Brontoforumus Archive

Discussion Boards => Thaddeus Boyd's Panel of Death => Topic started by: Mongrel on March 03, 2008, 08:53:00 PM

Title: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 03, 2008, 08:53:00 PM
New company offers an interesting point of view. (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/01/business-of-walking-away.html)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: R^2 on March 05, 2008, 12:01:40 PM
"Companies are bastards, so you should be too" doesn't sit very well with me as a guiding philosophy for personal finance.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on June 13, 2008, 04:48:47 PM
...So the WSJ and every other fiscally-conservative op/ed page in the country is railing about how bad Obama's economic policies will be.

It's just absolutely tragicomic watching them all try to explain how the best way to get us out of the hole we're in is to keep digging.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on June 13, 2008, 11:29:46 PM
On that note, Satan walks among us, and his name is Larry Kudlow.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on June 16, 2008, 03:23:29 PM
CEO Pay Increases in 2007 (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080616/executive_compensation.html)

There's not much that can be said that can make me angrier than that. 

Oh, wait (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20080410&id=8470682)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kazz on June 16, 2008, 07:13:59 PM
What is the old statistic?

0.1% of the population has 99.9% of the wealth?

Something like that.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mothra on June 16, 2008, 07:14:52 PM
OH COME ON
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on June 27, 2008, 05:32:59 PM
Oh yeah, have I mentioned we're all fucked (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-stocks-plunge-worst-june/story.aspx?guid={D2B0CDC8-4960-45F2-87E5-8BA7DE058EFF}&dist=msr_2)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on June 27, 2008, 07:29:01 PM
Quote
We're going to move in the opposite direction of oil, and General Motors is going to go out of business

It would almost be worth a decade of crushing poverty just to see GM eat its own shit for the whole electric car thing.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 29, 2008, 05:20:06 PM
Meanwhile, buried on page 83... (http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080729.woilprices0729/BNStory/Business/home?cid=al_gam_mostview)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Detonator on July 29, 2008, 05:28:04 PM
This is a good trend, but it's hard to be optimistic when the price is still $50 more than it was last year.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on July 29, 2008, 07:19:14 PM
Economic Realities Are Killing Our Era of Fantasy Politics (http://www.alternet.org/story/91927/?ses=ceb9e237c226c433ecbe0dda50f79618)

This is a sobering read, and I suggest you forward it to everyone you know.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 29, 2008, 08:09:04 PM
Been beating that drum for years.

If no one's listened to it before I doubt they will now. Not even with their pants down around their ankles and their shoes stolen out from under them.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Saturn on September 07, 2008, 01:36:39 AM
 Government is taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/business/06fannie.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 18, 2008, 08:42:45 PM
... And 80% of AIG...

Stocks rallied today due to talk of The Fed opening another Resolution Trust Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_Trust_Corporation).

Could just be talk. Could be a real, but costly solution.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on September 19, 2008, 06:21:47 AM
(http://palmer.grumpster.com/uploaded_images/homefrederik-792464.gif)
Sev yoh money.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 19, 2008, 06:37:18 AM
The markets have proven themselves to be a feral beast.

September 19th is now Punch - A - Libertarian - In - The - Face Day.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Saturn on September 19, 2008, 11:41:06 AM
and another bullet point on the WHEN DEREGULATION FUCKED SHIT UP list.


on that note, can any of you find a case where deregulation actually HELPED the average american, I cant.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on September 19, 2008, 01:47:36 PM
They helped us buy cheap hats from Mexico or something.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 19, 2008, 02:49:32 PM
Congress Told "We're Literally Maybe Days Away From A Complete Meltdown Of Our Financial System" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/washington/19cnd-cong.html?hp=&pagewanted=print)

This could all lead to the biggest shock doctrine yet, or an emulation of Sweden during the 1990's who made a sizable profit off their banking efforts during an incredibly similar crisis.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: JDigital on September 19, 2008, 06:51:53 PM
They helped us buy cheap corn from Mexico or something, causing food shortage riots.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 19, 2008, 06:58:43 PM
 :wat: Is our age defined by cynical plunderers who have no idea how steeply civilization has climbed nor how narrow precipice on which it sits is?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 19, 2008, 07:22:44 PM
Our age?  We're the good ones!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on September 19, 2008, 07:39:30 PM
So, in the current issue of Contingencies magazine, McCain advocates that healthcare be deregulated in the successful style of banking (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/). :suave:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 19, 2008, 08:01:26 PM
:mikey:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on September 20, 2008, 04:59:13 AM
See, there's a reason I read economic news as intensely as I read political news.

The twin pillars of what controls our lives.

Too bad I have yet to ever put any of my knowledge to any good use. At my fiscal level, I just float around on the tidal wave with all the other little bits of flotsam. The fact that you can actually see the wave forming and coming doesn't really matter if you CAN'T MOVE UNDER YOUR OWN POWER.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kazz on September 20, 2008, 05:52:48 AM
Wow, Iron Mongrel is a genius who can foretell that horrible thing that's going to happen?  Here I thought we were "literally maybe days away" from it raining fucking ice cream.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on September 20, 2008, 08:49:13 AM
Actually, I post just to give Kazz an excuse to make snide replies.

 ::D:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: JDigital on September 20, 2008, 11:33:43 AM
There's plenty the average person can do!

You can protest, provided you do so with government permission in designated "free speech zones".

You can riot, except a hastile-formed rabble is no match for trained riot police.

You can organize, but then it becomes terrorism.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 20, 2008, 11:34:42 AM
So uh.  Has anyone tried to explain how a $700 billion taxpayer bailout qualifies as "fiscally conservative" yet?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 20, 2008, 11:35:42 AM
 ::D: BECAUSE IT BENEFITS REPUBLICANS!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on September 20, 2008, 12:21:53 PM
So uh.  Has anyone tried to explain how a $700 billion taxpayer bailout qualifies as "fiscally conservative" yet?

Not to troll, but I don't think anyone is going to advocate a Laissez-Faire approach at this point.

More importantly, it was the succesive deregulation policies of Friedman/Greenspan that led us here. True, the abuses reached their most egregious under Bush, but guess which administration actually revoked the Glass Steagall Act?

 :8V:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 20, 2008, 01:25:41 PM
So uh.  Has anyone tried to explain how a $700 billion taxpayer bailout qualifies as "fiscally conservative" yet?

Not to troll, but I don't think anyone is going to advocate a Laissez-Faire approach at this point.

Sure they are.  They're just going to do it two sentences after advocating better regulation (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=185164&title=Candidates%27-Generic-Off).

More importantly, it was the succesive deregulation policies of Friedman/Greenspan that led us here. True, the abuses reached their most egregious under Bush, but guess which administration actually revoked the Glass Steagall Act?

Who's arguing?  Clinton was right-of-center on the economy -- he made noise about universal healthcare and college education now and again, but what he actually PASSED was stuff like the Telecom Act and the DMCA.

That said, the current administration is unprecedented in its abuses and corruption.  Last week's DoI story hammers that home.  Clinton helped the robber barons consolidate their power, but he didn't completely gut oversight and regulation.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 20, 2008, 01:41:45 PM
...Thad, you must now take the "Circular Talk Express" bus and make it Guildenstern's avatar.

This I command.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 20, 2008, 06:42:35 PM
He's going to have your butt no matter what Thad, don't do it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 21, 2008, 10:44:59 PM
WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092102060.html?hpid=topnews): the Dems are trying to add their own terms to the bailout, including stronger oversight and decreasing CEO pay for companies that opt in.  If they're smart, they will own this issue until November 4.

Quote
"We will not simply hand over a $700 billion blank check to Wall Street," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement.

Oh yeah, I remember when the House Democrats promised they wouldn't give George Bush a blank check!  How'd that turn out again?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 21, 2008, 10:48:10 PM
Quote
$700 billion blank check
::(: :thad:

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 22, 2008, 05:53:47 PM
Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/Dodd_bill_much_more_aggressive_than_Treasury_plan.html) has a pretty good bullet-point list of what Dodd's trying to do.  Part of me thinks he's making the classic Clinton mistake of opening with a reasonable bipartisan compromise instead of asking for something radical and then letting the Republicans haggle it down.  On the other hand, that would probably be a risky move this close to the election.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 23, 2008, 02:42:09 PM
...Now THIS is unexpected.

Reuters: U.S. Senate Republicans back executive pay limits (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWBT00979920080923).

The REPUBLICANS caving?  This is new.  It also shows just how much the Democrats own this issue.

But it could also be an attempt to gain a rhetorical advantage -- if the GOP agrees to a few provisions in the bill but refuses to go along with others, they can accuse the Democrats of being the ones who are stonewalling.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on September 23, 2008, 04:06:40 PM
The Economy: You are doing it wrong (http://lolfed.com/).
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on September 23, 2008, 05:33:26 PM
(http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comics/098.png)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 23, 2008, 11:18:58 PM
NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/economy/24fannie.html?pagewanted=2&hp) has some good quotes from the floor today.

Quote
Asserting that the plan would allow Mr. Paulson to act with “absolute impunity,” Senator Dodd said, “After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not only our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution, as well.”

[...]

Senator Dodd called the crisis “entirely foreseeable and preventable, not an act of God,” and said that it angered him to think about “the authors of this calamity” walking away with the usual golden parachutes while taxpayers pick up the bill.

I love Dodd.

Quote
Asserting that the plan would allow Mr. Paulson to act with “absolute impunity,” Senator Dodd said, “After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not only our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution, as well.”

Strange bedfellows.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on September 24, 2008, 10:18:56 PM
Dan Carlin (http://www.dancarlin.com/) makes an interesting argument (http://dancarlin.libsyn.com/media/dancarlin/cswdcb34.mp3) that the economic meltdown (and political meltdown, too) was driven by corporate structures which encourage short-term gain at all costs; that is, whatever happens fifteen years from now doesn't matter if we aren't up fifteen points next quarter, or whatever. An interesting idea, but how credible is it?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 24, 2008, 11:45:10 PM
I think that's pretty much dead-on.  People are seeking to line their own pockets immediately, with little or no regard to anyone else or the long term.

I've seen a quote attributed to Churchill to the effect of "Diplomacy means thinking of 100 years from now; politics means thinking of a week from Friday" -- that's from memory while as drunk as Churchill on a quote that may or may not have any basis in reality, but I think that's essentially what all our problems in economics and politics boil down to: people who are focusing on immediate, personal gains instead of long-term gains for everybody.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 25, 2008, 06:59:05 AM
Short-term strategy is all Wall Street has been about for two straight years now. A broker couldn't blow his nose without looking at the quarterly profit reports on Nose Blowers Inc. first (Index: NBI).

quote attributed to Churchill

Day in, day out, I'm convinced that forming quotes is all Churchill did with his life.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 25, 2008, 07:35:29 AM
Get crackin' Arc, you're way behind.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 25, 2008, 07:57:15 AM
Well, consider that the proposed solution to the problem is a quick fix that'll get us through to next Tuesday before screwing us over for the next 10 years.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 25, 2008, 10:04:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1X6RQLZtoA
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on September 29, 2008, 12:42:48 PM
I really don't know what thread to put this in anymore as the election and the debates and the end of the motherfucking world all seem to be completely interrelated at this point, but I just took a look at CNN and they're summarizing today as MEASURE DENIED, STOCKS FALL, EVERYONE DIES

on another note, news agencies shouldn't be allowed to use that many ominously pulsing red areas in their graphic design.  It's like they're reporting on a zombie outbreak.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kayma on September 29, 2008, 12:51:27 PM
on another note, news agencies shouldn't be allowed to use that many ominously pulsing red areas in their graphic design.  It's like they're reporting on a zombie outbreak.

Makes me excited for when they actually report the zombie outbreak.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

Your grandmother eating your face?

It's more likely than you think!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 29, 2008, 01:05:05 PM
(http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/923/eyetvscreensnapz010ot2.jpg)

(http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5034/jumpyoufersod8.jpg)

(http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6236/failstreetac7jn5.jpg)

(http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/1491/lolstocknoao1.png)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: on September 29, 2008, 01:12:00 PM
So wait, what happened with the $700b bailout thing? I thought it was a sure deal.

(Finance is not my strong suit)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 29, 2008, 01:37:25 PM
McCain happens. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/matthews-on-mccains-faile_n_130309.html)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wk3yUmVw-Y
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Air on September 29, 2008, 01:51:48 PM
I've heard that it was a good thing as now it will force us to fix the root problem and not band-aid it But I don't like the idea of a stock-market crash. Will this affect me getting a job in any way?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 29, 2008, 01:57:50 PM
No, but it'll definitely affect me trying to get a car financed today.  :victory:

It's true though.  The bill was horribly fucking flawed.  Much better to have your stocks in the crapper for a few days... A FEW DAYS, YOU PANSY-ASS MOTHERFUCKERS... and actually get shit properly fixed than to go ahead and keep doing exactly what plunged everything into the toilet in the first place.

Bush's last few months in office seem to be horribly catastrophic.  Can he possibly be responsible for this parting fuck-you?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Spikey on September 29, 2008, 02:00:17 PM
So wait, what happened with the $700b bailout thing? I thought it was a sure deal.

(Finance is not my strong suit)

A lot of congresmen wanted it to pass but didn't want to be on record as voting in favor of it because the bill is unpopular with the general public.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 29, 2008, 02:10:11 PM
A FEW DAYS, YOU PANSY-ASS MOTHERFUCKERS

I'M RUINED.

A few Democrats will give in, dump their provisions, toss in all the parachutes the Republicans wanted and then pass the damned bill.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 29, 2008, 02:43:44 PM
Politico (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AF9F10EC-18FE-70B2-A82949C5A24271A8):

Quote
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition – hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked.

Shortly before the vote, McCain had bragged about his involvement and mocked Sen. Barack Obama for staying on the sidelines.
Bush's last few months in office seem to be horribly catastrophic.  Can he possibly be responsible for this parting fuck-you?

Certainly he gave Congress a bill with his usual "the other two branches of government shall exercise no oversight over the all-powerful executive" nonsense, but, at least publicly, he backed off pretty quickly and -- again, at least publicly -- has been willing to accept compromise.  Best guess is that, with the election looming and this mess ALREADY doing significant damage to McCain, he doesn't want to do any MORE to remind the public of why it hates him and, by extension, his party so much.

I don't think it's possible to have a good bill at this point -- any way you slice it, our choice is to bail out businesses that don't deserve it or to let them die and watch the economy get dramatically worse than it already is.  There are plenty of things that can be added to the bill to cushion the blow, but it's a fucking mess no matter what we do.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on September 29, 2008, 04:10:57 PM
See, I'd be more in favor of the bailout if there were more taxes levied toward the rich and super rich.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 29, 2008, 05:12:44 PM
CSM (http://features.csmonitor.com/creditcrisis/2008/09/29/why-the-bailout-bill-went-down/) has a pretty good rundown of why it collapsed.  Unsurprisingly, on the Republican side it boils down mostly to free-market ideals.  The Democrats, as usual, don't have as simple or as unified an explanation.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on September 29, 2008, 05:22:02 PM
could someone tell me if "giving 700 billion dollars in taxpayer money to the enormous corporate entities that caused this in the first place, arguably through exploitation and greed, is a bad idea" is a flawed or ignorant statement, and if so, how?

I just want to be accurate when hating people in the months to come
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on September 29, 2008, 05:39:05 PM
It's a good idea regardless of blame because, as of right now, they're going to take us all with them.

THAT SAID, knowing that they're at fault, means you can bail out the organizations while eviscerating the individuals responsible, ensuring that capitalism is served by making sure you the culprits don't get out of jail free (in theory).

The arguing over the provisions for the latter seems to be the sore point. That and a whole bunch of Republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush at all costs.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 29, 2008, 05:58:09 PM
CSM (http://features.csmonitor.com/creditcrisis/2008/09/29/why-the-bailout-bill-went-down/) has a pretty good rundown of why it collapsed.

That's just hot air. It really does level down to:

A lot of congressmen wanted it to pass but didn't want to be on record as voting in favor of it because the bill is unpopular with the general public.

The democrats promised to shore up 120 votes, and the republicans were supposed to deliver 100. When it came time, the democrats delivered with 140, and the republicans only 65. Bush & McCain have no control over their party.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on September 29, 2008, 06:28:04 PM
I kinda want to see what happens if congress does nothing.

I really want to see a bill rushed under the table that turns us into a  pseudo communist country where everyone gets free houses, food, water, electricity, and health care.

But neither will happen.   Well, I guess I'll just watch what actually does happen :popcorn:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 29, 2008, 07:27:58 PM
The best analogy I can think of is that Hitler is dangling from a cliff, and only you can save him.

Also, Hitler is rigged with a switch that will blow up an orphanage if he dies.  Also, you.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 29, 2008, 07:34:31 PM
I dunno. The complete collapse of this country seems almost acceptable in light of all of the horrendous bullshit of the rich-and-powerful lately. IT IS NO LONGER PRE-MAGNA-CARTA! GET WITH THE FUCKING PROGRAM.

:fukit:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 29, 2008, 07:40:34 PM
All right, well, I've got no car, no health care, and am shacked up in temporary lodgings that I'm screaming to get out of.  You'll excuse me if I don't share your enthusiasm to further fuck up my situation in order to inconvenience some slimy rich guys.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 29, 2008, 07:59:06 PM
I'm saying that they should be made to pick up the check once in a while when they fucking dine-and-dash, because as you've noted it sucks to be you and (well) over 1/3rd of the country at this point.

At least your relative standing would go up.


DISCLAIMER:
Classic is not actually saying he wants you to remain in a shitty situation or that he wants society to collapse or all moneylenders to collapse a-la Fight Club. He has just been reading too much news lately and is pissed.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: MadMAxJr on September 29, 2008, 08:21:51 PM
Horrible things just happened to my investments.  I'm only 26 and my retirement funds are borderline worthless.

I guess the Dow dropping 700+ points will do that.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 29, 2008, 08:23:01 PM
It'll bounce back (unless they defaulted), and you have 40 years.  I'd love for my problems to have to do with the market and retirement.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Air on September 29, 2008, 08:29:11 PM
I'd love for my problems to not be "I need a motherfucking job" related, but it ain't gonna happen any time soon. Give ME money USA! I don't wanna be $400 in debt anymore  :sadpanda:.

We're all just blowing air out of our asses discussing this shit. It's not like we'll ever be able to blow over the fat cats anyway. We're just shooting the breeze in the end.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on September 29, 2008, 09:06:23 PM
What I hate about all this talk about the bailout is that they're always filled with ill portents and doomsaying; I'm sorry, but the economy collapses every 20 years, (the gas crisis, the stock market crash of 87, etc) and we're always better for it in the end. The banks who deserved to survive will, and the banks that didn't won't. The economic world works just like nature - survival of the fittest.

Bailing them out just disrupts the natural order, and delays the inevitable. If we bail them out now, when these poorly managed companies do fall, it'll just be that much worse. The idea of us borrowing nearly a trillion dollars to pay off the debt of greedy wall street executives who wrote bad loans to line their pockets sickens me. Our dollar is already valueless as it is - It's not like we have a mound of gold in a fort somewhere to back that money up. The money has to come from somewhere, and as long as we're borrowing it the buying power of the US dollar continues on it's way to worthlessness.

Frankly, our money being worth less than canada's is fucking embarassing.

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 29, 2008, 09:07:58 PM
Actually, it sounds like the bailout, while huge, now has the US government owning a zillion shares of stock on their loan defaulting asses. I've heard some people describe it as "fair".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 29, 2008, 09:10:47 PM
I don't wanna be $400 in debt anymore  :sadpanda:.

...

I am going to fuck you in the eye.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 29, 2008, 09:11:14 PM
If you take pictures, you should be able to sell them and get out of debt!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on September 29, 2008, 09:11:37 PM
Actually, it sounds like the bailout, while huge, now has the US government owning a zillion shares of stock on their loan defaulting asses. I've heard some people describe it as "fair".

Yes, eventually the loan will pay for itself.

The problem with that is, ironically, the united states has the same habits of the consumers who caused the problem in the first place. We don't pay off our debt. The long term hit to the value of the dollar really outweighs the extra revenue coming in that our government has already proven it is incapable of managing. Unless the government includes a provision in this bill to pay off the debt we're generating because of it then I cannot support it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 29, 2008, 09:16:13 PM
Actually, today the Dollar gained against the Euro and gasoline dropped $10. Turmoil brought about correction.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kayma on September 29, 2008, 09:27:04 PM
I don't wanna be $400 in debt anymore  :sadpanda:.

...

I am going to fuck you in the eye.

...............

Me first.

$400? Get a fucking paper route.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 29, 2008, 09:42:57 PM
Shit, I've loaned out more than three times that in the last month.  See if you can fuck my sister, Sora.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on September 29, 2008, 10:57:32 PM
Shit, I've loaned out more than three times that in the last month.  See if you can fuck my sister, Sora.

...I don't get it.  Are you training him?  Is that some kind of "snatch the pebble from my hand" challenge?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Air on September 29, 2008, 11:02:30 PM
I don't wanna be $400 in debt anymore  :sadpanda:.

...

I am going to fuck you in the eye.

...............

Me first.

$400? Get a fucking paper route.
Wow, that's not a bad idea. I'll check that out.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 29, 2008, 11:08:01 PM
(http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2192/megamanairmancartoonlb8.jpg) Master, I must object to your curious interest in such a little boy...
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/crashav2.jpg) You have much to learn, Padawan.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 29, 2008, 11:19:50 PM
I listen to all the masters and maverick hunters who come through here. I'm a bomber, you know, and someday I'm going to  rush away from this place.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 29, 2008, 11:37:39 PM
What I hate about all this talk about the bailout is that they're always filled with ill portents and doomsaying; I'm sorry, but the economy collapses every 20 years, (the gas crisis, the stock market crash of 87, etc) and we're always better for it in the end. The banks who deserved to survive will, and the banks that didn't won't. The economic world works just like nature - survival of the fittest.

Bailing them out just disrupts the natural order, and delays the inevitable.

File this under "the world would sure be a lot better if it were as simple as He-Man always told me it was."

First of all, you want to talk about "sickening"?  Social Darwinism is sickening.  It is an inherently racist school of thought.  If you think our economy is based around survival of the fittest, then, by definition, you must think that the reason minorities are disproportionately poor is that they are not as fit as white men.

Problem number two is the implication that the economy is a vacuum, that the Invisible Hand drowns the wicked and spares the righteous.  That's not how it works.  It'd be fucking grand if we could just punish the people who got us into this mess and reward all the hardworking Americans who have had to suffer for it, but real life isn't like that.  In real life, if these companies go down, the entire economy goes with them; you're suggesting cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 29, 2008, 11:42:57 PM
Or blowing up an orphanage to kill Hitler.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on September 30, 2008, 04:57:30 AM
What I hate about all this talk about the bailout is that they're always filled with ill portents and doomsaying; I'm sorry, but the economy collapses every 20 years, (the gas crisis, the stock market crash of 87, etc) and we're always better for it in the end. The banks who deserved to survive will, and the banks that didn't won't. The economic world works just like nature - survival of the fittest.

Bailing them out just disrupts the natural order, and delays the inevitable.

File this under "the world would sure be a lot better if it were as simple as He-Man always told me it was."

First of all, you want to talk about "sickening"?  Social Darwinism is sickening.  It is an inherently racist school of thought.  If you think our economy is based around survival of the fittest, then, by definition, you must think that the reason minorities are disproportionately poor is that they are not as fit as white men.

Problem number two is the implication that the economy is a vacuum, that the Invisible Hand drowns the wicked and spares the righteous.  That's not how it works.  It'd be fucking grand if we could just punish the people who got us into this mess and reward all the hardworking Americans who have had to suffer for it, but real life isn't like that.  In real life, if these companies go down, the entire economy goes with them; you're suggesting cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Poorly managed companies dying out and being replaced by the companies who managed themselves properly is harldy racist; race never comes into that equation.

Some of the aspects of social darwinism are disgusting, yes. But if we're going to dump 700 billion dollars into counteracting then, I'd prefer they go to the people on the bottom rather than the people on the top. The money should be relief, not reward. Any company who would collapse for their use of predatory lending and overlending should be allowed to collapse. The FDIC and the federal government will protect people's savings and mortgages. A bank collapsing does not suddenly throw tens of thousands of people out of their homes.

You and I may feel differently about the economy, Thad, but I really don't appreciate you attacking me on our difference in opinion. If you want to have a discussion, let's have a discussion.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on September 30, 2008, 06:03:59 AM
Oh, yeah, do it.  Let's see this Thad v Shinra debate on the economy.  I'm sure Shinra is as informed and knowledge about as complex a subject as the economy as anyone could ever hope to be.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on September 30, 2008, 06:09:49 AM
Oh, yeah, do it.  Let's see this Thad v Shinra debate on the economy.  I'm sure Shinra is as informed and knowledge about as complex a subject as the economy as anyone could ever hope to be.

I don't really understand the assumption that I'm stupid. I'm entitled to have my opinions, even if they differ from yours, and the occasional misspelling or poor grammar does not classify me as an idiot, either. Smarter people than I have had a much worse grasp on the english language.

If having the balls to actually take part in a discussion instead of blindly agreeing with the flow and contributing nothing relevant of my own makes me an idiot, then so be it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 30, 2008, 06:27:22 AM
 ::D: Did Shinra just do some kiai? Believe in you who believes- :slap:

T- Shinra w/ serious:
You're talking about "opinions" and the like almost as though you're a grassroots ID campaigner. I want to believe you have a keen and insightful grasp of the micro and macro economic realities of the American economy, but I don't have any reason to right now.

Or blowing up an orphanage to kill Hitler.
I'd do it. It's not like the orphans have anyone who love them. :nazi:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Friday on September 30, 2008, 06:34:46 AM
Quote
You and I may feel differently about the economy, Thad, but I really don't appreciate you attacking me on our difference in opinion. If you want to have a discussion, let's have a discussion.

I don't see any attacks made against you in Thad's post.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on September 30, 2008, 06:46:30 AM
Quote
You and I may feel differently about the economy, Thad, but I really don't appreciate you attacking me on our difference in opinion. If you want to have a discussion, let's have a discussion.

