• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I Agree with the Tea Party!

You agree with tea party because you don't want to pay your fair amount of income tax, you egoist. When you have money you don't share with poors and if you don't have you claim for charity.
 
Gaetan said:
You agree with tea party because you don't want to pay your fair amount of income tax, you egoist. When you have money you don't share with poors and if you don't have you claim for charity.
Click to expand...

Did you read anything posted in this thread other than its title?
 
The best way to reduce your deficit is to cut in program tea party and republican cherish: Wars, bombs production, fire arms and income tax reduction to rich.
 
kellyb said:
I don't think they're online.
Is Bloomberg reputable enough for you to accept that it happened?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...e-ducks-request-for-details-on-fed-loans.html
Click to expand...

This is simply the Fed doing the job it was created to do. Specifically it exists to manage the money supply and to act as a lender of last resort for the banking system.

With the US economy flirting with deflation the Feds job was to inject cash into the US economy using any and all of the tools at its disposal. Additionally with the US banking system freezing up at the end of 2008, it’s role as lender of last resort comes into play. Banks normally borrow from each other to balance out their day to day cash requirements, but with the run on Lehmans this stopped putting ever bank at risk of a similar run if people pulled all their cash out at once and the bank had no one to borrow from.

As I understand it, the Fed is normally silent on exactly what it’s doing on this front because it’s possible to game the system if you know where this money is flowing
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
This is simply the Fed doing the job it was created to do. Specifically it exists to manage the money supply and to act as a lender of last resort for the banking system.

With the US economy flirting with deflation the Feds job was to inject cash into the US economy using any and all of the tools at its disposal. Additionally with the US banking system freezing up at the end of 2008, it’s role as lender of last resort comes into play. Banks normally borrow from each other to balance out their day to day cash requirements, but with the run on Lehmans this stopped putting ever bank at risk of a similar run if people pulled all their cash out at once and the bank had no one to borrow from.

As I understand it, the Fed is normally silent on exactly what it’s doing on this front because it’s possible to game the system if you know where this money is flowing
Click to expand...

And to keep from creating a run on banks, which would compound the problems. Especially in the global economy of today where if it were known that the Fed was propping up companies/banks in every major nation, there would most definitely be a panic the likes of which the world has never seen - imagine Black Tuesday, but all around the globe. Think about the depression that would have dropped the entire world into.

That's why the Fed was created. That the Fed was able to make money on the loans is merely a kicker...
 
Gaetan said:
The best way to reduce your deficit is to cut in program tea party and republican cherish: Wars, bombs production, fire arms and income tax reduction to rich.
Click to expand...

Firearms?
What the hell do you mean by that in relation to the Deficit?
If you mean small arms for the Military, that makes up a very small part of the Military budget.
If you mean Gun Control, because guns are one of the things that the GOP cherishes,explain why Gun Control would cut the deficit.
Your train of thought here is damn hard to follow.......
 
My proposal is to abolish borders between countries, making one planet, one country, think about all the money that could be saved in weapons, it would cut all countries deficit right down. We shall abolish money as well in this way there would be no more deficit.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
"Destroyed" is a bit of an overstatement. The economy took a major hit, but it is starting to recover. It's always much easier to see what went wrong in hindsight. There's no guarantee that somebody else's policies would have worked much better. Some policies may have been worse. Greenspan has admitted that he made mistakes.
Click to expand...

I have a whole lot of respect for you as a fellow "learner". You exemplify humility, like I strive to do, as well. I don't know "how economics works".
One of a very small list of things I do know, though, is that the economic collapse was totally predictable, and not just in retrospect. The (at the time) "fringe" economists were screaming about it, laying out in excruciating detail what was about to happen.
And both the New Keynsians and the Austrian economists saw the same, massive, global-finance destroying bubble. They came up with wildly different ideas about about what created the bubble, but at least they both saw it, which the neoliberals didn't, and still kinda don't.

Housing prices were steady with core inflation for a hundred years until they started to wildly take off in the 90's. The only preclusion to seeing that was neoliberal doctrine disbelief in the idea of bubbles.

Hudson saw it, Baker saw it, Krugman saw it...even Ron freakin' Paul saw it!

Only the neoliberals couldn't see it.

Fire the neoliberals, I say. They are incompetent.
 
Reading back over this thread...

Puppycow said:
I don't have much time right now to get too far into this, but I don't think that laypeople understand what the Fed does well enough to effectively tell it what to do.
Click to expand...

That was the thought process behind Greenspan refusing to admit to a potential housing bubble.

He said (while being only sort of, hypothetically aware of the bubble) "we should not discuss this publicly. No one but us really understands it, anyway."


(paraphrased). I'll try to re-find the link-quote if you want.
 
Gaetan said:
My proposal is to abolish borders between countries, making one planet, one country, think about all the money that could be saved in weapons, it would cut all countries deficit right down. We shall abolish money as well in this way there would be no more deficit.
Click to expand...

"Why can't we all just get along?" Rodney King

Although I think more of myself as a citizen of the earth than an American.
 
kellyb said:
Reading back over this thread...



That was the thought process behind Greenspan refusing to admit to a potential housing bubble.

He said (while being only sort of, hypothetically aware of the bubble) "we should not discuss this publicly. No one but us really understands it, anyway."


(paraphrased). I'll try to re-find the link-quote if you want.
Click to expand...

Greenspan believed that banks would not participate in a housing bubble because such a bubble would be a seriously against their self interest. Without their participation, such a bubble couldn’t occur therefore he felt one would not occur.

IMO His error was in believing that banks would not participate in an activity that was against their long term interests. There are a few reasons why this was wrong but the main one is that decision makers in banking and pretty much every other business are rewarded based on their short term (1-5 year) performance, not their long term performance. This means they will frequently ignore the long term implications of a decision if it looks good in the near term.

Also IMO Greenspan subscribing to Ayn Rands philosophies almost certainly played a part in this miscalculation. Essentially Rand assumes that people when give a choice people will always make the best one for themselves and cumulatively this will add up to the best result for everyone. This problem is that with the advent of game theory we now know that there is a distinct difference be the best decision and the right decision and that if you approach the a problem analytically you will make the right decision even when there are better options. (See the prisoners dilemma)
 
Gaetan said:
My proposal is to abolish borders between countries, making one planet, one country, think about all the money that could be saved in weapons, it would cut all countries deficit right down. We shall abolish money as well in this way there would be no more deficit.
Click to expand...

Is Being a random word generator, and not a human being in violation of the membership agreement?
 
Snide said:
From your own link, "Lion's Share" doesn't have to meen all or nearly all:



To your pont, however, defense does come in second. So your main criticism here is that someone used a barely incorrect metaphor.
Click to expand...


It comes in second, in 2002. Let's take a look at the discretionary spending for 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

With mandatory spending of course social security outranks everything, but it barely outdoes the discretionary spending in Defense.


A bar graph for those who prefer one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...px-2010_Receipts_&_Expenditures_Estimates.PNG

I'm not sure if we could count Social Security under the spending, since it's mandatory, it's something the US Government has to do. If you'll notice in 2010 the Department of Defense did take what could count as the "lions-share" of discretionary spending money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom