Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Honest question about the Greek debt situation: If Greece defaults, how is it any worse off? How would a default change what everyone already knows about their financial situation? On the loans that we already made, Greece already has the money; it's the (German) banks who either will or will not get paid.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Eye candy caddies all wear golf shirts? I was expecting at least bikinis. and how was the link nsfw? i feel like I'm missing something.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I didn't say Not Safe for Work. I said Not Safe for Adder. It's Different.

FB x-post!
 

Philippines acts on MILF infighting.

Soylent Green is people!
 

So if corporations are people, too, I want to know what Romney thinks of that company his old Bain colleage formed, used to give a quick contribution, and dissolved?

Seems like abortion to me.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

It gets kicked out of the Euro? I don't really know, and tend to think you are right that it is not.

Re: FB x-post!
 

That's an interesting article, but if you google "Filipina MILF" you get a bunch of sites that do not provide helpful background.

Re: FB x-post!
 

Glad you found it interesting, but I was really just all about the MILF joke.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Apropos of the exchange about structural employment, the reason why some people (apparently including Adder and myself) react so strongly to the suggestion that we are currently experiencing especially high structural employment is that people who advocate government (Fed) passivity in the face of the current crisis explain things that way. It's a loaded term. In that context, now see Rortybomb crucify the thinking of leading structural-employment-positer Narayana Kocherlakota of the Minneapolis Fed, who dissented from the Fed's decision to do almost nothing this week. I think there's very little congruence between Kocherlakota's views and Sebby's or Less's, FWIW. (Also of note is that productivity has been increasing, which makes it implausible to suggest that the current situation is due to our suddenly losing lots of jobs overseas.)

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

The British banks got a security interest in all of Greece's claims for the Elgin marbles.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Um, how do you think it will effect its ability to sell additional debt?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Let them try to pay 14 months salary to their shiftless employees from whom they collect no taxes. i.e. why does Germany care to bail them out? Let them go Lehman, not Chrysler.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

That's my question: Knowing what you know about Greece's finances, why would you buy Greek debt? Would a default on past debt really change anything?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Because it's having a lot of success doing that now?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I guess because you think Germany is going to bail them out, and you can buy it really, really cheap right now.

If I had the kind of money to take a flyer on an investment, I might put some small portion of my holdings in Greek debt right now.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

RT - I blame you (by proximity) for Rick Perry. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_924262.html

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Take the New Yorker news quiz.

10/12!

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Tripped up by having never heard of the Dougherty Gang. 11/12

Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 

It absolutely does lead to inflation. Not across the board, but it's obvious it does lead to higher energy costs, which in turn impede growth. I think many believe we can export inflation elsewhere and it will never come back. Wrong. Raise gas prices in China, and inevitably, they'll rise here. And this is particularly pernicious when the one area we need to inflate - housing - remains resistant.

I have absolutely argued that selective inflation has been crushing consumers for some time. You and I had a protracted argument about it in the context of a discussion on how core inflation is computed just a few months ago.

And I know the "as long as unemployment stays high, we'll never see inflation, so borrow and spend all day" school quite well. Who doesn't? If that's revelatory, or what I don't get, you've a lower opinion of me than I thought. Somewhere just north of mentally challenged.

Three things. One, you wish people were saving. The deleveraging we're seeing is defaulting. Two, how do we get more dollars to people? Govt spending or banks. The latter doesn't work. It's not loaned domestically (the story that businesses don't want any is propaganda... Dodd/Frank, continuing mortgage losses, and a general lack of creditwortiness among borrowers impede credit expansion). All the money the banks borrow goes to speculation - most of it abroad. The former has delivered some results, but now here's the problem with stimulus, and easing: The economy has quickly become addicted to them. When they stop, it contracts. And in the interim, little real growth is created. Most of the growth is on the financial side. Nobody gets hired, no concrete, job-creating operations are expanded because nobody wants to take on additional overhead. And worse, easing fuels consolidation. It creates TBTF entities, stifles competition and causes job losses.