I don't see any attacks made against you in Thad's post.

Quote
File this under "the world would sure be a lot better if it were as simple as He-Man always told me it was."
Quote
First of all, you want to talk about "sickening"?  Social Darwinism is sickening.  It (your opinion) is an inherently racist school of thought.  If you think our economy is based around survival of the fittest, then, by definition, you must think that the reason minorities are disproportionately poor is that they are not as fit as white men.

Emphasis mine, obviously.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Friday on September 30, 2008, 06:51:17 AM
Well, yeah. He's attacking your opinion, for sure. I just was confused about it, because it sounded like you were saying that he was attacking you personally.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on September 30, 2008, 06:57:09 AM
Well, yeah. He's attacking your opinion, for sure. I just was confused about it, because it sounded like you were saying that he was attacking you personally.

Attacking my opinion would be one thing, but jumping to the conclusion that I'm a racist when I never mentioned race or referenced race is another entirely. He took my point out of context rather then providing a rational response. If this was Guild I would believe that it was unintentional and chalk it up to him just being Guild, but I know Thad is smart enough to understand what I was saying.

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 30, 2008, 07:03:47 AM
Or he it could be that "it" is Social Darwinism, and he's arguing that you can't support SD as it's commonly constructed without it leading to racist conclusions.

SD takes as one of it's assumptions that we are not in a state of essentially economically enforced feudalism, with poor but talented and worthwhile fiefs squeezed for whatever they've got and kept down almost systematically.

Of course, this is all "high context" reading of Thad's words, so, you know, it's almost definitely wrong.

Guild, you are a hero forever for bringing the phrase "high context" here.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on September 30, 2008, 08:33:28 AM
He took my point out of context rather then providing a rational response.

Thad's obviously fit to be a politician then.  THAD FOR PRESIDENT 2012!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on September 30, 2008, 09:41:44 AM
Thad also has long-standing problems with the snark-unkind continuum of human interaction.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 30, 2008, 09:45:53 AM
By "problem" to you mean antipathy or extreme exuberance?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 30, 2008, 10:33:39 AM
(http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5168/img650x367fa0.jpg)
(http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/766/85164361mi8.jpg)
(http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3783/48226124ob2.jpg)
(http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4325/37610551xm8.jpg)
(http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/8812/66876481lr6.jpg)
(http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3339/26463016ay8.jpg)
(http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/7469/72352285li8.jpg)
(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2276/37518818rc2.jpg)
(http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/2295/83496326um2.jpg)
(http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/428/22455171ty8.jpg)
(http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4158/92274620sy8.jpg)
(http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7164/61442615xr6.jpg)
(http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7250/84546766ga8.jpg)
(http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5329/captcpsntb1630090805284za5.jpg)
(http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/641/20080929t162825354x450uhs6.jpg)
(http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9963/captaaac134a5ebb485e8c5wb4.jpg)
(http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2746/r3511536926jg2.jpg)
(http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/9293/0915081518m091508wallstet3.jpg)
(http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/9510/capitolbk6.png)
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h225/grippo_photos/092908_bailout.jpg)
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h225/grippo_photos/t1widemrktbailmon03ap-1.jpg)
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h225/grippo_photos/421dd1bb-fadf-4ff9-a13a-9fcc06f582f.jpg)
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h225/grippo_photos/cfdb7029-ddc3-4df6-bf40-db21e69a321.jpg)
(http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/9505/stokjb6.jpg)

...

(http://i33.tinypic.com/20aaykx.gif)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: McDohl on September 30, 2008, 10:46:33 AM
 ::(:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 30, 2008, 10:48:39 AM
Today is the second worst day in the last 100 years to be trying to buy a car.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 30, 2008, 12:43:22 PM
Or he it could be that "it" is Social Darwinism, and he's arguing that you can't support SD as it's commonly constructed without it leading to racist conclusions.

SD takes as one of its assumptions that we are not in a state of essentially economically enforced feudalism, with poor but talented and worthwhile fiefs squeezed for whatever they've got and kept down almost systematically.

That's pretty much it.  I don't think you can pick and choose which parts of "economic survival of the fittest" you think apply; it's either survival of the fittest or it's not.  If you believe the fittest people are the ones who make it to the top (and this entire crisis is a pretty good refutation of that point), then you must reasonably believe that the people in the other strata are there because of their own failings and not due to external circumstance.

FWIW, Shinra, I wasn't saying you're racist.  I WAS saying that you're supporting a line of thinking that, carried to its logical conclusion, IMPLIES racism -- there's a distinction there.  Similarly, I don't think Guild is racist, but he believes there shouldn't be public schooling, and in practice that would mean no education for the poorest Americans, who are disproportionately minorities.

I'm not saying you're racist.  I'm just saying you're proposing a line of reasoning that you don't seem to have followed to its conclusion.

But if we're going to dump 700 billion dollars into counteracting then, I'd prefer they go to the people on the bottom rather than the people on the top. The money should be relief, not reward.

We're in total agreement on this part.  But  government aid to people at the bottom is pretty much the opposite of what people typically describe as "survival of the fittest".

Any company who would collapse for their use of predatory lending and overlending should be allowed to collapse. The FDIC and the federal government will protect people's savings and mortgages. A bank collapsing does not suddenly throw tens of thousands of people out of their homes.

That's all conjecture.  FDIC money still has to come from somewhere, and we're looking at a taxpayer bailout any way you slice it.

People are already losing their homes, and have been for some time.  The housing bubble is a huge part of this mess.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: sei on September 30, 2008, 02:30:49 PM
I don't remember having heard of Gresham's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_Law), but it was mentioned in a (non-economics) book I'm reading.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on September 30, 2008, 03:06:56 PM
I'm going to try and detail my understanding of the issue; someone please tell me how wrong I am.

1-The government deregularizes mortgages in order to encourage banks to lend to the poor and to minorities.
2-The banks start loaning money to people in order to get them to buy houses they can't actually afford.
3-Now that there are lots more people who want to buy houses, the prices rise across the board due to the increased demand.
4-It turns out that the people who couldn't afford houses really couldn't afford them. A foreclosure epidemy ensues.
5-All the foreclosures kick property values in the nuts. The people who still have houses are stuck with mortgages much more expensive than what the actual houses are worth. The banks are stuck with devalued houses worth a fraction of what they paid for them.
6-The banks run out of money and collapse under the weight of the debts they've incurred in exchange for all that worthless real estate. I guess they gambled that it was more likely that home prices were going to continue to rise, and therefore that it didn't matter too much that the home buyers would never be able to repay them.
7-Now since the banks are all bound together, insuring each others' debt in an arcane, incestuous network that involves massive amounts of money that never existed in the first place, they all fall like dominoes.
8-Everyone freaks the fuck out and wants to get back whatever cash they can salvage out of this wreck, therefore thoroughly raping the stock market all over the place.

So, am I close?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 30, 2008, 03:19:06 PM
Pretty darn close.  I'll admit I'm not the World's Foremost Expert, but:

1-The impetus for deregulating mortgages, off paper, probably didn't have much to do with the poor.
2-All the defaulting loans right now aren't 100% tied to mortgages. There's a lot of very poorly thought-out business loans out there too.  Houses are simply the largest area of, forgive the loaded terminology, infection at the moment.
3-The banks weren't totally stupid.  They knew this was coming, but it's not an entirely simple matter to break out of an economic spiral once you're in it, as every non-rich person probably knows.
4-Not every bank is fucked here.  Just, ah, 90% or so.
5-The stock market dropping like a rock is the result of everybody pulling the hell out before their investment literally becomes $0.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on September 30, 2008, 03:46:37 PM
6-The banks run out of money and collapse under the weight of the debts they've incurred in exchange for all that worthless real estate. I guess they gambled that it was more likely that home prices were going to continue to rise, and therefore that it didn't matter too much that the home buyers would never be able to repay them.

Maybe.  But anecdotally, I heard a caller on NPR yesterday who said he knew people on Wall Street who just shrugged and said "If this goes south, the government will bail us out."

Where the "let them fail" argument DOES have merit is that if we bail them out this time, they'll run their businesses like they expect one next time.

Where it doesn't, again, is that if they go, they'll take everybody else down with them.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 30, 2008, 03:51:47 PM
(http://www.corporate-sellout.com/img/megaman9av.png)  I've finally killed Capitalism!  For everlasting peace!
:profit: GRRRRRRRRRRRR......
:8V: BAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!
(http://www.corporate-sellout.com/img/megaman9av.png) OH SHIT THAT WAS A LOAD BEARING BOSS!!!


TIME TO BAIL OUT: 14:00:00
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: on September 30, 2008, 03:56:25 PM
6-The banks run out of money and collapse under the weight of the debts they've incurred in exchange for all that worthless real estate. I guess they gambled that it was more likely that home prices were going to continue to rise, and therefore that it didn't matter too much that the home buyers would never be able to repay them.

Maybe.  But anecdotally, I heard a caller on NPR yesterday who said he knew people on Wall Street who just shrugged and said "If this goes south, the government will bail us out."

Where the "let them fail" argument DOES have merit is that if we bail them out this time, they'll run their businesses like they expect one next time.

Where it doesn't, again, is that if they go, they'll take everybody else down with them.

So, wait, what's the solution here? Bailing them out solves nothing. Letting them fail causes them to cackle as they take everyone with them.

Bail them out, then execute the people in charge?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 30, 2008, 04:00:35 PM
Bail them out, and simultaneously set up new rules to prevent them from putting themselves in this position again.  The old Deal did both parts, but was sort of lax and loopholey on the second bit.  In theory they're cooking up something now which addresses current and future problems a bit more satisfactorilyationly.

It's kind of the Big Brother equivalent of telling your kids that you'll post their bail, but they're fucking going to have to stick to a curfew.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: on September 30, 2008, 04:17:53 PM
Post their bail, then take away their Xbox.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 30, 2008, 04:21:47 PM
Place them in semi-indentured servitude.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on September 30, 2008, 04:24:56 PM
Heh. Republican ideal of capitalism, meet reality. Reality, meet the Republican ideal of capitalism.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 30, 2008, 04:34:59 PM
The Democratic ideal of capitalism isn't perfect either, you know.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on September 30, 2008, 04:36:28 PM
Isn't that socialism?  :happy:


:serious: But man, jeez, Roast Beef basically thinks deregulation is about the worst thing ever.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on September 30, 2008, 05:02:53 PM
The Democratic ideal of capitalism isn't perfect either, you know.

Yeah, it's not. But, I mean, we're certainly having an object lesson about deregulation right now, even though it might not be entirely/directly responsible.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on September 30, 2008, 05:41:15 PM
We need to have more regulations.  Then get other countries to have the same regulations so greedy bastards can't do greedy bastard shit anywhere.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 30, 2008, 05:47:13 PM
Ho, yes.  Let's try to impose American systems of government on other countries.  That one is always a good time.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Air on September 30, 2008, 05:48:08 PM
 ::(:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ocksi on September 30, 2008, 07:18:14 PM
there are three parts of the collapse that haven't been discussed, that i've seen.  the intertwining debt mentioned came about from banks and lending groups bundling together toxic assets (failure mortgages, bad loans) and selling them to people who didn't know any better.  the organizations would give them billions in credit to take up these bundles of loans, assuming the loans would then pay off and return a profit.

many of these organizations were international entities, based in china and europe.  the joke that's been going around economic circles is, "yeah, china's been selling us all these toxic toys, foods, and everything else.  all we've been selling them is toxic assets."

the third part of this is all that credit these outside organizations are extending in exchange for toxic assets is that once they caught a smell of what was happening, when the loans started really turning sour, they stopped extending that credit to companies like lehman and bear sterns, not to mention freddy and fannie.  without those credit lines, these companies could no longer afford to continue making bad loans, which meant they could no longer make any money.

but they had so much credit they were trying to cover from previous bad loans that the debt over just a few days of not earning retard money collapsed companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

if these companies aren't saved, their creditors crumble in the same way they have.

and now two interesting solutions i've heard, one which bails out the world market at the sacrifice of the US dollar and economy in general, and one that erodes the world economy, lowering all world currency to be competitive with the dollar again.  both plans include a few depression years, but, honestly, i don't think there's any avoiding that at this point.

the first plan extends the bailout money to money managers who have proven themselves responsible by avoiding this huge collapse.  spread it evenly among as many of these banks, funds, groups, whatever you can find.  attain the real value of the assets that are currently showing highly inflated value (which is one reason the paulson plan was so bad: he wanted to buy toxic assets at the value the companies who tanked set them, or close to it, with no way to assess their true market value) and have a big auction.  smart money managers will obviously pay only the closest thing to their true appraisal of market value as they can get and still profit from it, so they will not assume toxic assets, they will be granted privilege to refinance the deals in an appropriate way after getting the assets at cost.

this would lead to profit and, in the end, ways to reduce the pressures on outside creditors.

the other option is to take the bailout money and use it to invest in infrastructure and industrial programs, new deal-style.  create jobs, factories, etc.  then use those factories to produce american goods at affordable prices, sell them to other countries, and actually have an american product worth exporting for the first time since cheap chinese goods came on to the market.  after a few years of global depression, quality goods flooding the world market could put america back on top.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on September 30, 2008, 07:29:35 PM
I would love to see the 'worthless, shit goods' pendulum swing back towards the quality end of things for a while, but I doubt it'll happen soon.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Dooly on September 30, 2008, 07:41:06 PM
This thread has me wondering if I should start investing in some foreign currency before our dollar takes a nosedive.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Detonator on September 30, 2008, 07:41:49 PM
This thread has me wondering if I should start investing in some foreign currency before our dollar takes a nosedive.

