This proves that your claim of having an MBA in economics is bunk. That or it came from DeVry
The Stock Market Thread: Where we blame everything we can except Trump. (Unless its going well)
- Thread starter fried-chicken
- Start date
This proves that your claim of having an MBA in economics is bunk. That or it came from DeVry
Sorry, I'm with Bob.
One thing that gets to me about with regards to the "Church of Popular Environmentalism" (it doesn't require religion for "blind faith") is that they are pushing for things they are told by the Progressive Media, instead of understanding the realities of producers and consumers, much less have any grasp of science. Legislating limits does nothing.
Taxing emissions does everything. It forces consumers to understand the producers, and seek change. The Swiss do this, so much so the Germans are looking at their model more and more as well. It's a very capitalistic model, one that special interest cannot control, unlike cap'n trade as well as limits (credits and exceptions -- don't get me started on the Obama falicy, even Sanders points it out too).
So while I disagree with Trump's approaches on a lot of things, the Democratic party is offering nothing but 'feel good' non-sense. More and more scientists are joining us engineers in pointing that out. For starters, Earth hour is the most hated celebration by engineers, and more and more scientists by the day. Emissions limits are yet another issue in the cross-hairs, especially since sea faring is almost completely ignored.
We need solutions, not rantings. If you're just complaining, especially as a consumer, you're just part of the problem. Focus on solutions that will solve the problem, or at least argue for impact taxes, so consumers feel the costs. Stop trying to blame others and push it on them.
As of now, very little other than the interest burden. Later on, it may or may not have any affect whatsoever depending on the course of action we take to remediate it. If we inflate our way out, the burden diminishes on its own, just like having a fixed mortgage while your income rises. If we fall into a deflationary period and lose the ability to manipulate our buying power then it becomes a huge burden.
Which is already a national security issue from the standpoint of the US DoD.
As Ron Paul always points out ...
We either voluntarily cut spending now, when the dollar is still worth something, or ...
We involuntarily cut spending later, when the dollar cannot buy as much and are forced.
It frightens me when Americans say, "We'll always have debt," and don't understand what even the Tea Party continually has to point out.
Well said. Which is why we need interest rates to rise, and rise now ... should have years ago.
Trump may be remembered like Carter for this by 2020 too. I hope not.
Stop with the rhetoric and hyperbole. Would you have a problem borrowing 1000 dollars against your child's future income to buy them a house? How about 10,000? Do you think their earning potential and the rate of inflation could make that not only sustainable but also a wealth building instrument?
That isn't to suggest that what we are doing is entirely akin to that scenario, but it should underline the variables that can affect whether or not we are just mortgaging our future or investing.
I have no problem Ron Paul and was a huge supporter of Rand, but Ron has a very simplistic economic mind. He has always failed recognize the dynamic relationship between currencies and between products. He is right to advocate for financial responsibility but his solutions to the sins of the past are short sighted.
Sometimes you have to go big to get a compromise. That's something we Libertarians do. That's why we're called anarchists too.
Yet we're really just asking for regulation and common-sense, instead of totalitarian control and partisanship.
"Well said. Which is why we need interest rates to rise, and rise now ... should have years ago"
Yes and no. If you're talking about a rise in interest rates for the purpose of following inflation then yes. If you're talking about it with the sole purpose of contracting the money supply then absolutely not. The dollars value may be the world's reserve currency but it is also dynamic based on other currencies and commodities in general. The money printing of the last 16 years could become problematic but it isn't an assured issue. To raise interest rates based on our new Keynesian economic approach over the last 50 years would just unnecessarily drive us into a Japanese style deflationary period that we would be in for a generation, or at least until our population begins growing at an above prime rate.
Yes and no. If you're talking about a rise in interest rates for the purpose of following inflation then yes. If you're talking about it with the sole purpose of contracting the money supply then absolutely not. The dollars value may be the world's reserve currency but it is also dynamic based on other currencies and commodities in general. The money printing of the last 16 years could become problematic but it isn't an assured issue. To raise interest rates based on our new Keynesian economic approach over the last 50 years would just unnecessarily drive us into a Japanese style deflationary period that we would be in for a generation, or at least until our population begins growing at an above prime rate.
Ron does a good job of balancing his economic principles and politics, but it isn't without fault. IMO, he needs to be way less Von Mises and way more Friedman. Short of a Hitler level style of protectionism coming from the United states, the world in general is headed in a direction where politics and economics are much more loosely affiliated. Paul would have had us return to the gold standard, which is attractive but ultimately catastrophic and totally unnecessary, not to mention would just lead to a new form of currency manipulation by each country and even further hoarding of cash.
Whats your degree in? Curious since you think an imbalance in spending and income isn't what causes the deficit.
"Trump may be remembered like Carter for this by 2020 too. I hope not"
It wouldn't surprise me if he was, but it would be for very different reasons.
