Second Giant Ice Island Break Off Greenland Glacier

Hamish Campbell said:
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for an economic policy discussion to enter the realm of facts." - Mathew 19:24
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, the "eye of a needle" as quoted is not in fact the eye of a needle as we know it - he isn't saying it is impossible. The eye of the needle as referenced is an after-hours gate, that was very small - camels would have to be on their knees to even get through it.

YesPlz said:
Source?

From the reading of Keynes that I have done (which is less extensive than my reading of the Austrian school), frugality and saving were portrayed as immoral. It was all about spending (individual and government).
Click to expand...

Sorry you're correct, my wording wasn't proper. Rather than savings, in boom times government should either be cutting its spending or raising taxes - not deficit spending. Again, counter-cyclical, not constant spending by government.

I'm not a die-hard Keynsian by any means; I think it has it's utility, particularly in recessions. I also think the Austrian business cycle and their thoughts on the quantity of money have merit as well.

Our current problem with stimulus is that we've been spending like drunken fools for the past 40 years - with a debt as large as ours already is, it becomes ineffective. If the government truly had been a counter-cyclical force and hadn't run up such a huge debt, I think stimulus spending would have been much more effective.

And also, TARP, which is so hated by conservatives as a failure, was something like 45%-48% tax cuts. So there has to be some cognitive dissonance there to say it was a complete failure.
 
YesPlz said:
Source?

From the reading of Keynes that I have done (which is less extensive than my reading of the Austrian school), frugality and saving were portrayed as immoral. It was all about spending (individual and government).
Click to expand...

That is the first part of Keynesian economics. The government hands out large sums of money to the poor, that they have attained through taxes and borrowing, in hopes that people will reinvest in the economy. It's flawed logic because in a failing economy, consumer buying power is at an all time low because of the recession so any money a person does get will be saved. People spend money when the economy is good because consumer buying power is higher. I have yet to see a retort to Keynesian economics bringing the United States out of deep recession or depression. However, people will yell from the mountaintops and swear by how it's saved us many times without any factual evidence. History does in fact repeat itself and it's the 1930's all over again. The US Government has injected billions upon billions of dollars into the economy and we haven't seen any growth. Employment not going past 8%? We blew right through that and hover around 10% for the past year and a half. It's ludicrous to think more government intervention (another 450 billion in stimulus) is the solution when they should keep out of it and let the market repair itself.
 
Goddamnit, I just need to stop. Not TARP, ARRA. Sorry, too many acronyms. TARP is...a whole other story. I would have rather have seen the big banks wound down in an organized fashion rather than be bailed out unconditionally (and continuously, even today).

And in a recession, consumer buying power it as at an all time low? Are you talking about at the micro or macro level? A recession is naturally deflationary, which increases buying power, but more people will be out of work or wages will be suppresed, so overall spending will decrease. Also, if someone is out of a job, they aren't saving money - they're spending it on essentials such as rent, food, transportation.

Further in regards to stimulus, with the states frantically cutting spending and jobs, the net effect of the stimulus was more to just hold the current level - there was not a net influx of new money into the economy when you factor in state and federal government. The main real stimulus that has been occurring has been monetary - however I do have a big problem with this, as the delivery system for monetary stimulus is through the banks, who end up hanging on to most/all of it. Further, the big problem is that Americans are in overwhelming debt - until that is paid off sufficiently we won't see any traction in our recovery. Unfortunately it appears the Fed and the administration are trying to recreate the unsustainable environment of 2006/7 all over again.
 
Maverick1337 said:
In 1920, after the onset of World War I, the United States experienced a depression that can be argued more severe than the so-called "Great Depression." We experienced a hyperinflation rate of over 20% and the federal debt exploded because of all the wartime expenditures. The unemployment rate peaked to 12% and in an act to control it, the federal government cut spending by 65% in its first year. From $18.4 billion down to $6 billion. For the next two years it kept cutting federal spending down to $3.3 billion. After the first year of spending cuts, the unemployment rate dropped to 6.7% and then by 1923 dropped to 2.4%. The exact OPPOSITE of what "experts" say the government should do. Does anyone know what followed the depression of 1920-21? The roaring '20's.

Now you stated earlier about getting out of the depression with Keynesian economics. After the "Great Depression" of the late 20's everything bottomed out.
Click to expand...
You have a twisted view of what occurred. The "roaring 20's" as you called them were fueled by enormous tax cuts and government in bed with big business. Rampant speculation on the market created a bubble that led to the crash in '29.

You're castigating my choice of a readily acceptable internet source (that cites its sources if you follow the endnotes) without providing any of your own? You claim I cite a portion of an article to buttress my point, yet you selectively argue about a "boom" period of about 6-7 years to say that your position on economic policies is healthy?

