks are employed to "steer" the economy in directions that are much
better for the long term but which would not ordinarily produce enough
NEAR TERM profitability.

I will actually go for repeated correlation as highly indicative of
causation one way or another.  But perfect correlation implies NO CAUSE.
The causal event must precede the caused event and it must stand alone by
comparison to other such correlations.  Like "all else held constant or
acting in opposition".  If the GDP increases when taxes are cut, yet the
Fed is also loosening then one cannot say that the tax cuts caused the
growth.  If the tax is increased and at the same time the Fed increases
the short term interest rates and there is an increase in GDP then a
claim that the increase on higher incomes caused better growth or that it
didn't harm growth seems somewhat credible.  And as this correlation
between higher taxes on extreme incomes maps very consistently with
better economic performance than I would say that your theory sucks.

That will not reduce unemployment by next week.


text:
On Nov 13, 3:05 am, Michael Coburn <[email]> wrote:

  They don't, they just stop making things worse.  Heroine is not a
toothache
cure, it's how you get fatal septicemia from a rotten tooth.
Economies
recover fine without governments diverting resources from where they
are
need to where the politicians need them.  In fact the stimulus bill
was only
able to claim to have saved jobs by outright lying (for instance
claiming jobs
saved where in fact people had gotten raises).

  That's exactly how I think they could have a positive effect.  Lots
of firms
need to go bankrupt to avoid consuming more value than they create.
The
assets of these firms can be bought up by entrepreneurs who then
create
value and jobs.

  When did I say it was my metric?  I merely observed that the
stimulus bill has
failed by it's own claimed metric.  I listed three things that were
bad, you concentrated
on one.


text:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:18:36 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

This particular line of abject stupidity is based on the religious
position that government performs no service and that tax revenue is
burned in a furnace.  Because if government provides a service that is
beneficial to the general welfare and that service is improved by virtue
of more funding then a higher tax rate on those who actually pay the tax
is obviously a boon to those who do not pay the tax.  What is quite
amazing is that the same lying pigs that propose that the US military
expense is of equal benefit to all will take this absurd and obscene
position regarding taxation that funds the military.  Of course, if the
military provides equal benefit, then the more the rich pay in taxes the
more benefit is enjoyed by the poor that do not pay the tax.

The reality is that government does promote the general welfare by design
of the United States Constitution.  It can be argued that it does not,
but the argument is not about the design and the intent, but about the
subversion of that design over the last 200 years.

STILL!!!

Unless the activities of government provide no advantage whatsoever to
those who do not pay income taxes then an increase in those taxes will
benefit the non payers of the tax more than it will benefit the payers.
The opposite is also true in regard to ordinary income at very high rates.

Yet they arguably benefit from the government that is funded by the taxes.

And only lying Republican pigs attempt to do away with or cut high
marginal tax rates on ordinary income.

(sigh)


text:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:56:52 -0600, John Galt wrote:

Of course the McWorkers in Denmark actually get something for the taxes
they pay.  Mostly it is health care, but also it is pensions and other
gains.

https://www.workindenmark.dk/Find%20information/Til%20arbejdstagere/Livet%
20i%20Danmark/Sundhedsvaesen.aspx

But not more than ME.  A fair and honest tax system at the state and
local level would tax _NOTHING_ but land.  And an income tax would not
tax wages below the national mean income.  If that means the tax rates on
very high incomes are very high then so be it.  The problem we have in
this country right now is that income taxes on high incomes are too low
regardless of all the tap dancing about the PERCENTAGE paid by the high
rollers.  The deficits tell us that taxes are to low.  That is obvious to
anyone of more than half a wit.


text:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:10:22 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

That is not the stupidest statement ever made, but it is a contender.


text:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:24:31 -0800, Michael Price wrote:

You are a lying sack of shit.  False analogy is the bedrock of freeper
and Republican lying and you have exercised it well. Your insinuation
relying on "raises" is an undocumented "nit" if it even exists.   Your
contention that the unemployment picture would have been improved by
doing nothing is not just plain stupid.  It transcends stupidity and
enters headlong into insanity.

The "assets" of the "financial sector" are paper and nothing else.  So
there is nothing to "buy".  As far as GM is concerned, it is an American
company providing employment for Americans by producing goods for
Americans. And government subsidy is one way to address the problems of
freeper world trade.   While the moronic freeper sees government
intervention as preventing the consumer form getting a "good deal", the
real economist sees it as making sure that the producer class (which is
the consumer) GETS a "good deal".

I will not change my emphasis because it is the proper focus.  The market
is not a God to which the people are to be sacrificed.


text:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:26:46 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

There were 3 other factors that promoted supposed economic growth in the
RayGun era.  You must recall that GDP is a measure of economic activity
and not a measure of prosperity.

The most OBVIOUS correlation with increased performance in the economy
during the 80's is the correlation, with interest rates as controlled by
the FED. So first the fed destroyed the economy and induced a very severe
recession in 1981/82.  And then the fed loosened slowly to allow/promote
a sustained recovery. The fed continually cut interest rates during the
entire period.

http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/Newyeilds._html_2aaf0d1c.jpg

The not so obvious second cause of the better economic performance was
the declining prices of energy through out the 80's.  Here again, the
OPEC oil embargo of 1979 worked in conjunction with the Volcker madness
to put the economy in a very deep ditch.  Once the economy faltered then
the demand for oil also faltered. (The US is the major consumer of oil).
There were also (in 1979 - 1980) MAJOR loans to NON OPEC nations to help
them develop their oil fields.

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

And last but not least we will observe that government spending did not
let up during RayGun's time in office.

http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/OnBudget.html

Government spending did not abate in the least until AFTER the tax
adjustments  of 1984:

1984 - "The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA)" passes. A repeal,
beginning in 1985, of the provision that allowed an exclusion from income
tax of 15 percent of up to $3,000 in _*interest*_ income for a single
taxpayer ($6,000 for couples). A $2 per gallon increase in the excise tax
on alcohol and a one-year extension of the 3 percent telephone excise
tax. An increase in the minimum recovery period for real property from 15
to 18 years. A reduction in the holding period for long-term capital
gains from one year to six months for assets acquired between June 1984
and January 1988.

NOTE!  Capital gains adjustments such as tax rate or holding period
induce a bubble in that the gains are normally short lived.

And it was AFTER those adjustments (1985-86) and BEFORE the 1986 tax code
that the slope of tax revenue actually increased.  The tax adjustment of
1986 (which was the Reagan tax cuts) would have affected the revenue of
1987 and the slope of THAT revenue actually flattened.

The number of participants is irrelevant.  Was the economy cooking on its
own to feet or not?  It was NOT.  All of the supposed "performance" was
based on excessive government spending and relaxed interest rates and
relaxed energy prices while NOT collecting sufficient tax revenue.  The
supposed "investment by the rich" never took place.