I hear gold has been doing very well lately.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on September 30, 2008, 07:43:19 PM
Hint: It is too late. The smart men did this months or years ago.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ocksi on September 30, 2008, 07:44:00 PM
relevant nyt article from 1999: [ugly fucking URL inexplicably posted straight]

THAD EDIT: The article is titled  Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&&scp=2&sq=holmes%20fannie%20mae&st=cse), and lays out the beginning of the subprime mortgage trend.

also, if you haven't been paying attention, foreign currency is also unstable right now.  the world economy will burn with the us economy.  you will lose money.  the past sixty years have shown that when all this turns around, the us dollar will gain faster than other currencies.  you would lose money if trends continue as they have in the time of modern economics.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on September 30, 2008, 07:45:36 PM
This thread has me wondering if I should start investing in some foreign currency before our dollar takes a nosedive.
Actually, today the Dollar gained against the Euro and gasoline dropped $10. Turmoil brought about correction.

Went up again today. The Euro is beginning to sink as European Banks are starting to show cracks.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 30, 2008, 07:47:34 PM
...ah ha ha Al Qaeda is laughing so hard right now.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on September 30, 2008, 08:18:28 PM
Interesting footnote? (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080930.wbloomberg01/BNStory/International/home)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 30, 2008, 08:23:42 PM
East coast is fucking weird.  Here on the West coast whenever somebody fucks up we don't give him an extra term, we boot his ass out as soon as possible and replace him with a paid actor.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 30, 2008, 10:11:08 PM
Tell me Daily Show is misrepresenting the "Congress is out for the Jewish Holiday" thing for humor.

Because I'd kick their asses right now for taking Christmas off.  FIX THIS SHIT.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on October 01, 2008, 03:59:54 AM
Bail them out, and simultaneously set up new rules to prevent them from putting themselves in this position again.  The old Deal did both parts, but was sort of lax and loopholey on the second bit.  In theory they're cooking up something now which addresses current and future problems a bit more satisfactorilyationly.

It's kind of the Big Brother equivalent of telling your kids that you'll post their bail, but they're fucking going to have to stick to a curfew.

This is basically my position. If we're going to spend money to pad the blow, I don't feel comfortable - at all - in that money going to maintain the system. The final version of the bailout bill had a provision that would have simply limited the tax deductions a company could claim against an executive's salary. If a bailout bill is made, it has to stop profiteering in it's tracks. No more severance packages, no more 20 million dollar salaries, no more 'bonuses'. On top of that, there needs to be provisions for outsourcing and tax sheltering with these companies, as a lot of them are basically stealing money and jobs from hardworking americans by utilizing these means. How many CEOs of major banks and investment firms cycle their money through offshore banks as a means of cheating us out of needed tax dollars?

The bill as it is should not be allowed to pass, period. The bill right now is as much reward as it is relief. It's the government telling them that it's OK to cheat us out of our money. I don't agree with that. I would rather see the banks fall and have our country enter another major economic depression before I would stand for our government writing a blank check to wall street and telling them 'We know you screwed up, but it's OK.'
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 02, 2008, 12:37:16 AM
Bailout passes Senate (http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/la-fi-bailout2-2008oct02,0,1307485.story), overwhelmingly (74-25).  Will be interested to see how the modified version does when it goes back to the House.

Meanwhile: via Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4911E220081002), a Commonwealth Fund study says Obama's healthcare plan will help 17 times as many uninsured as McCain's.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 02, 2008, 12:41:52 AM
Adds $105 billion dollars to the total and a bunch of useless riders, but this time it's extremely unpopular to vote against it.

Ah well, road to Hell etc. etc.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Zaratustra on October 02, 2008, 12:56:37 AM
I still say you should make a donation of a single bullet to the back of the neck of every banker in America.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on October 02, 2008, 04:08:04 AM
I still say you should make a donation of a single bullet to the back of the neck of every banker in America.

That'd be nice. Instead, we're going to punish them by handing them billions of dollars.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 02, 2008, 05:04:07 AM
They will not be able to carry that weight and they will be crushed! :richiam:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kazz on October 02, 2008, 05:43:35 AM
o/` IT'S LIKE RAY-EE-AAAAAIN ON YOUR WEDDING DAY o/`
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on October 02, 2008, 06:22:06 AM
Clearly they did not think their nefarious plan through!   :smile:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 02, 2008, 06:26:32 AM
:happy: It's not like they'll be able to get enough trucks to carry it all on their credit!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on October 02, 2008, 06:44:11 AM
Doh ho ho ho ho!  :insert Waldorf & Statler pic:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 02, 2008, 09:38:47 AM
Just so you know, most of the extra hundred billion is probably to cover the bump in FDIC insurance from $100k to $250k.  I do not entirely have a problem with that.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 02, 2008, 02:43:18 PM
So Bloomberg has confirmed he will try to seek a third tem.

A-yuk yuk yuk.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on October 02, 2008, 03:22:08 PM
For just the smallest of moments there, I thought you meant Bloomberg news, and by 'he' I thought, well...

:painful: Why must he keep coming back?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on October 03, 2008, 09:32:36 AM
Days of Our Lives was just interrupted to inform us all that The Bailout has passed in the House.

Final - 263 - 171
Democrats - 172-63
Republicans - 91-108
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 03, 2008, 09:46:59 AM
now the bank will shut up and give me my car  :victory:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: MadMAxJr on October 03, 2008, 10:31:11 AM
Well now that they've learned that if they screw up hard enough, they can get billions of dollars.  Perhaps they will now do the same to you, Brent?  Watch out for that 599,999.99% interest rate on the financing.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 03, 2008, 11:40:13 AM
Sounds like the whole thing got more than 400 pages longer from the original version.  Not that that's ENTIRELY bad, as the original version was "Paulson can do whatever he wants without being questioned by anyone ever", but obviously there's a hell of a lot of unnecessary stuff tacked on.  As I understand it, they got the Republicans to vote for it by adding tax cuts, which is of course how you get Republicans to vote for anything.

Last I heard, the market was actually up more than 300 points BEFORE the bill passed and dropped to a gain of 60 or so right afterward.  I'll be honest, at this point none of this shit makes a lick of sense to me.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on October 03, 2008, 11:43:16 AM
the richest 1% of the nation just got more money given to them by the government again, it happens all the time
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 03, 2008, 11:44:53 AM
 :facepalm:
I just overheard someone blame this fix on "liberalism". i.e. "Making up things about stuff that isn't real." Which is, I guess, market speculation/not tying our currency to anything (yay gold standard).
Why are they so stupid? Why don't they know anything?


I don't know anything about politics or history! HOW DO I KNOW MORE ABOUT IT THAN THEY DO!?  :ohshi~:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on October 03, 2008, 11:48:55 AM
They don't know anything because economics is some highly arcane bullshit to a good deal of this nation.  This is some serious ivory tower stuff, to be honest.

For all I know my rants could be completely inaccurate and histrionic too.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 03, 2008, 12:03:09 PM
But-but! Deregulation, Lazziez Faire, Trickledown, all of that shit is part of the conservative republican machine!!!
It- I don't- IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!
:vonkarma:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 03, 2008, 12:36:53 PM
A large part of the problem is that it's nearly impossible to find a complete rundown of the provisions of the bill, even with the incredible power of INTERNET to get the information to you.  You can read the entire bill yourself, but you'll need years of training in the arcane language of Legalese to get any useful information out of it.

The problem with this is that you start seeing truly bizarre stuff emerge from the depths of the thing when people who are trained start to slowly unravel its hidden mysteries.  For example, anybody who initiates a loan must have their fingerprint added to a national registry. (http://news.cnet.com/housing-bailout-bill-creates-national-fingerprint-registry/)  Fairly innocent by itself, the implications of why the hell you would ever need something like that are a little strange.  Do the Feds expect mortgage brokers to start going deep undercover or something?

That's only one thing, though; the bill is full of crazy shit like that, like cash incentives for movie producers to film in the United States.  It all adds up to a huge ball of What the Hell Did We Just Buy?.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 03, 2008, 01:02:26 PM
What the Hell Did We Just Buy?
:kowhyee: A Car for Brentai!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: on October 03, 2008, 01:04:57 PM
Dildos - the Sodomizer 7000 brand - for everyone.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Air on October 03, 2008, 07:10:17 PM
 ::(: Now USA never be fixed.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 03, 2008, 07:19:23 PM
On the bright side, if we're ever fixed, we'll still be able to anally rape.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 03, 2008, 07:37:35 PM
Looks like Bush already signed the damn thing, so there's no use kvetching now.  So.  Who here has $800 billion?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Doom on October 03, 2008, 07:42:50 PM
(http://doom.pyoko.org/bender_monocle.jpg)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on October 03, 2008, 08:10:46 PM
Sounds like the whole thing got more than 450 pages longer from the original version.

It was treated as an amendment to a spending bill, so it's mixed in with tax breaks to rum, NASCAR, and wooden arrows (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chicago-bailout-pork-oct03,0,5528297.story) too. There's educational expenses in there too, but that particular news doesn't sell subscriptions.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 03, 2008, 08:31:16 PM
Actually it sounds like they're scaling back the tax break on NASCAR.  Am I misreading that?

Tax break on wooden child's arrows only, though?  How the hell am I going to afford getting through the Temples?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 03, 2008, 09:50:28 PM
Sounds like the whole thing got more than 450 pages longer from the original version.

...Are you aware that "more than 450" also qualifies as more than 400?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on October 03, 2008, 09:57:29 PM
By your wording, we could be talking about 404 to 449 pages.

That simply isn't the case, and the American people deserve the truth, try as you might as to cover up those extra pages concerning your "Thundercats Emporium" provision.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 03, 2008, 10:01:19 PM
...Are you aware that "more than 450" also qualifies as more than 10?

Why you'd make the change for an 12% increase is beyond me though.

...cover up those extra pages concerning your "Thundercats Emporium" provision.

Ah, that's why.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 04, 2008, 12:08:13 AM
Not all the add-ons are bad: Domenici's bill (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122307644210303899.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) prohibiting insurance companies from discriminating against people with mental illnesses finally passed after a twelve-year battle.  It's a pity it takes circumstances like this to finally get things like that to happen, but it's a victory.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: on October 04, 2008, 12:40:37 AM
Not all the add-ons are bad: Domenici's bill (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122307644210303899.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) prohibiting insurance companies from discriminating against people with mental illnesses finally passed after a twelve-year battle.  It's a pity it takes circumstances like this to finally get things like that to happen, but it's a victory.
:victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory:

Mere smilies cannot express how wonderful this news is to me.
Disclosure: I have a mental illness, my father has mental problems, and we've both gotten the shit end of the stick from insurance companies who thought we were 'faking it'
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on October 04, 2008, 04:40:01 PM
Question to the peanut gallery:  Where is this 700 billion dollars coming from?

Is there some magical reserve which is being chipped away at here, or are you just printing money?

In case of the later, has this not been done already?  Any Germans in the crowd?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Air on October 04, 2008, 04:46:12 PM
>itprintsmoney.png
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Guild on October 05, 2008, 08:57:51 PM
obama used acorn to force banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them

that's right

barack obama caused the recession
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 05, 2008, 08:59:36 PM
Say what Gildedman? I don't know enough about politics to even get what you're referencing,
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Guild on October 05, 2008, 09:07:16 PM
what? i figured you guys would be buzzing over it...

Obama to blame for recession, cries recent media sources. (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?status=article&id=307667123149723&secid=1501)

- first link on google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=barack+obama+acorn+loans&aq=f&oq=) page.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on October 05, 2008, 09:22:26 PM
It's true, it's true. Obama, and Obama alone, is the reason Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were forced to use 4% of their lending funds to offer low-income loans on housing, with a laundry list of requirements to apply and be approved for.

That bastard.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Guild on October 05, 2008, 09:26:02 PM
I was considering this a priming strategy for McCain for the presidential debates coming up. Don't be surprised when a good chunk of discussion is dedicated to the ACORN scandal.

Hence posting it in The Debates, but whatever.

McCain's still my man.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Guild on October 05, 2008, 09:27:42 PM
To respond to Rock (whomever you may be), he did push for said banks to lower those requirements to retroactively allow minorities to afford housing loans.

I hate PC.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on October 05, 2008, 09:28:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TUpm5h6LDQ

Noted.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Guild on October 05, 2008, 09:35:13 PM
I don't have the ability (slow dialup) or knowledge (never seen death notebook) to understand your post.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on October 05, 2008, 09:43:49 PM
You're overdue for an Andy Kaufman avatar. You've... You've earned it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on October 06, 2008, 10:47:14 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g72BuIvMbWY

http://www.keatingeconomics.com/

13 minute documentary on the Keating 5 debacle, paid for by Obama For America. Ties into the current (and still ongoing) banking crisis.