Trumps platform from the very beginning was one of significant and exponential inflation. Fortunately, he has generally pushed things in the correct sequence to avoid catastrophe but the risk remains. Yes, a loaf of bread probably should cost 8 bucks and a gallon of gas 10. But in the interim our wages should outpace that, making it sustainable. The issue at hand, and one that both sides were brought up previously in this thread, is wealth disparity and how to bring it back to a sustainable level (something that had never been achieved in any political or economic system in history). Yes, we and every major country in the world have increased both the amount of currency in circulation and also our debt, both public and private. There are 2 ways out of this: raise interest rates evenly across the globe relative to the value of currency (which is pretty much impossible because of the dynamic nature of currency/consumable goods), or just let it balance itself out naturally as foreign held cash returns into circulation. The 2nd is preferable and simpler but it requires a nuanced approach.
It wouldn't surprise me if he was, but it would be for very different reasons.
Trumps platform from the very beginning was one of significant and exponential inflation. Fortunately, he has generally pushed things in the correct sequence to avoid catastrophe but the risk remains. Yes, a loaf of bread probably should cost 8 bucks and a gallon of gas 10. But in the interim our wages should outpace that, making it sustainable. The issue at hand, and one that both sides were brought up previously in this thread, is wealth disparity and how to bring it back to a sustainable level (something that had never been achieved in any political or economic system in history). Yes, we and every major country in the world have increased both the amount of currency in circulation and also our debt, both public and private. There are 2 ways out of this: raise interest rates evenly across the globe relative to the value of currency (which is pretty much impossible because of the dynamic nature of currency/consumable goods), or just let it balance itself out naturally as foreign held cash returns into circulation. The 2nd is preferable and simpler but it requires a nuanced approach.
Investing in our children's future? What exactly do kids get from this investment? Unsustainable college debt, low paying jobs, social security that won't be there, outrageous medical costs.
Where are they reaping this "investment" of baby boomers pillaging the government straight into their own 401k?
It does, and I'm sure your personal finances instructor at DeVry nailed that one home. Your posts show a clear lack of understanding of both macro-economics and the relationship between currency and goods, not to mention the dynamic properties of competing currencies, commodities, and inflationary pressure and relief.
Who said they were?? Low paying jobs are a direct result of politics keeping inflationary pressure in the job market down. College debt is a direct result of manipulating demand side economics INTO inflationary pressure and using long term debt to facilitate it.
As far as your comment about baby boomers, pillaging, and 401ks, it has nothing to do with economics if it even exists as you state.
What did politicians do to keep wages from inflating? What policy was enacted that kept wages low while food and many other living expenses are up? Seems like a cop out answer from someone who thinks they have it all figured out.
You support Ron and Rand Paul. Laughing stocks in the world of actual economists. You have that classic libertarian smugness that only comes from someone who finds a way to argue every point. You haven't agreed with any post in your replies but have taken the time to educate all of us in every post on your astounding knowledge.
I also have a great MBA. Devry has really stepped it up.
I think you're being very partisan to blame Trump for all this. He's just a factor, not a cause.
Further hyperbole case-in-point:
If you just want to say we should be socialists, say it.
Until then, recognize we have crony-capitalism, it's both parties, and we need to return to being real capitalists. But some things are just too obvious.
Like the fact that even blue and white collar work is changing. Everyone has to be a coder, or at least think analytically and programmatically, to a point.
His tariff threats are the cause this last month. Threatens and then backs off then threatens and backs off.
Wage inflation has been kept down artificially due to immigration laws, automation, and minimum wage laws. In theory, the amount of currency in circulation should be tied more closely to population than to debt/CPI/consumable commodities but that doesn't facilitate wealth consolidation, so politicians and investment banks work otherwise. Whenever you hear the talking point "Americans won't do those jobs" in reference to immigration, it's an indication that wages are not following demand for products thanks to outside forces. If the meat packing industry, the construction industry, or any manufacturing sector was actually subject to the law of supply and demand on both their production and sales ends, they would have to pay more for their input, charge more for their output, and it would all act relative to market conditions. That isn't the case because of 1. Consolidation of wealth and 2. The social safety net. We are literally manipulating the relationship between the value of goods and the value of currency to consolidate more wealth vertically.
He's not backing off until he gets concessions. That's the whole strategy. Geez you're really partisan.
I too am scared of trade wars, but I understand what he's trying to do. He's trying to do it now, before it gets worse.
Do yourself a favor ... look up the 'fact check' on how screwed the US is in many trade agreements. All of them have to agree, although not everything Trump says is true, he is right about the US getting the worst deal, with everyone else having advantages.
Sorry, but truth. And we let our politicians do it to us out of their special interest. Ross Perot called out Clinton and Gore on this with NAFTA, and people believed Gore, and he flat out lied on national TV.
Perot was right about his family's ties, along with the Clintons, and that was just a small number of the special interest in the NAFTA agreement. The Canadians got protectionalist terms, and we virtually got none.
Boom!
Consumers complain about the cost of things, but that's what this is all about ... the actual cost of living wages and other things.
It's amazing how many people don't get that reality. They want cheap goods, but don't want to pay for it.