There is a correlation in the direction of causation since 1920.
Republican tax cuts cause bubbles that then burst and induce depression
or recession.  There has NEVER been a time in the history of the United
States when very high marginal rates on ordinary income over what today
would be 3 million dollars that has had _ANY_ adverse effect on the real
economy.  NEVER.  The opposite has shown to be the case in that
increasing the tax rate on exorbitant incomes correlates with a more
prosperous middle class.

No, moron, it is not wrong at all.  If two things move together you
cannot claim that one has caused the other.  One must LEAD the other to
claim causality.

Irrelevant. The CAUSE is still leading.

Not wrong, moron.  If the Fed is cutting interest rates and the oil
suppliers are cutting the price of oil while the moron in chief is
cutting taxes on the rich no matter what they do with the new found money
then what is _CAUSING_  the improvement in the economy?????
HMMMMMMM????  Unless you have a religious position it is not possible to
assign causation.

Now if the fed was raising interest rates or holding them constant while
the price of energy was also being held reasonably constant and you are
looking for economic performance versus taxation then you might have a
better case for causation.  Unfortunately, for the Republicans monkey
butts, this indicates that increased taxation on the rich in 1993 while
leaving capital gains rates at 28% produces a more prosperous economy. I
invite you all to look a the previous pictures again as they illustrate
the nature of interest rates and oil prices during the 90's as well as
tax revenues and deficits.

Yet that violates what I have said, virus.  There was other stuff
happening at the time (RayGun).  The correlation with world oil prices
and economic health is undeniable when we look at the pass we have gone
through since 2006.

Look again that the oil prices in 1979-80 and the fall thereof and look
at this also:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4643

You are ignorant or a liar.  But what can one expect from a virus.

Yup.


subject: Re: Galt gets ONE thing right

text:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:49:37 -0600, John Galt wrote:

The problem is assuming inflation into monsterdom.  While the inflation
started with the 1964 tax cuts for the rich and the Johnson war in
Vietnam and War on Poverty, this does not correlate with a the declining
middle class prosperity that has assailed us since the late 70's.  It was
the return of the troops from Vietnam and activities on the part of the
Fed and the lack of adequate taxation on the rich that caused the real
problems.  Inflation actually improved the prosperity of the middle class
at all times.  And most of the improvement was in homes as retirement
investments using wages that were kept high by unions and by tariffs.


text:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:20:25 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Clinton DID NOT CAUSE HAVE A REAL ESTATE BOOM.

It isn't messy at all for those who actually look at the real data.  The
TAX INCREASE on the rich that was put through by the DEMOCRATIC
congresses of 1991 and 1993 (the 1993 tax code that increased the top
rate from 33% to 39.4%)  resulted in a much improved economy because
there was a proper break afforded capital gains at 28% and the home owner
was shielded from taxation as he traded up in housing as the family
grew.  But he could not "cash in" the house with no tax consequences and
use the money to gamble in the stock market or to flip houses in the
residential market.  That didn't happen until the REPUBLICAN Congress of
1997 CUT TAXES AND BLEW A BUBBLE in the NASDAQ and the HOUSING markets.

http://www.investingintelligently.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/
a_history_of_home_values.png

The Newt Gingrich Republican Congress caused a BUBBLE as opposed to a
boom.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/
Comparison_of_three_stock_indices_after_1975.svg


text:
On Nov 14, 3:12 am, Michael Coburn <[email]> wrote:

I would not call anything "madness" which was so politically
useful.


subject: Re: Galt gets ONE thing right

text:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:21:16 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

That makes _NO_ sense.

I was referring to the 70's and 80's in what I said.  And a home was, in
fact, a personal investment in ones retirement.  The tax laws at that
time made such a retirement investment attractive but did not allow the
use of residential real estate for speculative purposes.  This changed
somewhat in the 1980's as interest on home mortgages were reserved as
deductible and other interest fees were not deductible.  Reagan
"ownership" glorification and tax advantages added to the problems that
caused the S&L blowout.  The homes were turned into poker chips as
opposed to retirement investments by the 1997 Republican tax cut for the
rich.


author: Rod Speed

text:
Michael Coburn wrote

Thats a lie. Even the shrub did quite a bit, and the half
white fella mostly just continued with what he had done.

Another lie.

Thats more accurate.

Not even possible when the RMB is loosely locked to the USD.

There is no decay of the middle class, thats another lie.

Another bare faced lie.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

And since the RMB is loosely locked to the USD, even a very dramatic
devaluation of the USD wont change that trade deficit anyway, in fact
it will make the trade deficit with oil MUCH worse.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

The unemployment rate bottomed at 4.x% and the number employed hit an all
time historic high with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate, just before
you clowns completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Letting them all go bust would absolutely guarantee another great depression or worse.

That approach fucked the economy the last time the clowns were stupid enough to try it.


author: James A. Donald

text:
On 6 Nov 2009 23:24:47 GMT, Michael Coburn <[email]> wrote:

If the government stops wrecking the market, the market will right
itself rapidly, as it always has in the past.

Recall the wonderful stimulus chart?

Obama threatened us, that the stimulus had to passed urgently,
urgently, for if the stimulus was not passed, unemployment would rise
to a horrifying eight percent by 2009 October.

He got that part right.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
phil scott wrote

That fool has never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Not only didnt we get a depression in 1990, we didnt even get one just recently
when the clowns completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.

Nope.

There has been no collapse from any peak.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie. We actually saw the longest boom in history instead.

That has never EVER happened. NOT ONCE.

He couldnt even get the basics right.

You cant list even a single example of that ever happening.

That hasnt happened that way either.

And we have never ever seen even single one imploding in just days.

What we have actually seen is a few just fading away
into obscurity instead over half a century or so.


subject: Re: %10.2

text:
Anarcissie wrote

Yes.

Nope. The only real poor people in modern first world countrys
are those entirely dependant on welfare from govt and those
who are 'homeless' who dont receive any welfare, and they
wont get any effect like that, essentially because govt welfare
would go up and the 'homeless' arent affected by inflation.

That wouldnt help even if it did.

There are no 'large structural problems caused by deindustrialization',
we saw the total number employed at an all time historic high and
an unemployment rate of 4.x%, the envy of much of the world with
a massive legal and illegal immigration rate just before the clowns
completely imploded the entire world financial system, again.

Thats what delivered the longest boom in recorded history.

That wont happen in the US if the US was stupid enough to do what he proposes.

It happened there because they chose to pay the reparations
that the allies were stupid enough to apply with worthless money.

They did the last time that happened in the US.

Essentially because they have no choice on that when it happens.

Fools like him usually proposed they just be defaulted on.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:57:23 -0600, Yadda <[email]> wrote:

Money market funds will be fine in nominal terms, unless you have long
term bonds - but inflation is starting to accelerate.  I predict the
next cpi report, due out in a week or so, is going to be a shocker.