Today, the Dow has dropped under 9700 for the first time since 2004 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/27051921), as European Banks have begun seeking bailouts, and America's bailout has yet to impact as many institutions have yet to opt in. That smell? Books cooking.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 06, 2008, 11:03:56 AM
AP via Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/story/ap/20081006/ap_on_go_co/meltdown_lehman):

Quote
Days from becoming the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, Lehman Brothers steered millions to departing executives even while pleading for a federal rescue, Congress was told Monday.

As well, executives who feared for their bonuses in the company's last months were told not to worry, according to documents cited at a congressional hearing. One executive said he was embarrassed when employees suggested that Lehman executives forgo bonuses, and cracked: "I'm not sure what's in the water."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 06, 2008, 11:12:43 AM
 :behold: Curses!  My morality serum is almost complete!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: on October 06, 2008, 07:00:26 PM
(http://tinyurl.com/4fnggf)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on October 07, 2008, 09:58:43 AM
I have it on authority from some auto industry insiders (family in michigan) that Chrysler will likely be no more as of february 2009. Note to those of you living in Michigan. Get out while you still can.

I cannot say for certain that my source is credible, but honestly, it's only a matter of time before one of the big 3 collapses, and if we do enter a depression as the economists are predicting, it's going to be sooner rather than later. (edit: a big 3 collapse, that is)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on October 07, 2008, 10:29:25 AM
Note to those of you living in Michigan. Get out while you still can.

The creation of a second Flint doesn't mean the death of the entire state.  Though it does limit travel options if one is afraid of high crime rates and poverty.  (Flint is just as scary as Detroit, but less populated so there are fewer 'safe zones')
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on October 07, 2008, 11:19:07 AM
get out


edit: out, out you damn page break! :whoops:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 07, 2008, 12:45:17 PM
The smoking junk heap that left me stranded here was a Chrysler.   :victory: karma!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: TA on October 07, 2008, 12:54:17 PM
Note to those of you living in Michigan. Get out while you still can.

The creation of a second Flint doesn't mean the death of the entire state.  Though it does limit travel options if one is afraid of high crime rates and poverty.  (Flint is just as scary as Detroit, but less populated so there are fewer 'safe zones')

It's Michigan.  90% of the state is, essentially, Flint.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Zach on October 09, 2008, 11:54:34 AM
... under 9000 isn't nearly as funny. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081009/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on October 09, 2008, 12:20:11 PM
Well, it's rather brutal here. Right now we are advising all our clients to put everything they've got into canned food and shotguns.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 09, 2008, 01:07:09 PM
Sometimes I want to shoot myself for catching one of you guys' references.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kayma on October 09, 2008, 08:43:08 PM
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/10/buddyicons/17673663@N00.jpg)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: McDohl on October 10, 2008, 04:16:25 AM
I turn on the news this morning and hear that foreign economies are also taking a fucking shit, and that it could be considered "Black Friday".   ::(:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kazz on October 10, 2008, 04:50:19 AM
I guess it's about time to admit that I have no idea what's going on.  The amounts of money being talked about are staggering; anything over a billion bucks is mentally inconceivable to me.  And since the only thing I've personally noticed is that gas prices are almost back to $3, I'm frankly not very concerned.  Though I'm afraid that I should be.  Though I'm positive I can't do anything to help.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: on October 10, 2008, 05:31:25 AM
I'm with Kazz. I understand what CAUSED this: Banks being retarded with who they loan their money to..
But could an Econ major step in and give us :derp: s a rundown of why the whole world seems to be shitting itself?

And what's up with the gas prices too.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Detonator on October 10, 2008, 05:54:34 AM
It's a lot easier to not worry about this if you don't have a job or retirement fund.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 10, 2008, 07:31:00 AM
And what's up with the gas prices too.

Gas prices are basically a form of speculation. As a good, it seems to be way more inelastic (i.e. consumption is influenced by price fairly little) in the short term than they seem to think. These people think that this financial breakdown is going to make people drive less unless gas is cheap. So they are pulling the prices down.

Then again, it could be election season :wank: going on.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kazz on October 10, 2008, 07:36:03 AM
I hear "SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS" and I'm like "OH NO, NOT THE JIBBIDY FIGGLES CRISIS"
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 10, 2008, 07:39:11 AM
I prefer to describe it as the "everyone forgot that money was real and a bunch of rich people decided to rob everyone again thanks to republican fueled deregulation crisis".

That's how I run it down...
Though... I might... be... slightly spinning it.
Obama/Biden08!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Doom on October 10, 2008, 07:40:18 AM
Idiot Questions Incoming!

1) Anybody else feel the mild urge to stockpile non-perishable goods and water?

2) Would it be better to bury my "savings" in my backyard in a jar, or to open a savings account?

Also, Election Gas Drops are a proud Bush tradition still going strong. Or perhaps it extends further, to other nervous robber baron parties.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 10, 2008, 07:50:06 AM
IDIOT ANSWER VOLLEY RETURN! (prana method diagram)
perhaps it extends to other nervous robber baron parties.
:shrug: Who can say?

1) Yes, but that happens every other month. I am sure it will pass by november.

2) No. I don't think so. Burying your savings in the ground means you'll "lose money" as inflation goes up. On the other hand, putting your money in a bank that tanks means you could have no money, BUT! If enough banks tank we could go back to NOT HAVING MONEY </ridiculous doomsaying>

I mean, if you're really desperate to acquire some form of secure wealth to put your money into, you could go with ingots. As was mentioned before though, when dealing with wealth, money, and the establishment, you are supposed to take it on faith that it won't implode. :shrug: So this could be the exact wrong EKON 101 :hurr: type "advice".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: jsnlxndrlv on October 10, 2008, 09:08:23 AM
The thing about your retirement account is that as long as you don't plan to retire in the next ten years, you're probably fine.  Because this probably isn't The End Of The Stock Market As We Know It, in which case a decade down the line we'll most likely be back to the usual growth, in which case you won't so much have lost money as not gained as much as you'd have liked.  Which, yes, beats the buried jar approach.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 10, 2008, 09:52:00 AM
This shit isn't going to affect you personally any time soon unless you happen to have more than $250,000 kicking around or are trying to get a loan *cough*.  The problem is that most of the people who make the Stuff You Want do, and it's going to start limiting the availability of Stuff You Want.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on October 10, 2008, 11:47:43 AM
The problem is that most of the people who make the Stuff You Want do, and it's going to start limiting the availability of Stuff You Want.

This unfortunately includes jobs, if you happen to be on board the california cyber-gravy train.

In other words, guess who's unemployed!

IDIOT ANSWER VOLLEY RETURN! (prana method diagram)

... is that supposed to be an Exalted reference
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: MadMAxJr on October 10, 2008, 12:47:08 PM
I am not in any way an economic expert, but if you have money invested in CDs (Certificate Deposits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificates_of_deposit)) that money is locked in at whatever interest rate you started at.  It's fine.  (Shame I didn't put more into mine.)

If you're new to CDs, they typically have a minimum deposit of $1000, or $2500, and accrue a low monthly interest.  The risk in these things are low, and the returns are almost always better than a savings account (I was getting about 6% a year or two ago).  You can GET to this money if you really need to, but typically the penalty is losing your interest gains + small fee.  Don't ever let them talk you into making short term loans against the fund unless your name is Brickton McMoneybucks.  If that is the case: first off - your name is awesome, second - why are you (or your personal website reading servant) reading this?

I highly advise people to look into reputable Credit Unions over banks.  They are still relatively safe for the time being from what I understand.  Feel free to step in and correct me if this is wrong.

EDIT: Now with Wiki
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 10, 2008, 12:52:49 PM
IDIOT ANSWER VOLLEY RETURN! (prana method diagram)
... is that supposed to be an Exalted reference?
:whoops:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Guild on October 10, 2008, 01:05:42 PM
I prefer to describe it as the "everyone forgot that money was real and a bunch of rich people decided to rob everyone again thanks to republican fueled deregulation crisis".

That's how I run it down...
Though... I might... be... slightly spinning it.
Obama/Biden08!

If you want to get technical, the creation of a market for mortgages was FDR's* doing.

Lowering requirements for mortgage applications: Also a frequent push-item for modern liberals.

*FDR: Arguably the most modernly "left" president in the last century.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 10, 2008, 01:32:26 PM
We could get technical... :humpf: or we could do sound bites!

But no. I think we're basically in agreement that this has been largely caused by predatory loans. Yes?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 10, 2008, 01:32:52 PM
The problem is that most of the people who make the Stuff You Want do, and it's going to start limiting the availability of Stuff You Want.

This unfortunately includes jobs, if you happen to be on board the california cyber-gravy train.

Not me!  Although I'm flat broke at this moment from all my clients exploding into thousands of pieces and not sending any work my way for the past two weeks, now every single one of those pieces has formed its own little mini-colony and desperately needs me to do something at my new inflated rate!
 :perfect:

That said, I still don't expect to come out exactly ahead.  We're talking about a wheelbarrow full of money when it takes that much to buy a loaf of bread, here.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 10, 2008, 01:34:39 PM
If you're not selling yourself into slavery for our corporate masters Brent, you're part of the inflation problem.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Superface on October 10, 2008, 01:53:53 PM
Gas fell more than 60 cents a gallon yesterday. I'm fucking terrified.

I now own a small business, as of 2 months ago.

If shit hits the fan, I promise all of you I'm moving to Canada. I heard about the Great Depression from Steinbeck, I'm not fucking sitting through that just because I'm too lazy to leave. I'll panhandle in Vancouver before I starve in Missouri.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on October 10, 2008, 01:56:29 PM
If shit hits the fan, I promise all of you I'm moving to Canada.

(http://www.joelconstantine.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=202)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 10, 2008, 02:52:21 PM
For Kazz those of you still wondering "what the fuck is going on?", here are some relevant quotes from earlier in this very thread:

relevant nyt article from 1999: [ugly fucking URL inexplicably posted straight]

THAD EDIT: The article is titled  Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&&scp=2&sq=holmes%20fannie%20mae&st=cse), and lays out the beginning of the subprime mortgage trend.

also, if you haven't been paying attention, foreign currency is also unstable right now.  the world economy will burn with the us economy.  you will lose money.  the past sixty years have shown that when all this turns around, the us dollar will gain faster than other currencies.  you would lose money if trends continue as they have in the time of modern economics.

I'm going to try and detail my understanding of the issue; someone please tell me how wrong I am.

1-The government deregularizes mortgages in order to encourage banks to lend to the poor and to minorities.
2-The banks start loaning money to people in order to get them to buy houses they can't actually afford.
3-Now that there are lots more people who want to buy houses, the prices rise across the board due to the increased demand.
4-It turns out that the people who couldn't afford houses really couldn't afford them. A foreclosure epidemy ensues.
5-All the foreclosures kick property values in the nuts. The people who still have houses are stuck with mortgages much more expensive than what the actual houses are worth. The banks are stuck with devalued houses worth a fraction of what they paid for them.
6-The banks run out of money and collapse under the weight of the debts they've incurred in exchange for all that worthless real estate. I guess they gambled that it was more likely that home prices were going to continue to rise, and therefore that it didn't matter too much that the home buyers would never be able to repay them.
7-Now since the banks are all bound together, insuring each others' debt in an arcane, incestuous network that involves massive amounts of money that never existed in the first place, they all fall like dominoes.
8-Everyone freaks the fuck out and wants to get back whatever cash they can salvage out of this wreck, therefore thoroughly raping the stock market all over the place.

So, am I close?

Close enough to serve as a quick-n-dirty explanation for the everyman. An bit of an expansion would help though:

Debt has a value as an investment. If I hold your mortgage, I can drink your milkshake be (in theory) assured of regular mortgage payments (i.e. dividends on my investment). The banks got very very good in the last decade at slickly repackaging mortgages as solid, reliable investments. These were typically purchased by other financial-sector firms (the firms like Lehman brothers, who are in the worst shape).

Now, before deregulation, this worked out, because mortgages OVERALL had a reliable default rate, which you could work into the calculations. After deregulation, a viscious cycle was started, where mortgages were progressively offered to more and more people who wouold never be able to afford them normally. The problem was exacerbated by several factors:
1 - People though the banks were doing good by helping ordinary folks buy homes who might not otherwise be able to.
2 - Since the mortgages were often sold to other firms, the banks who did the credit checks on the homebuyers were not assuming the true risks for those bad loans, which removed a vital check against overextension of credit.
3 - The US economy has been encouraging expansion through credit-fuelled consumerism for two decades now (a problem with deeper roots).
4 - The investments became so popular and profitable, that demand was insatiable and banks were constantly encouraged to find new ways to expans the number of people who were eligable for mortgages.
5 - Important credit rating agencies, who are supposed to provide impartial appraisals, allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes and gave the repackaged investments their highest triple-A credit rating, lulling many industry players into a false sense of security.
6 - Extreme short term thinking and the 'fast buck' mentality has been a problem in the north american corporate world for some time now.

6-The banks run out of money and collapse under the weight of the debts they've incurred in exchange for all that worthless real estate. I guess they gambled that it was more likely that home prices were going to continue to rise, and therefore that it didn't matter too much that the home buyers would never be able to repay them.

Maybe.  But anecdotally, I heard a caller on NPR yesterday who said he knew people on Wall Street who just shrugged and said "If this goes south, the government will bail us out."