If you're itching for a fight over this, there isn't much one can retort to in your posts because you're taking a few years out of each decade and ignoring the rest of what occurred.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Goddamnit, I just need to stop. Not TARP, ARRA. Sorry, too many acronyms. TARP is...a whole other story. I would have rather have seen the big banks wound down in an organized fashion rather than be bailed out unconditionally (and continuously, even today).

And in a recession, consumer buying power it as at an all time low? Are you talking about at the micro or macro level? A recession is naturally deflationary, which increases buying power, but more people will be out of work or wages will be suppresed, so overall spending will decrease. Also, if someone is out of a job, they aren't saving money - they're spending it on essentials such as rent, food, transportation.

Further in regards to stimulus, with the states frantically cutting spending and jobs, the net effect of the stimulus was more to just hold the current level - there was not a net influx of new money into the economy when you factor in state and federal government. The main real stimulus that has been occurring has been monetary - however I do have a big problem with this, as the delivery system for monetary stimulus is through the banks, who end up hanging on to most/all of it. Further, the big problem is that Americans are in overwhelming debt - until that is paid off sufficiently we won't see any traction in our recovery. Unfortunately it appears the Fed and the administration are trying to recreate the unsustainable environment of 2006/7 all over again.
Click to expand...

You definitely can have a recession and inflation at the same time... It's called stagflation. This is exactly what we're and have experienced since July of '09. It's terrible because we are in a terrible recession, high unemployment, and the inflation rate is hover around 4%. It's a double threat because there is a high number of unemployment, which means less people being able to buy products, and prices are still increasing (less buying power).
 
mope54 said:
You have a twisted view of what occurred. The "roaring 20's" as you called them were fueled by enormous tax cuts and government in bed with big business. Rampant speculation on the market created a bubble that led to the crash in '29.

You're castigating my choice of a readily acceptable internet source (that cites its sources if you follow the endnotes) without providing any of your own? You claim I cite a portion of an article to buttress my point, yet you selectively argue about a "boom" period of about 6-7 years to say that your position on economic policies is healthy?

If you're itching for a fight over this, there isn't much one can retort to in your posts because you're taking a few years out of each decade and ignoring the rest of what occurred.
Click to expand...

I didn't know I had to cite information that I already knew? Anyways, it's pretty simple because you just further proved my point. I'm not arguing what caused the Great Depression because that's not the argument. The argument is what got us OUT of the Great Depression. A 65% decrease in government spending and we got our of a terrible recession in a year, which then lead to the roaring '20s. The bubble that caused the "Great Depression" has nothing to do with the acts that removed us from the 1920-21 recession. Once the "Great Depression" hit, we resorted to Keynesian economics and that prolonged the depression until World War II. When manufacturing ramped up because of the war, what do you know we got out of the Great Depression. Am I not being clear about this? I am just stating facts about what happened in history. I am exclaiming points in history where Keynesian economics have failed and where supply-side economics has flourished.

I still have yet to see someone state a moment in history where massive government injection of money into the economy has pulled the United States out of a recession.
 
Maverick1337 said:
You definitely can have a recession and inflation at the same time... It's called stagflation. This is exactly what we're and have experienced since July of '09. It's terrible because we are in a terrible recession, high unemployment, and the inflation rate is hover around 4%. It's a double threat because there is a high number of unemployment, which means less people being able to buy products, and prices are still increasing (less buying power).
Click to expand...

Yes, it can happen. But it isn't the norm. And today, stagflation? Seriously? Inflation since July of '09 has averaged 1.69%, BELOW the Fed target of 2%.
 
Maverick1337 said:
When manufacturing ramped up because of the war, what do you know we got out of the Great Depression. Am I not being clear about this? I am just stating facts about what happened in history. I am exclaiming points in history where Keynesian economics have failed and where supply-side economics has flourished.

I still have yet to see someone state a moment in history where massive government injection of money into the economy has pulled the United States out of a recession.
Click to expand...

Look man, you can lead a horse to water...

Why did manufacturing ramp up? Because of massive government deficit spending. By your own admission, right there, Keynesian economics work.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Yes, it can happen. But it isn't the norm. And today, stagflation? Seriously? Inflation since July of '09 has averaged 1.69%, BELOW the Fed target of 2%.
Click to expand...

I hope you're looking at the data that I am because in the worst economic times inflation increased 5.5% from July '09 to Jan '10. The point is, prices shouldn't be increasing in a recession because that will prolong it. Is it coincidence that prices increased sharply after $750 billion stimulus was passed? Of course not because there is more money available and the assumption is people will spend it. Well most Americans didn't get anything from the stimulus directly, which is why we're in a period of stagflation. Businesses got heavily taxed, which hinders economic growth, and with the more money thrown into the market, prices of course increased... a la Stagflation.
 