Long term bonds will take a beating when inflation starts to bite.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:50:17 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

losses-probably-continue-at-a-300000-a-month-rate.html>
rate
says : :

What are the "intended consequences".  All the crap about the "unintended
consequences" is mere window dressing for the Libertarian: "I hate
Government.  And I hate Roosevelt. And I hate labor unions. And
government and society suck.  And if we do what the Libertarian freeper
bible says then all will be well.  The market will be fine and work well
and who the hell cares about the humans anyway.  What matters is the
economy and the market.  We exist merely to serve God and or to serve the
market."

We have reached the point where greed is no longer the wellspring from
which progress will flow.  The lust for accounting profits is now harming
the people as opposed to being helpful.  In America we will choose
between Social Democracy and Fascism.  There are no other roads.  We have
over a year to pass the Public Option health care bill.  A year that will
see Republicans lying more and more and the rational people realizing
that fascism wears a flag pin and rides an elephant.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Phlip <[email]> wrote:

It is a bit hard to blame republicans, when Congress,
which has oversight of the financial system, has been in
the hands of the Democrats during the whole crisis, and
was well before the crisis began.

The proximate cause of the crisis was not rich people
but the regulatory requirement that bankers make loans
equally to members of protected minorities, even though
members of protected minorities are not equally inclined
to repay their debts.  The crisis began in 2005
November, in that it became glaringly obvious that
members of protected minorities were failing to pay
their debts in large numbers.

So the guilty are:

1.  Democrats, who had oversight, and who appointed
larcenous (but politically correct) criminals to run
Fannie and Freddie over the protests of Republicans.

2.  The regulators, who insisted on politically correct
security ratings, rather security ratings that reflected
reality, and then, when investors started to
"irrationally" panic about politically correct security
ratings, insisted that financial institutions act as if
these ratings reflected reality.

3.  The poor, primarily poor members of protected
minorities, who accepted loans they had neither the will
nor the ability to repay.  When you hear of "toxic
assets", they are toxic because based on politically
correct loans.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Michael Coburn wrote

Nope.

Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.

Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.

Your approach is completely brainless and wont work. Plenty
of countrys have tried it an they get that result of the rich moving
their money out of the country where its immune from inflation.

Or just put it into gold etc etc etc.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/7/09 2:27 PM Michael Coburn said the following:

Google "Carry Trade" for a start.   Volatility is off the charts in
bonds, stocks, and many commodities.   And there is massive leverage on
these bets.  If they unwind, watch out!


text:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:55:27 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

Michael Coburn

Things were not all that bad after 1929.  Things really went to hell
in 1932-1933.  It was not until 1932-1933 that the country was "firmly
in the great depression, not until the government "tried to intervene
in any positive way" that the country was firmly in the great
depression.

Hoover organized the economy into state backed business and labor
cartels, to artificially support prices and wages.  This destroyed the
American economy.  These ruinous cartels were subsequently further
strengthened by Roosevelt.

Then, after Roosevelt was elected, but before he came to power,
Roosevelt sowed terror among the businessmen, threatening apocalyptic
Mugabe style government, which caused a tremendous crash in the period
between Roosevelt's November 1932 victory and his March 1933
inauguration, from which dreadful crash the economy never fully
recovered until it became apparent that Roosevelt was history.

The Hoover Roosevelt cartels are what today's economists call "wage
price stickiness", and Roosevelt's threats of a fascist economic order
are what today's economists call "regime uncertainty"

How is that the economy is growing, while fewer and fewer people are
employed?  How is it that fewer people are producing more stuff?

Well, in substantial part because the government is paying people to
destroy houses and cars.  (The cars are being crushed, the houses are
being abandoned.  After being abandoned for a certain period, they are
condemned.)

Because people are being paid to do this, it is treated in the figures
as production, even though it is not production, but destruction.

If I pay someone ten thousand dollars to produce a car for me, that
counts in the GDP figures as ten thousand dollars worth of GDP.  If
the government pays me twenty thousand dollars to destroy my house,
that *also* counts in the GPP figures as twenty thousand dollars worth
of GDP.  (Actually they don't pay individual homeowners, but rather
the bank that owns the underwater mortgage, but the ultimate effect is
the same)

And, by a convoluted process of adjustment, (hedonic adjustment) the
resulting increase in the cost of houses and cars is counted as a
decrease in the cost of houses and cars.  The cost of rent and cars is
counted as falling not because it is actually falling, but because our
cars and rental accommodations have supposedly been improved by
destroying stuff.

But the number employed is not keeping place with the rising
population, but rather is falling like a stone.

<http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/27000/Weak+Employment+Report>
: :	   The October employment report came in
: :	   weaker than expected as the country lost
: :	   190,000 jobs, rather than the 175,000
: :	   expectation. It was, however, an
: :	   improvement over the 219,000 lost in
: :	   September, but worse than the 154,000 jobs
: :	   lost in August.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Michael Coburn wrote

Thats only a small part of what drives the US economy, fool.

They get it out of the hands of fools like you that want to tax it off them, fuckwit.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no
one was ever stupid enough to get you to do anything
more challenging that drive a truck for a while and why
you ended up with fuck all in the way of assets.

Which is why the rich move it out of the country where it cant be taxed, fuckwit.

We have ALREADY seen them doing that with their money, fuckwit.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no
one was ever stupid enough to get you to do anything
more challenging that drive a truck for a while and why
you ended up with fuck all in the way of assets.


subject: Re: %10.2

text:
Anarcissie wrote

Its never the binary.

More fool you. Those arent anything even remotely resembling
anything like poor, and the rest arent anything like the rich either.

With fuck all money in most of them.

Hardly any have that anymore.

Most of those dont have much of that either.

But not enough to be affected by inflation much.

That group you listed mostly just spend most of their income and dont save much.

The only ones that save much are those who are buying the house they live in.

That is a lie, particularly when there is substantial inflation.

Just because no one considered you contributed enough to give a raise to...

Nope, they dont have much in the way of cash savings so wont be affected much.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Its actually the reasonably comfortably off that tend
to have substantial savings in a form that is penalised
by inflation and you have ignored them completely.

There is actually a hell of a lot more of them than the rich.

More fool you. Yes, its got some real problems with accurately
quantifying costs, but you wont be able to do any better yourself.

Utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

Hell of an assumption.

Thats all he can ever manage. Thats why he ended up driving trucks.

Nope.

Nope.

There is no ruling class.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Michael Coburn wrote

Corse it does if you move it to a currency that isnt being deliberately devalued, fool.

Or into gold etc.

His problem when its deliberately devalued.

Wrong when its moved to a currency that isnt devalued that way, or into gold etc.

No might about it, stupid.

There are plenty of govts that do that without deliberately devaluing its currency, stupid.

It is anyway, whether fools like you like it or not.