Where the "let them fail" argument DOES have merit is that if we bail them out this time, they'll run their businesses like they expect one next time.

Where it doesn't, again, is that if they go, they'll take everybody else down with them.

Important addendum by Thad ^

Personal responsibility took a walk at the highest levels here. And I'm cynical enough to believe no one will learn from this unless things become much, much worse.

there are three parts of the collapse that haven't been discussed, that i've seen.  the intertwining debt mentioned came about from banks and lending groups bundling together toxic assets (failure mortgages, bad loans) and selling them to people who didn't know any better.  the organizations would give them billions in credit to take up these bundles of loans, assuming the loans would then pay off and return a profit.

many of these organizations were international entities, based in china and europe.  the joke that's been going around economic circles is, "yeah, china's been selling us all these toxic toys, foods, and everything else.  all we've been selling them is toxic assets."

the third part of this is all that credit these outside organizations are extending in exchange for toxic assets is that once they caught a smell of what was happening, when the loans started really turning sour, they stopped extending that credit to companies like lehman and bear sterns, not to mention freddy and fannie.  without those credit lines, these companies could no longer afford to continue making bad loans, which meant they could no longer make any money.

but they had so much credit they were trying to cover from previous bad loans that the debt over just a few days of not earning retard money collapsed companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

if these companies aren't saved, their creditors crumble in the same way they have.

and now two interesting solutions i've heard, one which bails out the world market at the sacrifice of the US dollar and economy in general, and one that erodes the world economy, lowering all world currency to be competitive with the dollar again.  both plans include a few depression years, but, honestly, i don't think there's any avoiding that at this point.

the first plan extends the bailout money to money managers who have proven themselves responsible by avoiding this huge collapse.  spread it evenly among as many of these banks, funds, groups, whatever you can find.  attain the real value of the assets that are currently showing highly inflated value (which is one reason the paulson plan was so bad: he wanted to buy toxic assets at the value the companies who tanked set them, or close to it, with no way to assess their true market value) and have a big auction.  smart money managers will obviously pay only the closest thing to their true appraisal of market value as they can get and still profit from it, so they will not assume toxic assets, they will be granted privilege to refinance the deals in an appropriate way after getting the assets at cost.

this would lead to profit and, in the end, ways to reduce the pressures on outside creditors.

the other option is to take the bailout money and use it to invest in infrastructure and industrial programs, new deal-style.  create jobs, factories, etc.  then use those factories to produce american goods at affordable prices, sell them to other countries, and actually have an american product worth exporting for the first time since cheap chinese goods came on to the market.  after a few years of global depression, quality goods flooding the world market could put america back on top.

Additional blather ^
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on October 11, 2008, 02:11:11 PM
so, has anyone else re-invested any money they put into the stock market in Wine and Single malt? I hear that stuff never devalues..
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 11, 2008, 04:22:53 PM
It may reduce in volume however. :shifty:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 11, 2008, 04:42:44 PM
Tangentially: awhile back, Brad and I were on the beer aisle at Safeway, and an enthusiastic young employee engaged us in conversation.  He pointed out the "per ounce" fine print on the price tags and tried to explain how that's useful for knowing what you're really paying.  I responded that that's great for produce but is completely irrelevant when you're buying a product that, uniformly, comes in 6- or 12-packs of 12-ounce bottles.  He didn't seem to follow.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on October 11, 2008, 08:20:52 PM
... you don't get any full pint beers?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 11, 2008, 08:23:33 PM
Not in bottles, no.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kazz on October 11, 2008, 08:23:57 PM
3.99 for 6 pints of PBR!  Drink up!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kayma on October 11, 2008, 09:02:38 PM
3.99 for 6 pints of PBR!  Drink up!

PBR tastes like rusty water. It's tetanus in a can.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 11, 2008, 11:24:15 PM
McClatchy: Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html).

Quote
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height vrom 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

_ More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

_ Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

_ Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on October 12, 2008, 06:42:40 AM
So how can we make this Obama's fault?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 12, 2008, 08:22:51 AM
By completely ignoring the fact?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on October 12, 2008, 09:30:00 AM
I can't help but think:  I KNEW IT YOU RIGHT-WING BITCHES!!!:lol:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 13, 2008, 05:12:35 AM
I have it on authority from some auto industry insiders (family in michigan) that Chrysler will likely be no more as of february 2009. Note to those of you living in Michigan. Get out while you still can.

I cannot say for certain that my source is credible, but honestly, it's only a matter of time before one of the big 3 collapses, and if we do enter a depression as the economists are predicting, it's going to be sooner rather than later. (edit: a big 3 collapse, that is)

Subtle update on the above. (http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081012.wrbanksautos13/BNStory/Business/home?cid=al_gam_mostview)

Note the lines towards the bottom of the article.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: JDigital on October 13, 2008, 09:37:34 AM
That webpage is an 800KB load. I'd complain, but I've seen the D&D official website break 2MB.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 13, 2008, 12:39:18 PM
(http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20081013/wdip1013/_done_1013memorial_350.jpg)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 25, 2008, 03:26:34 PM
Useful article with some insights on how food, fuel, and resource commodities have all become intertwined thanks to speculation and modern technology. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081024.wreckoning1024/BNStory/International)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on October 25, 2008, 05:35:58 PM
I'm sad that our dollar is worth less than eighty cents US, Iron_Mongrel.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 25, 2008, 06:13:03 PM
Most non-major currencies (and even the Euro) are in the same boat right now.

The dollar'll probably bounce back to about 85-90 cents, once the world is done buying greenbacks to shore up their short positions. We'll still be taking a hit overall though, since commodities are in the tank. Our mining sector may find itself with one hell of a body blow.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Dooly on October 26, 2008, 04:15:25 PM
That's one (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/25nocera.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin) major bank so far that has no intention of using bailout money to actually help the US economy.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on October 26, 2008, 04:33:49 PM
Only if you subscribe to the idea that we need more loans in this environment, and that making it easier for banks to acquire one another is bad business. If Dodd does call up the banks to the hill, then he should be clear in what type of lending they should be obligated to approve.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 30, 2008, 07:21:20 PM
Okay, once in a while The Wonkette has something of value. (http://wonkette.com/403920/jesus-people-pray-that-false-idol-will-save-gods-economy)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on October 30, 2008, 07:32:11 PM
Words cannot express the amount of :oh: :facepalm: :scanners: I am feeling right now.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on October 30, 2008, 09:22:26 PM
Ah, crazy religious people in America.  The first to forget their own clearly written laws and morals.

There really need to be some good comparative religion classes in public schools so that they know what they actually are supposed to believe.  And things like how their religion believed for thousands of years that life begins when an infant can breath on it's own (otherwise there would have to be full blown funerals for still-borns and miscarriages) and that the Catholic Church changed that for what I can only assume was to seize more power over married couples.

... this post would probably be better fit in a different thread... meh, oh well.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on October 31, 2008, 03:38:19 AM
No, no. Just add a note about tithes and you're good.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 05, 2008, 05:14:00 PM
Yes, I know it's a Globe link again, but this is damn useful.

EXHAUSTIVE lesson on economics, with a  focus on recent issues. (http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081006.wexplainer1006/BNStory/Business/home?cid=al_gam_mostview)

This is basically a 'Dummies guide to current events in Economics'. With a slight Canadian bent. It's extremely user friendly without being stupid, so if your knowledge of economics isn't up to snuff and you want to perhaps learn a bit, this is a phenomenal article to read.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on November 05, 2008, 06:52:18 PM
 :painful: Ohhh, can't I read it tomorrow?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 05, 2008, 07:03:25 PM
Uhm.... yes?  :wat:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on November 11, 2008, 12:06:17 PM
According to my local ABC affiliate (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/story?id=6223972&page=1), AIG's blown about $343K on secret resort getaways while begging the government for more money.

I think the appropriate response is "We'll give you more money if every single person who arranged or attended these junkets quits the company and receives no severance package."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on November 11, 2008, 12:38:10 PM
And is investigated for fraud.  Thoroughly.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 11, 2008, 01:51:26 PM
Annnnnnd the odds of that happening are...
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Guild on November 11, 2008, 01:54:49 PM
...cabbage?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on November 12, 2008, 11:38:09 PM
...so, this shouldn't really come as a shock to anyone at this point, but the bailout so far has no oversight whatsoever (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202846.html?hpid=topnews).
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on November 15, 2008, 01:19:12 PM
but if we just give the big corporations tons of money with no regulation the invisible hand will save us

that's how it's supposed to work right
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 15, 2008, 01:23:14 PM
More like invisible fist.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Guild on November 15, 2008, 01:34:04 PM
I'll fist YOU.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 15, 2008, 04:19:30 PM
:suave:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on November 29, 2008, 02:29:48 PM
Surprise: AIG doing a bunch more bullshit it said it wouldn't (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRlALpvxQyZo&refer=home).

Cut the fuckers off and use that money to help get their employees new work.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on November 29, 2008, 02:33:23 PM
The best part isn't that they're getting bonuses, which they probably could have swept under the rug because congress is retarded, but that they made a big deal of trying to TELL everyone they weren't giving bonuses and toot their own horn, then did this after that was in the spotlight.

It's not the corruption, it's how blatant and incompetent it is.  They can't even deceive properly.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on November 29, 2008, 03:50:19 PM
Gee, so this is what happens when we ask companies to police themselves.  Amazing!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on November 29, 2008, 08:39:06 PM
GUYS I KEEP TELLING YOU REGULATING THESE CORPORATIONS WILL ONLY HURT OUR ECONOMY, WE JUST HAVE TO STEP BACK AND LET THE INVISIBLE HAND ENSURE EVERYTHING GOES OK
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 29, 2008, 08:40:05 PM
I feel that hand up my ass all the time. I can't say anything in public because, well, it's invisible.

After a while you kind of get used to it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on November 29, 2008, 10:42:19 PM
Hmm.... I don't think I've ever felt the hand.  I've seen people who are its slaves with no will or minds of their own, but I don't think it ever got near me.  I think it might not like actually controlling Jews, but rather it likes pointing the blame towards them from its particularly stupid puppets.

Five Jew Bankers!?  HA!  Those guys were just standing next to the hand's bottomless money pits pondering where the money might go.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kazz on November 30, 2008, 08:02:30 AM
hello i'd like to deposit a jew?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on November 30, 2008, 08:22:30 AM
The Israelite to Gentile conversion rate is killing my overseas investment portfolio.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on December 06, 2008, 05:28:46 PM
Read the first half, decided it deserved to be cross-posted, hit ctrl+v.
Damon Silvers, Associate General Counsel of AFL-CIO, has a pretty good piece about how anti-union business practices and a society of low-wages and high-spending contributed to the current financial crisis (http://www.iir.berkeley.edu/events/spring08/feller/).  It's a good read, made none the less impacting because he wrote it in April.
Going to read the other half.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 06, 2008, 08:00:19 PM
Read the first half, decided it deserved to be cross-posted, hit ctrl+v.
Damon Silvers, Associate General Counsel of AFL-CIO, has a pretty good piece about how anti-union business practices and a society of low-wages and high-spending contributed to the current financial crisis (http://www.iir.berkeley.edu/events/spring08/feller/).  It's a good read, made none the less impacting because he wrote it in April.
Going to read the other half.

The problem is that I've been reading stuff like this for YEARS now. It applies here in Canada too. Both on an academic level and on a very visceral real level. Anyone who has really been paying attention knows that REAL wages have been stagnant or falling for decades.

But while you're starting to see a smattering of unfocused political will to do something, I have yet to see any politician - even Obama - stand up and clearly articulate this exact problem to the people at large, to get this idea stuck in everyone's head.

To my mind, until EVERYBODY in North America understands that this is the true root issue causing huge problems, we will not see true solutions. We will see the same old obfuscation, pandering, filibustering, nonsense and sound bites.

This isn't actually that complicated a concept, but most of the stupid college kids who actually bother to learn about the issue are content to preach to self-satisfied fellow converts, all while everyday workers continue to spin their wheels with no more than an unfocused idea that "The Man is keepn' 'em down." - if they get that far at all.

If we want to see anything more than a perpetual reaguard action, we need to get everybody on board the same fucking train. Because without massive public support for leglation that is sure to opposed by the deep-pocketed, I can assure you that legislation will not pass and we will all continue to be fucked.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 06, 2008, 09:25:33 PM
It's worth noting, though, that for the last couple of years union membership in Canda has been falling (http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/lp/wid/union_membership.shtml).  This coincides with a policy shift from card check to mandatory vote, or the secret ballot (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:e6By1InX8EUJ:www.res.org.uk/society/mediabriefings/pdfs/2002/April/johnson.pdf+canada+%22card+check%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a).  It's really not that surprising that wages don't grow when it falls solely on the people paying them to improve them.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 06, 2008, 10:29:38 PM
Well, it's an oversimplification to say it's JUST unions. It's the end result of a longstanding campaign against progressive work legislation. The fall of minimum wage in real terms, the huge increase in contract and temp work, outsourcing, Canada's abysmal productivity growth, and many other factors have all contributed. There's been a general cultural shift since the 60's and 70's and this is the result so far.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 11, 2008, 10:49:10 PM
Auto bailout fails. (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4B50CL20081212)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 12, 2008, 12:00:36 AM
In local news (http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=9503490&nav=HMO6), Arizona is purportedly in the worst economic shape of any state, and is in the #2 slot for job loss this year.  (#1 is Rhode Island, where it is presumably much easier to go to the next state over and see if THEY have work.)