I don't support Ron Paul and have laid out the reasons why. Rand is a different beast altogether but it would seem that you have ignored his work.
It happened last week. Market took a dump and a guy came out and said don't worry about it, it's all negotiations and then it went up. The next few days we hear no there's more tariffs. I'm not inventing this.
First off, I think you're confusing me (@UCFBS ) with @Crazyhole . But even I'm not a blind Ron/Rand supporter. Ron is too absolutist, while Rand does a good job of being more of a realist.
Secondly, you sound like the Progressive media more than an economist, including Keynesian arrogance that actually doesn't fit at all. So of course you're going to consider all Libertarians to be smug and argumentative. You want us to just agree with you, blindly.
BTW, my education background and some of my career is in semi-conductor. It's completely supply-side economics. I'm not saying all industries are like that, but it's the one tech industry that is entirely supply-side, and it utterly influences everything downstream.
I mean, there's a reason why tablets took over. It wasn't consumers. It was decisions made in the industry 5 years earlier. Because multi-billion-dollar fabs decide what consumers get, and how much it costs, more than anything.
Yep. Rand at least spews a lot of reality that people don't want to face.
Ron is purposely absolutist, not that some of his points aren't good takeaways at times.
You really are watching the Progressive media! Damn, I was only semi-joking. You aren't keeping up with current events at all.
We're already looking at another $100B on the Chinese! It's turning into a trade war! The only thing is that they haven't gone into effect yet, but the 1-upmanship is going on ... right now!
Oh, BTW, anyone who thinks Trump is just pulling this out of his rectum is dead-wrong. The tariffs strategy, at every level, has already been laid out. In fact, the Trump administration is not winging this ... while the Chinese look like they are.
I.e., the industries being targeted are extremely calculated, and making it difficult for the Chinese to counter in a way that is proportional, without exposing them elsewhere.
Now imagine if we have a pro-Trump media, like Obama did! That might actually help our position!
The main risks continue to be China just moving to another trading partner -- which is the case with any trade war -- and their direct ownership of about 5% of our debt -- which is more specific to us.
And I know about the 100B. Obviously that's why we were down 700 earlier today. That's why I bumped the thread this morning and mentioned the tariffs.
Yes but what is considered "cheap"?
We all want more wealth but fail to recognize that our earning potential isn't extricably tied to our actual productivity. We want to do the same job, maybe work a little less hard or a few leaa hours, and see our personal wealth increase. Well I'm sorry but that is only possible if it comes on the backs of someone else's work. That's fine if you are business owner, but for an average worker if you do the same thing at the same rate you did 20 years ago, your lifestyle should be exactly the same.
What has been happening is that we as a country, through our political system, have artificially improved our quality of living even though we generally haven't increased our total wealth. We've done it through trade deals that get us cheaper products, through immigration laws that artificially keep the price of products down, and increased our debt load.
No, that's normal people news. If you don't consume normal people news your news source is likely not held to any standard of journalistic integrity. Outside of Fox News which is at least held accountable when they screw up all right wing media is risky to consume.
He's not Keynesian. Keynesian economics died in the 1970s. What these types of people advocate for as a first line of action is what Keynes considered a secondary form.
Even when people agree with you, you argue or try to educate people on all of the stuff you understand more than everyone around you. Just insufferable.
Fox News has already dropped to #3. They are the only conservative leaning news outlet, so of course, I expect them to be even more biased and concentrated into one source. Of course, they are increasingly taking on more and more moderates and even liberals who are kicked out of 'normal people news.'
Which is why 'normal people news' has started blatantly lying about everything from economics to firearms. Which is why engineers like myself have pretty much started to realize they are Progressives with a shared agenda.
One that is against the laws of physics, statistics and even economics these days.
lol that is hilarious knowing that you check the HuffPo for what’s going on daily
Huffington Post isn't normal people news it's liberal slanted in its coverage but it doesn't make shit up.
Normally I'd say that's argumentative. But this guy is really surprising me.
I'm glad Forbes is trying to re-introduce logical arguments, and point out how the Progressive media has completely gone off their rockers.
A) Back in 2012, Facebook security not only detected, but approved the Obama's campaign using metrics for its strategy, well outside of the exception for academia -- exactly what the Progressive media has been going on and on about with Trump and Cambridge.
B) DHS is now building the media tracking capability under the guise of combating the Russians, as the Progressive media has been continually calling for, not realizing it's going to track all journalism and really put the 1st Amendment on its heels.
I really wish Americans would wake up!
Coming from a guy who touts his MBA in economics.
Argue? Meh. Educate? Yes. There are a lot of intelligent people out there who are capable of understanding the most complex aspects of economics if they are explained in a simple form, but have never been exposed to it. I could care less if you or anynody else likes me or finds me insufferable, but if there's an opportunity to continue that sort of conversation in going to do it.
Sure it doesn’t. You can’t hslp yourself but defend their brand of left wing garbage.
And no- I don’t read Daily Caller