And if you move your wealth to Switzerland, that wont happen, fool.

I'm not stupid enough to have my assets in a country that is stupid enough to deliberately devalue them.

In fact they have appreciated very substantially against the USD without me
doing anything at all, and this country isnt stupid enough to try to tax it away
from the rich either, we dont even have death dutys or inheritance taxes either.

And we have a decent health care funding system that only uses HALF
the percentage of GDP that the US is stupid enough to piss against the
wall on insurance companys too. And delivers a better result on longevity
and years in good health as well.


author: Beam Me Up Scotty

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
*Anarcissie* wrote:

It means you are too stupid to understand economics.... otherwise you
would be a capitalist.  Socialism seeks mediocrity and is why it will
always fail.  Socialism wastes human initiative.

Socialism is for those that have yet to evolve a higher mind that
contains the human spark that seeks growth and initiative.

To make it short and sweet....  it's for lazy worthless parasites like you.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:44:18 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
<[email]> wrote:

The Household Survey.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/7/09 9:45 PM Phlip said the following:

Congress borrowed the the money.  But since the 1950's the acceleration
to a bureaucratic march to totalitarianism began.  The US is drowning in
regulations.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/7/09 9:47 PM Phlip said the following:

Phlip, we are talking about more than then just an employment hit.
Think about 30% unemployment.  They 'rich' label is a very broad stroke.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Phlip wrote

Nope, because it wont happen, you watch.

The bounce has been a hell of a lot more than tiny.

Who for some odd reason have noticed what actually
drives the economy and employment, even if you havent.

They'll just move their wealth outside the reach of the taxers.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09 wrote:

There are no woods, and no bears either.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Michael Coburn wrote

Nope.

Everyone can see that you are lying, as always.

Wrong, as always.

Wrong, as always. You convert it to gold or another
currency which isnt being fucked over, fuckwit.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one was ever
stupid enough to let you do anything more challenging than driving a
truck, and how you ended up with fuck all in the way of real assets.

<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

And you fucked up completely there, as always.

Not if you have enough of a clue to have have turned it into
gold or a currency that isnt being deliberately devalued.

Pity no one is stupid enough to try going that route,
essentially because its so trivial to avoid that sort of tax.

No one is actually stupid enough to go that route either.

Wrong, as always. They can turn it into gold or a
currency that aint being deliberately devalued, fuckwit.

Another lie. Just the facts, fuckwit.


text:
On 8 Nov 2009 07:54:51 GMT, Michael Coburn <[email]> wrote:

There was plenty of free financial capital, the problem was that
Roosevelt had terrorized it with revolutionary rhetoric, and that
there was nothing to invest in, because everything had been
cartelized, so a new business was not allowed to compete with existing
businesses.

Most new employment, unsurprisingly, comes from new businesses.
Hoover had made new businesses de-facto illegal, and Roosevelt
proceeded to make them de-jure illegal.  Thus, very little new
employment.

Which shows the economy going the hell in 1932-33, not 1929.

Which shows the economy hitting bottom AFTER Hoover's cartels, and
Roosevelt's menacing anti capitalist rhetoric.

Except that the sudden and amazing boom in productivity set in when
the government started massively intervening in the economy after
Lehman brothers.  Productivity went up on paper when it was perfectly
obvious that it was falling in reality.

Such massive intervention unavoidably distorts the measurement of
prices, production, consumption, productivity, by replacing voluntary
transactions with coerced transactions.  A voluntary transaction is
evidence of wealth created.  A coerced transaction is not.

Consider, for example "cash for clunkers".  The government is paying
people to destroy perfectly good cars, and this results in a
substantial rise in GDP.  To see that this is a distortion of
measurement, not a real rise, perform the following thought
experiment: what would happen if the government increased the program,
by offering to buy any car that could move under its own power at
thirty thousand dollars apiece, and sinking them in the ocean.  GDP
would rise, but the reality that GDP is supposed to measure, the
amount of stuff that people get, would diminish.

As an ultimate reductio ad absurdum of cash for clunkers, suppose that
in a farm support program, the government bought up all the food and
destroyed it.  GDP on paper would be higher, but everyone would
starve, proving that GDP was in reality considerably lower, because
people would have less stuff.

We don't want jobs.  We want what jobs produce.  Work is the price we
pay for stuff.  If you create jobs, but not wealth, it does not work.

If you cut the work week, less stuff would be produced, but this would
not automagically mean more people employed, because the people who
are unemployed do not have the same skill set, or live in the same
place, as the people employed.

For an extreme example, suppose that most of the excess unemployed are
real estate agents, mortgage brokers, New York financiers, people in
New York who produce services for New York financiers, Californian
home improvement builders, and everyone who lives in Detroit or New
Orleans.

Then cutting the work week for oil riggers in Alaska is not going to
improve matters.


author: Les Cargill

text:
Michael Coburn wrote:

Well, we're off the gold standard now at least. It's premature to cut
hours. We'll have the opportunity to do a fairly stable
experiment on that strategy, because Germany right now *has* cut
hours.

I think that picture makes his point perfectly. The uptick around
1937-38 happened only after many of Roosevelt's policies were
repealed or the Second World War came along. At least the best
interpretations of the "second dip" between '37 and '40 ( which was
short and shallow ) are that way.

So long as people *believed* Roosevelt was wrong, you could still have
that effect. And many did. Hoover knew how much fear would be
created by that level of munging the economy. Neither man was perfectly
right. But Roosevelt was much more effective at selling his version.

But wait - wages are roughly an "output parameter" of all the
various transfer functions ( as in H() operators )  that are
in play upstream of labor. Simply declaring subsidies may help,
but not if labor's "in a pole" of one of the transfer functions
upstream of it.

What's evinced since is that our Byzantine regime of subsidies
were generally proven to be more efficient than simply pumping
money at the bottom. But then we're constantly chasing our hat
adjusting them, and we miss a thing or two.

*The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act* added employment as
part of the Fed's problem. That's the principal *cause* of
us being boom-and-bust now.

<snip>

Might not work very well. Labor's become less interchangeable as
"quality" movements ( which usually result in being much more
customer-focused ) mean the learning curve for most jobs is
up quite a bit over what it was even just a few years ago.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Michael Coburn wrote

Irrelevant to what happens to the owner of that gold, fuckwit.

Thats THEIR problem, fuckwit.

Thats THEIR problem, fuckwit.

Nope.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Irrelevant to those with enough of a clue to move into
gold or a currency that isnt being deliberately devalued.

Irrelevant to those with enough of a clue to move into
gold or a currency that isnt being deliberately devalued.

Wota stunningly rational line argument you have there, fuckwit.

Everyone can see you face down in the mud, as always.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Michael Coburn wrote

No surprises there. You were warned about wanking yourself completely blind, you wouldnt listen...


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:23:51 -0600, "5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09"
<[email]> wrote:

And of course "cash for clunkers" and other stimulus waste - lots of
"jobs created" to do stuff that is pointless.

The theory is that these makework jobs would result in real jobs
thanks to the magic of the Keynsian multiplier.  So far, however, the
magical Keynsian multiplier looks to be about unity, and Keynsianism
is looking suspiciously like the fallacy of the broken window.

If you pay someone to destroy a car under "cash for clunkers", this
does indeed create a job in the car industry, just as paying people to
break windows would indeed create jobs in the glass industry - but an
artificially created job in the car industry does not have a
multiplier effect creating jobs in the skill sets and locations of
people who are presently unemployed.  Instead, it demands goods and
services that are already in short supply and getting shorter,
creating inflation and international trade deficits, not jobs.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/8/09 10:23 AM 5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09 said the following:

Funny Money fixes everything!  My god are people stupid.


author: Steve

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:23:51 -0600, "5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09"
<[email]> wrote:

I'm sure you are, Jamieson...


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09 wrote

Another bare faced lie.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

Thats the number that would like more hours than they currently are getting, not those who are unemployed.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Much of the increase in GDP came from stuff
like the cash for clunkers program which is real production of physical goods.

There are no woods, and no bears either.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Old Pif wrote:

I have to go all pragmatist on you here. Whatever works.

Platon's objection to the charging of interest was that
money is a symbol, and that charging interest reified
the symbol. He's wrong, but for surprising reasons.

Since credit money reduces the constraints on what people
can accomplish, there exists a path using credit money where
we are all better off. So to an extent, the *practical*
result is that objecting to credit money in the manner
Platon reacted is kind of reifying the symbol itself, once
you embrace a kind of empirical approach redolent of the Scottish
Enlightenment. The Medici might have "perfected" it, but we
have to go to the Scots to understand it.

But this places a much greater burden of wisdom on us,
as all powerful tools ultimately do. We're not even close to
making that wisdom the central theme of our use of it.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09 wrote

Those arent the bulk of your 17.5% over the real unemployment rate of 10.2%

Those aint unemployed, because they are EMPLOYED, fool.

Pity the bulk of that 17.5% you pig ignorantly waved around and
the real figure for the unemployed of 10.2% are EMPLOYED, fool.

Corse you are, fool.

You aint established that the bulk of the difference between your 17.5%
and the real 10.2% are getting less money than they need to survive, fool.

So you can change your underwear now.


text:
On 8 Nov 2009 19:21:46 GMT, Michael Coburn <[email]> wrote:

But the data that is being cataloged and presented is untrue, as you
acknowledge.

When we look at the unmassaged numbers, the numbers that are for the
most part *not* being cataloged and presented, except in the fine
print, they depict a catastrophe that the government and mainstream
media is frantically concealing.  For example the BLS household survey
indicates that employment is falling as six hundred thousand a month,
three times worse than the BLS official figures.

The remarkable scale of this catastrophe indicates that something very
bad has been happening SINCE LEHMAN BROTHERS.

So what has been happening SINCE LEHMAN BROTHERS.  Massive government
intervention in the economy has been happening - intervention very
similar in its motivation and effects to that of Hoover and Roosevelt.

It is the only data that is being cataloged and presented in the
mainstream media, but if you check the fine print, you will find
numbers far more alarming.

So unemployed mortgage brokers in New York are going to be hired to be
oil riggers in Alaska?  Does not seem very likely.  Particularly as
any business reorganization is apt to attract criminal penalties these
days.

Not only are unemployed New York Mortgage brokers unlikely to be able
to work alaskan oil rigs, but if someone should hire them do work the
rigs, he will probably wind up being charged with endangering polar
bears,  racial and sexual discrimination, hate crimes against women of
color, emitting CO2, will be required to meet all their medical costs
forever, and will be charged violating the accounting requirements of
Sarbannes Oxley - see "the Coyote Blog" for horror stories of what
happens whenever a businessman attempts to change anything that his
business is doing.

You need a permit to hire a forklift operator, and forklift operator
needs a permit to be hired.  Further, the unemployed guy probably
lives in Detroit, and the job that needs doing is in Alaska.  By and
large, for two or three employees you hire to do anything useful, you
are going to need another employee to do the government paperwork.
Further, if you want to train the guy to get the permit ... well as I
said, if you want to know why so many are unemployed, read "the Coyote
blog" for what people attempting to create jobs have to go through.

Creating jobs has been pretty much criminalized, much as it was during
the great depression.


author: John Galt

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
phil scott wrote:

375B, actually. Schumer had the 750 split into two chunks. The second
375B was deployed under Obama.

JG


text:
Michael Coburn wrote:

Nope, taxation is a trivial part of what determines who is rich.

Nope, the owners shift their wealth out of the country where the tax system cant touch it.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

No surprise that the best you ever managed was truck driver, for a while till you got the bums rush from that too.


text:
Michael Coburn wrote:

Because simply printing the money has bad effects, Micheal. The
former Yugoslavia, all those South American countries... when
somebody gets this *wrong*, it goes into a positive
feedback cycle and *governments fall*.

Maybe it can work, some time, some how. But it's highly
dangerous.

What is not Keynsian about this?

While that's an interesting hypothesis.... in the former Soviet Union,
there was an entire underground economy that ran purely on barter. I've
read estimates it was some multiple of the size of the official
economy. Not all currencies were government monopoly money.

but if we're not careful, that's what it will *be* - Monopoly
money.


text:
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09 wrote

Nope, because most of the tax havens dont depend on the US military budget for their continuing existence.

It doesnt defend the wealth of the rich right now.

It doesnt do that either.

Its currently involved in stopping the training camps that produced 9/11.


text:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:26:29 -0600, "5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09"
<[email]> wrote:

There's old Zepp referring to America as "we" again...   He keeps
forgetting that he's been barred from US citizenship.


text:
Michael Coburn wrote

The gold standard is completely irrelevant to why that approach works.

Irrelevant to what determines who is rich.

Just because some steaming turd claims something, doesnt make it gospel, stupid.

Mindlessly superficial.

<reams of mindlessly superficial silly shit that has absolutely
NOTHING to do which who is rich flushed where it belongs>

Fuck all of the rich are in that situation anymore.

Fuck all of the rich are rich because they own those.

The absolute vast bulk of those are owned by various funds etc.

NONE of the rich are rich because they own that stuff.

And the value of gold etc continues to hike in spades.

Wrong when we have enough of a clue to automate that production,
as we have done in spades with agriculture and mining etc etc etc.

Just another completely mindless pig ignorant steaming turd.

Like hell you did. You're so pathetically bitter and twisted that its always
been obvious that you got the bums rush and didnt retire voluntarily.