It's nice to have concrete assurance that my continued unemployment is not my fault, but I'm still in the fucking catch-22 of nobody wanting to hire someone from out-of-state and not being able to move if I don't have a job.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on January 02, 2009, 05:17:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtpyeLxVkI
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on January 02, 2009, 06:40:05 PM
 :?: :?: :OoO: :?:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 02, 2009, 07:49:41 PM
:?: :?: :OoO: :?:
(http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/Bon_Bon_2009/scruffy-1.jpg)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on January 02, 2009, 08:29:18 PM
over NINE THOOOOOOUUSSAAAAAAAND
Must be the Dow?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on January 08, 2009, 07:33:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGJq8wrw5I

Swinebacks.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on January 14, 2009, 09:18:32 AM
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/chart_holiday_retail_sales_011409.jpg)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on January 14, 2009, 09:50:16 AM
... Does this mean Xmas has a chance of stopping it's slow but ever-present feast upon the rest of the calendar year?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on January 14, 2009, 09:52:35 AM
Only by 2.8%.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on January 26, 2009, 04:38:26 PM
The Economist Presents:  Credit Crunch, the Board Game (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=8717275&story_id=12798307)

3-6 players.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on January 26, 2009, 06:52:14 PM
Oh. It's for real. I thought you were making an overly elaborate and clever metaphor, SCD.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kazz on January 27, 2009, 03:07:20 PM
Right after getting their bailout cash, Citigroup decides to try to blow a sizeable wad on a luxurious private jet.  Obama's aide comes down and says "No.  Just, no. (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics/story?id=6740011&page=1)"
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on January 29, 2009, 05:18:55 PM
Banks pay out sixth largest executive bonus ever; Obama and Dodd fucking explode. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anzJooSeABDM&refer=home)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on January 29, 2009, 06:57:10 PM
 :objection: And Rightly Goddamn So!!!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on January 29, 2009, 07:07:54 PM
So far, so good.  The administration seems to be on the ball, one step ahead of the competition. 

I suspect that there are people in office who spend too much time on google news, or elsewhere - for once not being a bad thing. 


Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 31, 2009, 04:48:48 PM
This level of trolling takes some serious stones. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5lhZkEauCu8)

The article's a joke - this is the author of "Liar's Poker". Note that not a single thing on the page flags that as parody other than the sheer absurdity of the article itself.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on January 31, 2009, 06:46:37 PM
The absurdity doesn't work too well either, since I know way too many people who actually think like that.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 31, 2009, 07:08:58 PM
The absurdity doesn't work too well either, since I know way too many people who actually think like that.

That's why it took some kinda balls to do that. I heard he caught a lot of fire for that joke. Not because people think it's a joke in poor taste, but because it's too close to reality and they think he really means it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: sei on February 01, 2009, 12:26:24 AM
Quote from: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anzJooSeABDM&refer=home
The Treasury Department program has injected about $200 billion into banks across the country from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Appropriate acronym.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 01, 2009, 06:55:45 AM
Oh yeah. LOLFed's been giggling about that one for months now. 
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on February 06, 2009, 12:12:28 PM
Final tally: 598,000 jobs lost in January. (http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2009/02/02/daily66.html)

To put that into perspective, if you put all the people unemployed just last month into one area, you'd have a city roughly the size of Boston.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on February 06, 2009, 04:51:17 PM
Yeah, it's pretty hard for me to hate my job.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on February 06, 2009, 06:37:47 PM
I foresaw this occurrence and manipulated events such that I could still maintain an income whilst complaining about not having a job and about the content of my work duties.

Mwahahahahaha.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on February 07, 2009, 02:41:51 AM
Final tally: 598,000 jobs lost in January. (http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2009/02/02/daily66.html)

To put that into perspective, if you put all the people unemployed just last month into one area, you'd have Detroit.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on February 09, 2009, 06:53:57 PM
Rage (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?_r=1) :enraged: :MENDOZAAAAA: :loser: :over9000: :fuckyou: :fukit: :humpf: :wrong: :HUGE: :khaaan: :scanners:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Fredward on February 09, 2009, 07:22:39 PM
Decadence aside, that's quite a few people employed in the service industry for every wealthy banker.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 09, 2009, 08:23:09 PM
CRY ME A RIVER.

A RIVER OF TEARS.

Edit: One dollar for evey job lost in January.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on February 09, 2009, 08:47:37 PM
The author apparently understands but doesn't bother to convey the fact that higher-level execs do not make the bulk of their income from their salaries.  You could cap their pays at $50k and still only be irritating them.

Irritating them to the point where they'll fuck with shit, of course, but still.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on February 09, 2009, 09:05:53 PM
Well, if their stock's in freefall, they're going to start caring more about their salaries.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on February 09, 2009, 10:07:38 PM
I just want to take this time to come out and say it:

I use a local credit union.  I always have.

It has been my second bank - one in which those who run it are elected. 

Mine's doing pretty good right now, the name is "Coast Capital" and I would highly recommend using it if you end up living on Vancouver Island. 

Banks are still around because of the people who use them.  And they fuck their customers around, even as this recession hits. 

So why are people still using banks?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: McDohl on February 09, 2009, 11:04:55 PM
Why do you think I jumped at Navy Federal Credit Union's continued service to me, both because I'm a veteran and the fact that I'm a government contractor?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ocksi on February 09, 2009, 11:22:58 PM
i work for the second largest credit union in the country.  it's entirely based in nc (the north carolina state employees' credit union) and has certain requirements to become a member, but there's something great to be said about offering virtually every service (we won't do investment stuff.  it is more risky) a commercial bank offers without the fuck-you fees for lower-income folk and, in the current market, better rates (we always offered better on loans, but our cd and savings interest have been tops in the area for more than a year) that can really help people out.

also no sales as a result of non-profit status, but the best part is that all our mortgages and loans have always been by the book, so while virtually every bank is tanking for their stupid get-rich schemes, our organization has been growing even faster.  it also helps that our clientele is mostly teachers and government employees, so they have relative job security, which helps us promise fiscal security.

the only downside is that if shit keeps tanking, my personal job security is vaporized by nationalized banking.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on February 10, 2009, 05:19:34 AM
So why are people still using banks?

Dim awareness of credit unions?

If not for the prime consolidation deal I've been given this week, I'd have left my bank when they started making due dates a week before the end of the month.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cait on February 10, 2009, 06:02:42 AM
Yeah, I just moved my savings out of BoA to the local credit union because they were offering 750% of what BoA's interest rates were. Once I get things stabilized there, I may end up making it my primary account, though BoA does make certain things easier.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on February 10, 2009, 09:30:10 AM
I remember when people were joking that the economic problem would solve the immigration issue. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/10/immigrants.economy/index.html)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Fredward on February 10, 2009, 10:09:23 AM
Mine's doing pretty good right now, the name is "Coast Capital" and I would highly recommend using it if you end up living on Vancouver Island. 

Coast Capital's on the mainland, too. My dad and a few of my friends are with them. I'm with TD mostly because I'm living on two sides of the country, so a nationwide bank is pretty much essential.

Also, though I'm not too well-versed in the issue, aren't Canadian banks more stable than American banks? Something about the government having more to do with them? (I'm not being facetious, I just can't remember what they told me in high school social studies)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on February 10, 2009, 12:20:27 PM
Yes.  Canadian banks are better regulated, but still treat their customers like fleas with the "Fuck you" charges.  I have an account at RBC for money transfers between banks, but I promptly keep my balance at 5 dollars for the longterm. 


Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on February 10, 2009, 05:11:57 PM
The simple answer in my case is that my grandparents have a fair bit of money in their BofA accounts, and if I ever have trouble with mine, they can smooth it over pretty much effortlessly.

My grandfather's the kind of guy who can walk into BofA in a T-shirt, a baseball cap, and cutoff jeans and command respect -- because he's there every day.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on February 10, 2009, 07:14:34 PM
T Fredward:  Expect to see greater cooperation between BC credit unions.    Only by allowing honest-to-gods face-to-face transactions with tellers of other credit unions half a nation away will they be able to become a real competitor to the banks.  What you have there is the CU's only obstacle to complete credibility.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on February 10, 2009, 07:55:25 PM
I worked for Wells Fargo, so they give me ridiculous interest rates.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on February 15, 2009, 10:58:00 AM
Of course, I still express extreme skepticism that eight hundred billion dollars of pork will help anything, but that is neither here nor there.

Continuing this conversation over here, because this is a better thread for the "Will the stimulus work?" question.

First of all, "eight hundred billion dollars of pork" is a pretty big exaggeration; in addition to the $246,869,000,000 in tax cuts (http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-plan-taxcut-list), a breakdown of the spending (http://www.propublica.org/special/the-stimulus-plan-a-detailed-list-of-spending) shows quite a lot of that money going directly toward things like job creation and unemployment insurance, which are pretty clearly relevant to a failing economy.

As for the rest, it's not all perfect.  I've thought the "give everyone a check" part of it was stupid from the get-go; that's not going to stimulate the economy.  People who need the money are going to spend it on rent; people who don't, well, don't need it.

And there are plenty of lines in there that aren't really directly relevant to the economy and are pet projects.  Some are things I agree with, some aren't.

As far as the notion of pork -- that's a matter of perspective.  The truth is that states elect representatives to look out for them, and what looks like pork to somebody in one state may look like something desperately needed to the people who are actually receiving it.  Arizona's budget is in pretty miserable shape right now, and one guess where the first and deepest cuts are going.  Hint: the stimulus plan has $48,420,000,000 in federal money going toward it.

All that said, if you don't expect the stimulus to help, what would you recommend as an alternative?

And if you say "tax cuts", I will hit you.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on February 15, 2009, 12:25:40 PM
Ah ha ha if only this bill were passed last year I'd have enough money to finally move to San Diego.

::(:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on February 15, 2009, 12:48:19 PM
If only this bill were passed last year, i would not be facing death in a week.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on February 15, 2009, 12:57:47 PM
If only this bill were passed last year, I wouldn't have to be working as a hitman in a week.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on February 15, 2009, 12:59:28 PM
If only this bill were passed last year, I would still have that travel agent job. :dead:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ted Belmont on February 15, 2009, 01:37:23 PM
If only this bill were passed last year, Obama might not be president.

 :ohgod:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on February 15, 2009, 02:01:26 PM
If it wasn't for my horse, I never would have spent that year in college.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on February 15, 2009, 02:07:20 PM
Fox News, of all things, raised a valid point (albeit probably accidentally): for all the Republicans have invested in blocking the stimulus, they haven't breathed so much as a whisper of a better idea.

This means that even if the Republicans get everything they've ever asked for and turn out to be right about the plan, the best outcome for them will be America turning and saying "Well now we're even worse off and it's still your fault, and you're still not helping."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kashan on February 15, 2009, 03:11:05 PM
Well the problem is that from the stand point that a lot of the GOP have, the recession isn't the problem. The bubble was the problem, the recession is the solution. So literally their solution is to do nothing and let it sort its self out. And they may be right, this stimulus may not work, and the only solution may be to wait until the market corrects its self in 4-10 years. That being said, when you're looking at the kind of market collapse that we are, spending a trillion or three on a good shot attempt to fix things seems justified even if it doesn't work. The only real issue would be if excess government spending started to cause runaway inflation, but since we're actually edging towards deflation right now, I don't think that's really an issue.

But yeah, as stupid as Biden is for saying it, the "even if we do everything right there's still a 30% chance it won't work" line may be very accurate.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: on February 15, 2009, 05:58:21 PM
If it wasn't for my horse, I never would have spent that year in college.

I want to meet him to ask him if there was any sort of context for that.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Niku on February 15, 2009, 09:56:07 PM
The entire point of the bit was that there was no context.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on February 25, 2009, 10:26:16 PM
The Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis in Adobe After Effects:

http://vimeo.com/3261363
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on February 25, 2009, 10:42:32 PM
Fox News, of all things, raised a valid point (albeit probably accidentally): for all the Republicans have invested in blocking the stimulus, they haven't breathed so much as a whisper of a better idea.

This means that even if the Republicans get everything they've ever asked for and turn out to be right about the plan, the best outcome for them will be America turning and saying "Well now we're even worse off and it's still your fault, and you're still not helping."

Course, they're still letting Bill O'Reilly get on there and say ludicrous shit like "We shouldn't give any more money to schools, because they're failing anyway, and I went to a public school with 60 students per class and look how I turned out!"
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on March 09, 2009, 02:09:37 PM
Specter: Economy not as fucked up as we've been told.  It is, in fact, way the hell more fucked up. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/09/AR2009030901936.html)

:victory:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kayma on March 09, 2009, 02:30:26 PM
Arlen Specter is an interesting guy. All the Repubs vote for him, of course, but sometimes he talks and it actually makes sense.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on March 09, 2009, 04:41:31 PM
Yeah, but then he votes with the rest of the Republicans.