Per the official CPI, not the table I threw together an average for, 12 month inflation is 3.6%. And quite a bit of that comes from energy - less food and energy, closesly linked, inflation was only 1.8%.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1107.pdf

That is far, FAR from stagflation. Even 5.6% is. Businesses most certainly aren't heavily taxed - they are at their highest profit levels in 60 years and are sitting on historic levels of cash reserves. And for the vast majority of American consumers, their main problem is too much debt - which inflation actually helps. (Well, it would if labor had any power and wages actually were adjusted...)

But anyway, I've got to end here, because you really have no idea what you're talking about and are just making numbers up. For ALL of 2009, inflation was -0.4. We actually experienced deflation for the total of 2009.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid09av.pdf
 
TwistedAegis said:
Per the official CPI, not the table I threw together an average for, 12 month inflation is 3.6%. And quite a bit of that comes from energy - less food and energy, closesly linked, inflation was only 1.8%.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1107.pdf

That is far, FAR from stagflation. Even 5.6% is. Businesses most certainly aren't heavily taxed - they are at their highest profit levels in 60 years and are sitting on historic levels of cash reserves. And for the vast majority of American consumers, their main problem is too much debt - which inflation actually helps. (Well, it would if labor had any power and wages actually were adjusted...)

But anyway, I've got to end here, because you really have no idea what you're talking about and are just making numbers up. For ALL of 2009, inflation was -0.4. We actually experienced deflation for the total of 2009.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid09av.pdf
Click to expand...

I thought the .gov ignored the energy and food inflation per new "standards" of measuring infltion. Guess I was wrong.
 
mope54 said:
I'm not sure if you bother reading the articles you post or whether you pay attention to what the rest of the world is doing or what, but the article is pretty clear the that the failure of Solyndra wasn't because of consequences of "going green." It's because the US seems to be in the dark ages when it comes to the rest of the world in terms of alternative energy.

We're lagging behind every industrialized country in terms of shifting our power and spending tons of money to catch up will kill any industry. Why buy from the US when someone can manufacture for pennies on the dollar in China (like every other manufacturing sector)?



The rest of the countries don't need our panels and China is subsidizing their manufacturing whereas we've got no one with enough purchasing power to keep our companies afloat and boneheads refusing to support funding alternative energy production...and when those companies unsurprisingly fail it's somehow touted as a failure of the technology? You have a strange type of logic, to say the least.
Click to expand...

I don't think YOU know how to read. They didn't go under because of "us being in the dark ages when it comes to the rest of the world in terms of alternative energy". The dopes tried to market a panel design that cost TWICE the price per watt as existing panels. DOPES. Only the feds would loan money to a doomed non-marketable idea just because it's a "green" company. But hey......they were good press in the beginning right? So much for their model for government investment in green technology. :rolleyes:
 
the snake said:
hey, fuck you, you calling me dumb, you don't even know me :mad:
Click to expand...

Don't be so quick. Read what he read carefully. "Climate deniers..." I agree, people who deny that there is climate in the world is ludicrous. There are a lot of examples of climate. Cold, warm, really cold, really hot, etc. If you deny there is climate than you sir need to go outside more often.
 
Ah the infamous political thread every board seems to have.

Just to throw my opinion in:

I believe we are seeing some sort of global warming, but whether it is caused (or aggravated by humans) it is too early to tell. History has shown there is long term trends.
(One being the "little ice age" between 1550 AD and 1850 AD )

One thing I do know, this whole "carbon credit" is a bunch of bullshit. If world leadership thinks we need to reduce our "carbon footprint" then _everyone_ needs to reduce carbon emissions. It doesn't do a damn bit of good for the western world to reduce our emissions if Russia, China, India dramatically increase ours.

Good night
 
Monkey34 said:
I don't think YOU know how to read. They didn't go under because of "us being in the dark ages when it comes to the rest of the world in terms of alternative energy". The dopes tried to market a panel design that cost TWICE the price per watt as existing panels. DOPES. Only the feds would loan money to a doomed non-marketable idea just because it's a "green" company. But hey......they were good press in the beginning right? So much for their model for government investment in green technology. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is all right in the article you guys are railing about:
Solyndra’s design avoids the use of silicon, a commodity that was selling at very high prices in 2009 when the loan guarantee was approved but that has crashed since then.
Click to expand...
They designed an efficient technology that isn't necessary currently because the price of silicon fell through the floor.

I'd be surprised to find that you even know the current price per watt of a solar panel.
Apparently your attention span can't hold past the first paragraph of the article you want to cling to in order to support your point. Try reading the entire article before accusing me of not being able to read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top