Thats what fools in a monks cell claim too.


text:
Michael Price wrote:
<snip>

Which is the greater constraint, the lack of money velocity or the
fear of establishing new production? Doesn't deflation *cause*
additional fear? Aren't we all monetarists, after all?
This is essentially Milton Friedman's stance on the Depression. If
Krugman and Freidman both believe this, why isn't it true? That's a
pretty broad spectrum.

I know this has to be ridiculous, but I'm suspending disbelief for a
moment for the sake of a thought experiment. And again - IMO - the
key would have been to raise real interest rates a half point or so
much earlier in the '90s boom to curve the bubble down a bit.

Deep down, I really do believe that the basis of this is something
like schadenfreude. Value is essentially based on suffering or
its lack. I don't like that, but there it is.


author: Mumia W.

text:
On 11/09/2009 08:50 PM, Michael Price wrote:

We Americans are debtors.

No, the problem is that not enough people have funny money produced
through flipping their investment homes, so people buy less, so
producers must produce less, which means they need fewer employees.

If the government spending causes people to buy (and it should if the
government doesn't spend it on the investment banks), then producers
will have to produce more to keep up with demand. More public-sector
jobs results in more private-sector jobs. That was the "secret" of the
Regan Revolution--Keynesian economic masked as a military buildup to
confront the Soviet Union.


text:
Michael Price wrote

We'll see...

That was a comment on that 'the market will right itself
rapidly, as it always has in the past' claim, stupid.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Pity you aint got a better one, partiticularly on when an economy is coming out of a recession.

Pig ignorant lie. They aint deteriorating at anything like the rate they were at one time.

Employment AWAYS lags recovery, stupid. Essentially because it takes
some time before employers decide that there has been a real recovery
and start employing again.

And that is what produced the significant increase in the GDP, just like it did during WW2
which even someone as stupid as you should have noticed ended the great depression.

Another pig ignorant lie.

Another pig ignorant lie.

No net value was created by WW2 either and the immense debt that was incurred at that time was repaid fine.


author: Anarcissie

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Michael Coburn <[email]> wrote:

It could be, of course, that there is no "better" -- as
in the case of a fellow with a really bad hangover, not
the kind where he's afraid he going to die, but the
kind where he's afraid he _isn't_ going to die.


text:
On 12 Nov 2009 16:05:49 GMT, Michael Coburn <[email]>
wrote:

Recall that the government, arguing the case for massive spending,
projected that if not for government spending, unemployment might
reach the horrifying level of 8%

The historical correlation is that while deficit funded tax cuts
create employment, deficit funded spending reduces employment.

Incentives matter.  Tax cuts increase incentive to create jobs,
government spending reduces incentive to create jobs - especially when
the government gets to decide winners and losers, as so frequently
happens, as happened this time.

Of course correlation is not causation.  It could be that the
government increases spending in expectation of rising unemployment,
but correlation is the way to bet.

Cut taxes, shut down and pack up.


text:
Michael Coburn wrote

That is a lie with Raygun's tax cuts.

Another lie, essentially because there are vastly more in the middle class than of the rich.

There isnt even any correlation, repeated or otherwise, he lied.

Wrong, as always.

Nope. It can be anticipated.

Wrong again.

Sometimes you can, most obviously when the growth is unusual
and nothing else the produces growth happened at the same time.

Pity it doesnt.

In fact it will hike unemployment dramatically, if only due to all those govt employees out of a job.


text:
James A. Donald wrote:

Michael Coburn

Consider the Reagan tax cuts.  "It is morning in America" said Reagan.
And it was.

Consider the Irish tax cuts.  Observe so many Irish who had fled
Ireland heading back to Ireland to participate in the resulting
prosperity.


text:
Michael Price wrote

Utterly mindless silly stuff.

Medicare and social security are a hell of a lot more than that.

Even more utterly mindless silly stuff.

Yes, but that doesnt always happen rapidly and you can end
up with massive downsides before the recovery happens too.

The long depression was called the long depression for a reason.

You're lying yourself.

Plenty of jobs were saved, most obviously with
cash for clunkers and the bailout of the banks.

Pity about the effect of that on jobs.

Wouldnt have happened with GM or the banks.

He said seems for a reason.

And you lied when you did.

And you lied there too.

His choice. You get to like that or lump it.


text:
Michael Coburn wrote

Nope, doesnt have a damned thing to do with that.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether tax cuts have
any effect on the BEHAVIOUR of those who dont pay tax.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether tax cuts have
any effect on the BEHAVIOUR of those who dont pay tax.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether tax cuts have
any effect on the BEHAVIOUR of those who dont pay tax.

Doesnt have a damned thing to do with the US Constitution,
thats what govt is about in any well organised country.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether tax cuts have
any effect on the BEHAVIOUR of those who dont pay tax.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether tax cuts have
any effect on the BEHAVIOUR of those who dont pay tax.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether tax cuts have
any effect on the BEHAVIOUR of those who dont pay tax.

Corse they do, but that is irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether
tax cuts have any effect on the BEHAVIOUR of those who dont pay tax.

Thats just plain wrong too. We have in fact seen ever since the
war EVERY modern first and second world country substantially
cut high marginal tax rates on the highest ordinary incomes.

Even those which had utterly bizarre income tax scales which
quite literally had real marginal income tax rates of OVER 100%,
where the more you earned the less money you ended up with.

Heavy breathing wont save your bacon.


text:
Michael Coburn wrote:

Also a relatively homogeneous country is very easy to appease with gov't
services. America is bigger and more diverse, so market competition _should_
work better here. If we have the balls to regulate it...


text:
Michael Coburn wrote

So do the americans.

Thats a pig ignorant lie. McWorkers consume fuck all in the way of health care.

McWorkers get fuck all in the way of pensions.

Yes, particularly unemployment benefits etc.

They also get paid a lot more than american McWorkers too.

Only in your pathetic little religious fundamentalist fantasyland.

Only in your pathetic little religious fundamentalist fantasyland.

Trouble is that its so easy for them to turn it into other than taxable income, stupid.

Only in your pathetic little religious fundamentalist fantasyland.

Yes, but that is an entirely separate matter to where its feasible to raise more taxes.

And until the GFC, it would have made a hell of a lot more sense to
not get involved in very expensive adventurism like invading Iraq which
didnt achieve a damne thing except to piss trillions against the wall.

You cant even manage 1% of a wit. Which is why the best you could
manage was to drive a truck for a while, till you got the bums rush, again.

Any ape/new immigrant can do that sort of work.


text:
Michael Coburn wrote:

Sure. But I know some Danes online, and they kinda bristle at
the whole thing. They're just prettty severely regulated in general;
they're pretty much expected to justify every thing they do.

I expect that was a swing and amiss, Mike ;) He probably makes
payroll.

Well, if we had not been presented with support for the idea
that high incomes mean return to the general good of most people,
I might argue with you. We took it that during the mean old
days, people were incented to hoard by deflation. Siotting
where I am now, I think it was the other way round.