That's true, but as you can see, that's not all I've said.

I don't think structural unemployment, or deleveraging-related unemployment is a condition about which we should do nothing. My position is exactly the opposite. A cyclical thing should be minimally managed. A contraction like the one we're enduring should be aggressively attacked. Hence, my support for a WPA program. Yeah, it's uncreative. But it's needed, and it seems a win/win to me. Small wins, yes, but we should take what we can get.


I get it. You're in the tower with the eggheads. I write about this shit differently because I don't see it much differently than I see running a business. Perhaps I've been exposed to too many Youtube videos about Mandlebrot, but I see a single transaction as a microcosm of the act of running a business, and the running of a business a microcosm of the management of an economy. They're all just expanding, more complex versions of the same essential transactional behaviors. The only unique factor that makes the US economy different than any business is the fact that it can print its own money. This seemingly makes it immune to the collapse a business would endure if it borrowed endlessly. But I use seemingly because both history and common sense dictate that nothing can borrow indefinitely, particularly where that borrowing and spending is the only thing keeping its anemic economy alive.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

He's too stupid to win, which kind of sucks. I hate the guy, but he's the only real chance against Obama. And we need Obama gone. Because although it's not fair, or warranted (perhaps), it seems more apparent to me every day that US corporations are simply waiting out Obama.

Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 

Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 

Why? What is the evidence you have considered in coming to this belief?

Yes, this is you arguing against the facts on the ground. What I want to know is why you believe fiscal and monetary stimulus cause inflation at the zero lower bound. I want to know what theory you have that contradicts what the economists say. I want to know what mechanism you have in mind in your belief that excessive inflation is inevitable.

I've not seen that from you (or really anyone else) and instead you try to find ways to make things that aren't inflation (like wage stagnation and volatile non-core prices) into rising price levels.

That's not what I said. Try to actually engage with what I am saying for once, instead of spewing your standard rant.

This is a load of silly defeatism and excuse making.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about household saving, but you can look that up for yourself.

As to whether banks will lend, it is no argument against monetary policies that are meant to provide greater incentives to lending (e.g., no or reduced interest on excess reserves, moderate inflation) to say that they are not lending now. That's the point.


Seriously? When did you become anti-intellectual, Ms. Palin? It's flabbergasting to me that you have started worshiping stupidity and intentional ignorance.

They really aren't. Macroeconomics isn't just a bigger version of microeconomics.

And influence interest rates. But yes, that is a major, and fundamental, difference. It comes with whole lot of complications.

Really?? Guess what borrows indefinitely? Every major multinational corporation.

Actually, not borrowing, and consequently significantly scaling back government employment at the state and local level, is a big part of what's holding the economy back.

ETA: Sorry, but I have to go back to this bit:
We've had this conversation before, and I've asked you how you think higher gas prices in China are the result of Fed easing, to which you've never responded (which is why I asked you again above). But there is also a common, but fundamental misunderstanding here too (which we've also discussed before). Higher prices for something (e.g., gas) are not "inflation." They are price variations.

You seem to recognize that here, but apparently believe that higher prices for some things (e.g., gas) will inevitably lead to higher prices for other things. Why? Do you think higher gas (or just oil) prices in China will mean higher manufacturing costs for products produced in China, which will then lead to higher prices for those goods? And if that's what you have in mind, why is the price for those goods unconstrained by demand?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

You really have the strangest, most mismatched and disconnected set of economic beliefs.

Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 

There's a big disconnect between the blog and the opinion. Based on the opinion, it sounds like the tribe set up a temp agency. Surprise, surprise, the employees of a temp agency work for the temp agency, and sorry, Mr. Blogger, but the agency hires and pays them. It's hard to see how the court could reach a different conclusion.

Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 

We'll all be matrix slaves any day now.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Or Bristol Palin or some criminal in Texas. 9/12. I did better than I did on the candy quiz.

Re: Your Tax Dollars, But Not Theirs, At Work
 

You are extraordinarily semantic.

Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 

Actual price increases.

Really? Energy prices didn't rise?

Oh, I see. If I reject core as a bullshit definition, I am not allowed to argue there's inflation. Energy is not part of core inflation. Why did you bother engaging me on the issue above. Speaks volumes to how far your head is up your ass.

Translation: It makes sense. I can't fight it.

I have. In another place I write "stuff" I wrote about it at length, citing a study analyzing just how much of the savings are actually via default. And it's fucking apparent to anyone who actually runs a business, as opposed to some twit reliving his days in Econ 101. The middle class is tapped the fuck out. My wife and I employ a few. I still receive debt portfolio profiles for purchase in my email. The everyman is holding onto lines of liquidity, but he isn't paying ANYTHING else (well, perhaps the cable bill). He's fucked. Student loans? Nearly fifty percent currently non-performing. People like me are saving. I'm sure you're saving. Below us, if you'd care to join reality, it's all default.

And yet you lecture me on people running to safe assets. 60% of this country can barely stay in their home. Collecting any fucking asset is a goddamn dream.

Have you ever heard of regulators? Heard any of the stories about how close banks are being examined these days? What do you think? A lending officer simply can drop credit standards if he likes? Newsflash, again: Just getting a line of credit for a business these days is like submitting to an anal cavity search. I know this because, again, I represent people seeking them, and I have two. I also happen to be the son of someone who was a banking executive for twenty five years. You think I'm talking out my ass when I relate stories about how difficult regulators are in that area? But of course, you know better.

I am not in the least anti-intellectual. I am anti-dimestore-intellectual. That is what you are. You have no business experience, fixate on minutiae to look intelligent, and think your long winded bullshit undoes a simple, pragmatic point that's usually irrefutable to anyone who actually sees the economy up close. You've said in the past you have family who are retail advisors. You've certainly proved that point.

...And pays it back. You forget that. Kind of an important point. Shall I cite you everyone from Jim Rogers to Pete Peterson saying We Can't Pay Back What We're Borrowing? That we have no chance of ever making good on the debts? $65 Trillion. Sixty-Five Trillion. Run the revenues under which we can fund that.

Indeed. All the future pension liabilities we nipped in the bud would have had a glorious multiplier effect.

Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 

Seriously? That's the extent of your thinking? The Fed did something, prices moved, thus the fed must have moved the price?? I know you are not that stupid.

In particular, you can't be that stupid because prices energy prices have now come down.

I was going to respond to more of this, but I'm done with you. You're being an idiot and trying to paper over that with assholery. Fine. Have fun. And go fuck yourself while you are at it.

ETA: Okay, I lied.

No, but if you're going to argue the headline is a better measure, than you should be fucking talking about deflation right now. And you should be talking about price levels and not individual prices. And, as I said, you shouldn't confuse wage stagnation with inflation if you are talking about monetary policy (i.e. you can't fix wage stagnation by keeping unemployment high with tight money).

Whatever.

So your understanding of what I've been saying is that I expect those who have no money are going to be influenced by monetary policy???? Again, you aren't this stupid. Why do you keep pretending to be.

But lots of people (i.e. banks, corporations, you and me) have lots of money. Those people, you know, the ones with the money, are the ones we are talking about influencing with incentives.

You know, like you suggested with the "businesses are just waiting for Obama to go" bullshit.

You know, I don't know that much about banking regulations, but you know what I do know? There aren't any like this. There are no federal bank regulations that set credit standards. I learned that by, you know, doing work for banks and hanging out with people who represent them.

Newflash: yes, and we are talking about ways to make it less of an anal cavity search, by increasing the banks' incentives to lend.

Right, the economics professors whose views I have tried to share are the dime-store intellectuals, while your Uncle Billy Joe Bob, who once got a small business loan, is the true deep thinker.

Dude. This whole debate is about you spouting the conventional wisedom without being able to explain how the disjointed tidbits you cling to (e.g., printing money always leads to hyper inflation, oil prices went up = inflation, there are fewer manufacturing jobs now so we are permanently screwed, but business will invest if we get rid of Obama, we need a WPA) fit together.

Again, I don't think you have any understanding of corporate finance. Multinationals do not ever fully pay back their borrowing, at least not until they are being wound up. Just as no, the federal debt will never be paid back in full, nor should we ever want it to be.

I also don't know where you are getting $65 trillion from. The whacky conspiracy sites that come up via google suggest that it's a projection of all future federal government liabilities. If so, whoopty fucking do. And weren't you the one who was so skeptical of long term projections (or I guess that's only when they don't fit your preferred story).

Hold on here while a do a little figurin'. Is it $65 trillion??

Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 

Hey, now. Let's all be nice to each other.

this weeks
 

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Plus, of the four terms he's had, he's only gotten 50% of the state in two. First one he was appointed, third one he couldn't get over 40%. I'm not particularly concerned about him.

Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 

Yes, it was exactly that simple. I read about it on CorrelationIsEverything.com. That you'd ask me to explain how I reach that conclusion, in light of the approximately 3846483256 articles out there explaining how Fed policy did in fact impact energy prices, shows... and this will come as a huge shock (in fact some would say it's unpossible): You don't read enough blogs.

Oh God... Did you just argue that energy prices dropping recently disproves my point? Putting aside speed with which you contradict your initial point, might I ask... just for shits and giggles, How?

The only person papering anything over here is you. You can't discuss the issues in any rubber-meeting-the-road terms because that's out of your depth (one would have to experience the business cycle to grasp that), and in the absence of capacity to offer critical thinking of value, all you've repeatedly offered is pseudo-intellectual pap.

Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 

Since you are sympathetic to the observation that we are in global markets that we can't control, let me suggest that any increases in energy prices likely have much more to do with continued strong demand in places like China, India and Brazil than with government action in the United States. China is growing like nuts and all of the people moving into the middle class start using a lot more energy.

Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 

Indeed. But consider... We pump a shitload of dollars into govt projects. This causes a domestic increase for simple supply and demand reasons. That's the simple energy price inflation. The more complex one is, we pump a shitload of money into the system via QE. This gets funneled to emerging markets which provide the best returns. This creates inflation in emerging markets which inflates the price of oil there which, in a global market, causes our prices to rise. Add to that the speculation increased by policies feeding financial institutions looking for big returns cheap money with which to make bets... in a commodities bubble.

Yes. You cite contributors to energy price increases. I add the Fed to your list. How big a contributor is it? Not as big as Chinese growth, surely. But significant, I think (hence the emerging markets accusing of us of exporting inflation). And in combination with a stimulus that put few back to work while increasing energy prices a bit, I'd say the Fed easing and stimulus had a considerable impact on energy prices, and the amount of pain they caused, domestically.

Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 

I tend to doubt that conclusion, but would be interested to see on the question. When you look at the size of global markets, the Fed's actions just shouldn't be that influential.

Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 

If you are saying I can't tell him to go fuck himself after the repeated insults he has flung at me, then you can go fuck yourself too.

Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 

What's wrong with autoeroticism?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

That's good, because I find him kind of worrisome.

S_A_M

Re: Just because you're paranoid...
 

That I would ask you to explain, again, for the I don't know how manyth time, indicates that different people have different (generally stupid) theories about this and I want to know which one you subscribe to so I can respond to it.

That you have repeatedly declined to say anything about your theory tells me that you know that it's easily shot down so you aren't going to say anything.

It's a great tactic. I once had a client being deposed. He was a higher-ranking but still middle management sales guy. Came off like a middle school hockey coach (i.e., definitely not the brightest bulb on the tree). But the dude had no fear of looking stupid, and the DOJ lawyer could get absolutely zero admissions out of him ("yeah, I see where I wrote 'everyone in the industry is moving prices in coordination' in that email, but I don't know what that means). Congrats. You are him.

You honestly do not know what inflation is, do you?

Move lazy poser bullshit. How surprising.