That's my principal adjustment here - it used to be that with
great power came great responsibility, but we're just too feckless
for that now.

Well, given that essentially the subtext of Greenspan's mea culpa is
"what happened to the grownups?".... I see cultural factors as
much, much more culpable here. If all that is valued is youth, then
you won't get a lot of grownups.


text:
Michael Coburn wrote

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

No surprise that the best you ever managed is driving a truck for a while till you got the bums rush from that too.


text:
Michael Coburn wrote

Nothing supposed about it, it was real.

We're discussing jobs, not prosperity.

You cant ignore the tax cuts.

Like hell it did. Stagflation happened right thruout the entire first
and second world at that time, so it cant have been the fed.

And you cant ignore the effect that the oil price had either.

Your original claim about Raygun's tax cuts is just plain wrong.

And you are now saying that it was wrong yourself.

Like hell it is when considering where the bulk of the tax revenue came from.

When there are vastly more of the middle class, they dont get impoverished
by the tax raised, because there are so many more of them than the much
smaller group, the rich, that certainly did see substantial tax cuts.

Irrelevant to that stupid claim about the middle class being impoverished.

If it really was, it wouldnt have been able to buy all those McMansions, stupid.

Never said it did.

Another lie.

Another lie. Interest rates do.

Its never been tried.

Another lie.

Completely wrong, cretin.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist pig ignorant fuckwit truckers ?

Wrong, as always.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Completely wrong, cretin.

Irrelevant to that stupid pig ignorant claim you made.

Irrelevant to that stupid pig ignorant claim you just made.

Irrelevant to that stupid pig ignorant claim you just made.

Irrelevant to that stupid pig ignorant claim you just made.

Irrelevant to that stupid pig ignorant claim you just made.

Like hell it does.

The word SOMETIMES was used for a reason, fuckwit.

The word SOMETIMES was used for a reason, fuckwit.

Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, fuckwit.


subject: Re: Galt gets ONE thing right

text:
Michael Coburn wrote:

But this has the effect of "pulling the ladder up after you've climbed
it." Housing stocks are a cost item, not an investment, naturally. And
we're seeing that stock rather severely repriced right now.


subject: Re: Galt gets ONE thing right

text:
Michael Coburn wrote:

That last is pure fantasy. They wouldnt have been able to afford the McMansions if it was true.

Nope, just the fed and interest rates.

Even sillier.

Like hell they were. Fuck all of the middle class have anything to do with unions, just the teachers.


text:
Michael Coburn wrote

Yes, but there was a real estate boom anyway.

Just not a dramatic bubble like happened after he was gone.

Wrong, as always.

Nope, because its so easy for the rich to avoid.

That last is just plain wrong, nothing to stop that.

Nope, that wasnt the tax cuts, it was much more the interest rates that did that.

Doesnt say a damned thing about what caused it.

What I said.

Doesnt say a damned thing about what caused it.


text:
Anarcissie wrote

Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.


subject: Re: Galt gets ONE thing right

text:
Michael Coburn wrote

Corse it does, it makes a hell of a lot harder for others to do it too later.

Like hell they didnt.

That just made it better for speculative purposes, it was never prevented.

The S&L fiasco would have happened anyway.

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant trucker fantasys.


text:
James A. Donald wrote

Like hell it ever did after 1929

Its not even a technical recession anymore.


author: hal

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 13:15:18 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<[email]> wrote:

we ain't done yet.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/7/09 3:31 PM James A. Donald said the following:

Many are predicting a run on money funds.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

You'll have egg all over your pathetic little face, as always.

It wont, you watch.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
--
James A. Donald wrote:

Michael Coburn <[email]> wrote:

Firstly that Soros, Goldman and Sach remain rich, rather
than suddenly becoming stony broke.

Secondly, to keep UAW in business.

Thirdly, to avoid a big embarrassing confrontation with
the bankers over affirmative action lending

Those are the intended consequences.  The unintended
consequences are the collapse of the American economy
and massive unemployment.

You have a government that agrees with you 100%.  How is
that working out for you?

Roosevelt was disaster.  Obama is a disaster.  See a
pattern?


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.

And it aint even the Congress that produced the GFC, you silly little pathological liar.

You can keep chanting that bare faced lie till the cows come home, changes nothing.

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.

The default rate on CRA loans was no higher than
on non CRA loans until the fuckwit clowns completely
imploded the entire world financial system, again.

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.

The default rate on CRA loans was no higher than
on non CRA loans until the fuckwit clowns completely
imploded the entire world financial system, again.

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.

The default rate on CRA loans was no higher than
on non CRA loans until the fuckwit clowns completely
imploded the entire world financial system, again.

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.

There were never enough CRA loans written to completely implode the entire world financial system.

Even if they had ALL defaulted, and the default rate
on CRA loans was no higher than on non CRA loans
until the fuckwit clowns completely imploded the
entire world financial system, again, the worst
that could have produced is higher costs for
non CRA loans, you silly little pathological liar.


text:
James A. Donald wrote:

Indeed.

It isnt that much fewer, that only changed by 6%

By firing the least productive and putting one hell of a bomb under
those who have not yet been fired to be more productive, and
by having quite a few who were working reduced hours working
fulltime again and producing much more because they are.

They did that in spades in WW2, fuckwit. And lives as well.

Have a look at what happened to Hiroshima, Nagasaki,
Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin etc etc etc sometime.

The replacements are still part of the GDP, fool.

True in spades of WW2, you pig ignorant clown.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist rabid racist fuckwits ?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

They dont do that either, fool.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Not only is it keeping pace with
the increased population over the long haul, ITS ALSO KEEPING PACE
WITH THE MASSIVE LEGAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AS WELL.

Another bare faced lie.

Doesnt say anything even remotely resembling anything like your bare faced lies.

Doesnt say anything even remotely resembling anything like your bare faced lies.


text:
James A. Donald wrote:
<snip>

Roughly, productivity gains ( in addition to the other
factors you bring up). Production is less and less
dependent on labor natively. We get lots of
cognitive dissonance from the relatively-Marxians
here because they axiomatize production being
more dependent on labor.

much of productivity gains come from relentlessly
pursuing cheap at all cost, and there's frequently a
decline in real quality in favor of faux economy of
production.

GDP is a flow, and the flow is up pretty much by the amount
of stimulus. That's the point of the stimulus, to create a
(false) impression of growth, to bootstrap hopefully real
growth.

That's just Schumpeter. It's less of a concern when it's houses and
cars and more of a concern when it's applied to productive
capacity and no real replacement ensues. That goes directly to
employment stats.

The natural "labor anorexia" of the economy was deferred by the 2003
era tax and spend regime, to solve in the short term problem by
inflating the value of housing. So there really was oversupply - I
saw home builders shutting down as early as 2005.

It's congruent with ag policy prior to Earl Butts. Butts renormalized
how ag subsidy works.

Something like that. Although I am wholly skeptical that an increase in
the cost of housing and cars will be seen. People are saving, and that's
not all just deferring the purchase of big screen TVs.

It is on a local ( over time ) basis. we're all wating to see if it
recovers, and when.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

Cant fly.

Its only a small part of the costs that matter, fool.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/8/09 12:13 AM Rod Speed said the following:

No, just elites ruining the economy, as always.  The US Constitution has
been corrupted.


text:
James A. Donald wrote

Another bare faced lie.

Another bare faced lie.

Another bare faced lie. Particularly in a recession and depression, much
new employment comes from existing businesses employing more people.

Another bare faced lie.

Another bare faced lie.

Pity about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
you silly little pathological liar.

Another bare faced lie.

But blows a fucking great hole in your bare faced lie that GDP never
fully recovered until it became apparent that Roosevelt was history.

It in fact fully recovered LONG before that, you silly little pathological liar.

Rhetoric changes nothing, fool.

Another bare faced lie. It happened much later than that.

You wouldnt know what reality was with GDP if it bit you on your lard arse.

They aint coerced, they're encouraged, fool.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

And that happened in spades in WW2, fool.

Corse its a real rise in GDP, fool.

That aint a though experiment, thats you desperately pig ignorantly wanking, as always.

Not very different to a world war, fool. The GDP increases
dramatically and thats a real increase in GDP, fool.

That last isnt GDP, fool.

Its STILL part of the GDP, fool.

And in reality it would be higher too, fool.

The amount of stuff people have aint GDP, you pig ignorant clown.

Wrong, as always.

No those that want a job so they can pay off the mortgage, fool.

Its a hell of a lot more than just that.

Wrong, as always. A lack of jobs is what a recession is about, fool.

If you increase the number of jobs enough, you've got out of recession, fool.

But there would be less unemployed, fool.

the people who are unemployed do not have the same skill set,

You dont know that either with a doubled unemployment rate due to a recession.

You dont know that either with a doubled unemployment rate due to a recession.

Pathetic wank, actually.

That never happens in the real world, fool.

You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, fool.


text:
Les Cargill wrote

And France tried it previously and it just plain doesnt work.

Essentially because there is no way to enforce the hours worked.

And plenty of modern first world countrys allow job sharing,
mostly for married women who dont want to work full time.

That does work for the individual but makes no difference to the unemployment rate.

Thats very arguable when so much of the basics are automated, most
obviously with call centers where what is being flogged is completely
irrelevant, all the labor needs to be able to do is read the screen etc.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

WW2 did that in spades and got the economy out of the great depression fine.

This time around we can avoid the massive piles of corpses.

We miss out on the movies tho.

And that is precisely what happened with WW2.

Only to pig ignorant fools like you.

And avoids more layoffs in that industry too.

Doesnt need to when so many of them already have the skills needed to make cars etc.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/8/09 2:53 PM James A. Donald said the following:

there are only so many sidewalks that can be ripped up and rebuilt.
Once that ends those jobs go away.  In the meantime the government
spending is reducing private spending by biz and persons.  When does
consuming spending increase when tax rates are increasing, both explicit
and implicit?  Like Obama wanting to increase employment but then he
increase the employment tax.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09 wrote

"Rod Speed"

Government statistics show fewer people in the category of working
*or* *looking* *for* *work* - but this is obviously a lie.

If one considers that the population has increased, and the number of
people employed has decreased, and estimates from this the number of
unemployed, one gets an estimate of about 17.5% unemployment.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/8/09 11:39 AM Rod Speed said the following:

U-6 is the number the US used for unemployment before FDR massaged the
numbers to makes things look better.  Just like the FED not publishing
M3 anymore.  It is a lie folks?  Always dig into numbers to find the
micro numbers.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
"Rod Speed"

People auditing the BLS data find that it is basically
fraudulent:

<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/11/frank-veneroso-employment-losses-probably-continue-at-a-300000-a-month-rate.html>

: :	1. According to BLS, payrolls fell at a
: :	188,000 a month rate over the last three
: :	months. But their own household survey says
: :	employment fell at a 589,000 a month rate.
: :
: : 	2. Why the discrepancy?

Well, to simplify the rather complicated story, told by
Veneroso Associates’ US Economy October Employment
Report, the BLS finds the actual data too horrifying,
and is "adjusting" its results by assuming that anything
it has not directly observed is going along just fine
completely unchanged by the crisis, and adds a note in
the fine print that says, in effect, that they know
their official numbers are complete baloney, but the
calculation is done in accordance with all the official
rules, which implies that if the rules can be gamed to
manufacture a politically correct result, that is just
fine.

This crisis is being blamed on "capitalism" but it is
striking that, as in the great depression, the
employment losses set in when the government set to work
dismantling capitalism to protect the established rich
and politically connected unions.

"Too big to fail" is having pretty much the same effect
as the Hoover/Roosevelt union and employer cartels. Even
though the details differ, the details evidently do not
matter much.  The law of unintended consequences
applies.

In both cases, markets revealed that value produced was
less than had been thought.  The government intervened
in markets to falsify this bad news, to make markets
present a prettier picture, thus disrupting the various
feedback processes that relate production to what people
want produced - with the result that less of what people
want is produced.


text:
James A. Donald wrote

Easy to claim. How odd that you cant actually substantiate that claim.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

So all you are doing is cherry picking the data that suits your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

And WW2 was that in spades, fool, and fixed the great depression fine.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

Nope, some of the unemployed bankers are employed to do some of
the work that bankers who work less hours dont do anymore, fuckwit.

More of your pathological lying.

They dont need to, fuckwit. They banking work again, filling in for the
other employed bankers that are forced to work less hours, fuckwit.

<reams of your pathetic little drug crazed psychotic fantasys flushed where they belong>

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel, fuckwit.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed psychotic pathological liar fantasyland.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed psychotic pathological liar fantasyland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg


text:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:12:08 -0500, Les Cargill

So Keynesians tell us, and it pleases politicians and
bureaucrats to hear this, but the empirical evidence is
lacking.

Extremely rapid deflation, like extremely rapid
inflation, is painful and disruptive, and according to
Milton Friedman in 1930 October the Fed caused extremely
rapid deflation.  One percent annualized deflation
however is not disruptive, not a problem, in fact it is
pretty good.


text:
Mumia W. wrote:

The reason for the reduced demand isnt because some dont have money
from flipping houses, its because they are worried about how long they will
have their current job for, and so avoid some of their discretionary spending.

And it clearly worked with cash for clunkers, and isnt saveable instead.

And that is precisely what happened with cash for clunkers, altho quite
a bit of that was more just reducing the stockpile of unsold cars.

They dont even have to be public sector jobs.

Nope, that fired lots of public sector jobs.

That didnt involve that many public sector jobs.