This is called bipartisanship.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Fredward on March 09, 2009, 05:05:40 PM
Far be it from me to question Thad, but...

Quote
Specter cast one of only three Republican votes for the stimulus package that President Barack Obama signed last month, drawing flak from members of his party, particularly conservatives.

I take it there are other examples?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 18, 2009, 10:23:37 AM
Caught a bit of the AIG testimony today.

WOW, congreemen were having a FIELD DAY left right and centre. It's not often politicos get such an beautiful sacrifical goat to pillory, and the bluster was hammering away at Liddy full force. You'd think there was a war on.

Who the hell was that fellow looking for all the world like a jowly mid-level mafia boss? His Q&A session looked like more like a shakedown. The funniest part was that Liddy is quite clearly smarter than that particular congressman, but his position is just so indescribably awful all he can do is sit there.

Grand prize of the afternoon goes to Don Congressissimo (whoever he is), for his crack about "there's legislation coming down the pipe called 'I can't believe it's not waterboarding'".

:8V: :perfect:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on March 18, 2009, 10:44:15 PM
A couple of AIG execs agree to return their bonuses. (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52I18O20090319)

I'd call that a hint at maybe the faintest flickering glimmer of the good in humanity if it weren't nestled right next to the story about same execs getting buried in death threats.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on March 22, 2009, 12:20:50 PM
The Big Takeover (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/1)
Quote
The global economic crisis isn't about money - it's about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on March 22, 2009, 01:02:41 PM
Oh, god. Rolling Stone's political articles tend to be very :facepalm: to the point that I don't even read them anymore. I just can't take them seriously anymore. They're very nearly as bad as Fox News, to be quite honest.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on March 22, 2009, 01:14:44 PM
Yes, I suppose their use of facts, figures and resources is such a dire tactic much like Fox News uses.  Yes, you're very correct.  At least they're not off-handidly dismissing an article without reading it, though, that'd be true asshole behavior.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on March 22, 2009, 01:19:41 PM
Quote
"The marketplace is a pretty crummy place to be right now," he said.

Wh-where the hell else can you be?  That's like saying "This isn't the time to be breathing oxygen" or "If you're maintaining a solid molecular structure, stop right now."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on March 22, 2009, 01:22:49 PM
Turns out, there's other ways to make money than just investing in the stock market.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on March 22, 2009, 02:01:57 PM
I read as far as
Quote
...psychopaths on Wall Street whom we allowed to gang-rape the American Dream.

I'll read his article when he can have the civility and professionalism that you'd expect from, say, a news magazine. (Rolling Stone, last I checked, is a music magazine. This may be why their journalistic standards are so lax.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on March 22, 2009, 02:11:45 PM
Right, because the, uh, more-mainstream media never engages in that kind of hyperbole.

I just stopped reading because I didn't really care to hear any more of it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on March 22, 2009, 02:26:22 PM
I'll read his article when he can have the civility and professionalism that you'd expect from, say, a news magazine. (Rolling Stone, last I checked, is a music magazine. This may be why their journalistic standards are so lax.)

Yeah, because Hunter S Thompson never did anything important or worthwhile.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Fortinbras on March 22, 2009, 02:57:06 PM
Saw the bit Dracula quoted and knew before I even looked at the article that we were talking about Taibbi.  I love that guy.  The article's loaded with hyperbole but it knows it is, of course it is, it's Hunter Thompson the Second writing.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Transportation on March 23, 2009, 08:55:13 PM
The article was actually a decent rundown on the lead-up to the financial crisis and the subsequent hilariously mismanaged bailouts. The general point of the article being how the corporation were involved in most of the steps. I've heard of most of it before, but it's nice to have a summary all in one place.

Of course the wording in the title implies it's some kind of cabal orchestrating everything instead of rich people independently pursuing their short term best interest. But it's still correct in a strictly literal sense.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 24, 2009, 05:00:21 PM
Something nice today.

An excellent look at some of the more 'big-picture' thoughts about the current state of the global economy and where it is going. (http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090324.wsymposium0324/BNStory/crashandrecovery/home?cid=al_gam_mostview)

It's not all 100% and in places it gets vague, but it's a fairly decent read that raises some interesting points.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: JDigital on March 24, 2009, 06:11:31 PM
Congress Passes Wide-Ranging Bill Easing Bank Laws (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business/congress-passes-wide-ranging-bill-easing-bank-laws.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1&emc=eta1) (1999)

Quote
''Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,'' Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said. ''This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.''

The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation's financial system. The original idea behind Glass-Steagall was that separation between bankers and brokers would reduce the potential conflicts of interest that were thought to have contributed to the speculative stock frenzy before the Depression.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 24, 2009, 06:24:51 PM
:lol:

Nice find.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on March 24, 2009, 06:43:49 PM
Oh wow.  I remember hearing that exact statement back in 1999 and thinking, "This sounds like something that could totally fuck us in 10 years."

I probably said so at the time, too, but I was 16, you know?  By the time I was able to vote Bush was already in office, and by the time I was able to ACTUALLY vote we all thought our impending doom was coming from some dirty men living in caves.

Anyway, chalk that up to yet another "When I'm Right is When Nobody Listens to Me" moment.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on March 24, 2009, 07:17:39 PM
Hey it's almost like that exact law was mentioned in the article I linked.


Seriously, though, Phil Gramm is the devil.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Dooly on March 25, 2009, 08:24:10 PM
Oh wow.  I remember hearing that exact statement back in 1999 and thinking, "This sounds like something that could totally fuck us in 10 years."
There are senators quoted in that article saying the exact same thing, with senator Byron Dorgan even giving us the same ten-year time frame.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on March 25, 2009, 09:11:47 PM
and we're going to do it again, because everyone is still saying that taxing big businesses is unamerican and socialist and we need to just get wallstreet back on its feet and it'll all be fine
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on April 04, 2009, 07:38:11 PM
Former Chief Economist at the IMF has some interesting commentary on the current state of the US Economy. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on April 04, 2009, 07:48:00 PM
The nasty-ass thing about our country is that there seems to be this prevailing idea that we're all ready to tighten our belts, get ahold of ourselves, pitch in and do what we can to fix this mess.  Everybody without fail wants to make personal sacrifices to help.  ...except for every single person whose actual fault it is, who are whining very very loudly that the boiling oil they stuck their hands into is burning them.

I hate to sound like a 9th-grade anarchist, but I'm seriously starting to believe that the only way to save the country is to make certain people go the fuck away forever.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Doom on April 04, 2009, 08:20:52 PM
Considering that the actions of the richest amount to "You all can die", yeah, there's a bit of a class war afoot.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on April 04, 2009, 08:34:00 PM
I guess it just bugs me because we're actually reaching out our hands to help these people, slithering bloated pussbags that they are, and they're responding by screaming "FUCK YOU!" and trying to punish us for giving a shit.

...shit, Jesus, I feel like I'm dating Rush Limbaugh now.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: McDohl on April 05, 2009, 10:07:47 PM
Invite us to the wedding, Brentai.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on April 14, 2009, 08:16:54 AM
Bernanke sees vague evidence that we may not be going to hell as quickly as before. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGq2PG.ZpdkU&refer=home)

Well hooray, I guess.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on April 26, 2009, 08:16:51 PM
Japan possibly more fucked than we are. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jINIThz_F9ziZibUKHtfD4bLmGGQ)

Actually that holds true for a lot of countries.  About the only ones coming out ahead in all this bullshit are China and Sweden, and guess which one of those isn't terrifying me.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: King Klown on April 26, 2009, 08:35:58 PM
I still remember how angry I felt when I was watching T.V., and someone asked the Car Company CEO's if they'd be willing to sell their private jets to help their companies. And to show if they would be a show of hands.

Not a single hand.

 ::(:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: TA on April 26, 2009, 09:19:07 PM
It is a profoundly retarded question.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on April 26, 2009, 09:45:56 PM
I actually kinda want GM to die in this clusterfuck that is the recession.  Seeing as apparently it was them who first popularized the personal finance style going into debt to buy something right now that you don't have the money for, but are willing to go into debt for and ultimately spend more money than the thing cost in the first place.

Goddamn I wish I could remember where I heard it.  I think it was someone on NPR but I can't remember.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on April 28, 2009, 03:59:10 PM
They also bought up and dismantled huge sections of electric rail systems back in the '20s.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ocksi on April 28, 2009, 08:18:38 PM
As anti-capitalist as it is, I am kind of a big fan of the new strategy they laid out.

Ideally, they'd have just been allowed to collapse, but, since they've been stilted so, I love the current idea.  As long as their manufacturies are converted to greencar facilities and then the company is resold to the public/private sector, which I truly believe is the plan.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 04, 2009, 09:12:26 AM
Turns out someone is paying the bill. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIUBLp0sxeEU&refer=home)

Get ready for a new wave of fat bastards screaming and crying over the fact that they suddenly have to pay their fair share of taxes while the rest of the country struggles.  Tooooooooo baaaaaaaaaad.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 04, 2009, 09:47:20 AM
Saw that this morning. :glee:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 04, 2009, 02:49:54 PM
S&P 500 climbs into the black for 2009 so far (source WSJ, which you need a damned subscription for.)

Buffet pretty much spots the nail on the newspaper industry's coffin. (http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107029/Business-Musings-From-Woodstock-for-Capitalists)  Bout damned time, really.  Nostalgia is nice, but honestly those things are slow, full of bullshit information, not so great for the environment, and what's with that crazy foldout shit seriously.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on May 04, 2009, 06:32:01 PM
Problem of the Free-Market Solved (http://www.rattraders.com/Home)

(http://joelconstantine.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=229&g2_serialNumber=1)

Quote
Our program is a professional service to the financial industry; rats are being trained to become superior traders in the financial markets. Using our own methodology in accordance with well-established animal training techniques, our subjects learn to recognize pattens in historical stock and futures data as well as generating trading signals. We provide solutions for tick based trading data and day based data. RATTRADERS rats can be trained exclusively for any financial market segment. They outperform most human traders and represent a much more economic solution for your trading desk.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: MarsDragon on May 04, 2009, 06:43:57 PM
Turns out someone is paying the bill. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIUBLp0sxeEU&refer=home)

Get ready for a new wave of fat bastards screaming and crying over the fact that they suddenly have to pay their fair share of taxes while the rest of the country struggles.  Tooooooooo baaaaaaaaaad.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on May 05, 2009, 09:21:31 AM
Anybody like writing essays? (http://www.thenation.com/about/student_writing_contest.mhtml)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 05, 2009, 10:07:59 AM
I prefer to rant incoherently, thank you.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 05, 2009, 02:06:03 PM
Heh heh, I didn't realize that tearing down foreign tax havens meant a lot less outsourcing tech jobs to India. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/global/06tax.html?ref=global)

:goodnews: Thank you for the early Christmas present, Mr. President.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on May 05, 2009, 02:16:37 PM
Heh heh, I didn't realize that tearing down foreign tax havens meant a lot less outsourcing tech jobs to India. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/global/06tax.html?ref=global)

:goodnews: Thank you for the early Christmas present, Mr. President.

Which makes it even more laughable that the corporations are all saying that removing their tax havens is going to lead to loss of american jobs.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Doom on May 05, 2009, 02:46:31 PM
Can we get some commercials to appeal to the kind of suckers who lined up for Tea Parties?

Obama: Not Tookin Yer Jerb to India.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 05, 2009, 07:26:14 PM
HEY TEA COMES FROM INDIA LOL
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on May 06, 2009, 05:45:00 AM
The idea is that the more we tax them the less productive they'll be or something.  As explained by the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve), a popular staple of supply-side economics.  Basically if we suddenly start taxing them on this money they were hiding, they'll have less money to be able to pay for capital and labor.  Then the business will lose productivity and the government will lose taxes and workers will get fired and so forth.  Nothing in that scenario about the people at the top taking home less pay, but they worked hard to not be productive so the only sane solution is to fire a bunch of bottom rung workers rather than take a pay cut.


Did I mention how the entire point of supply-side economics seems to be based on making rich dudes even richer?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kashan on May 06, 2009, 10:23:38 AM
Also notable because taxed money apparently vanishes into the air and can never return to the economy to pay for capitol or labor.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on May 06, 2009, 10:48:21 AM
So, anyone here know the downside of becoming a gigantic Switzerland?  They may have a high suicide rate, but that's far more likely due to the lack of sunlight which has a rather strong effect on brain chemistry as anyone with seasonal depressive disorder will tell you.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kashan on May 06, 2009, 11:24:56 AM
Well, we'd have some issues becoming a giant Switzerland because we're so spread out and big. But for the most part I'm right there with you.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 06, 2009, 01:29:43 PM
Switzerland has compulsory military service.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on May 06, 2009, 02:13:26 PM
That and they're one of the most racist democracies on the face of the planet.  Very Xenophobic.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: patito on May 06, 2009, 03:50:24 PM
I thought the goal to strive for was to become Sweden not Switzerland.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Fredward on May 06, 2009, 04:29:59 PM
Yes, but Catloaf is a dumb. Switzerland is the tiny mountain one with all of the world's money and all the entrances into it dynamited. Sweden is the one with IKEA and socialism and meatballs.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 06, 2009, 07:09:40 PM
AND GAY BATHOUSES SAUNAS.

OH GOD SAUNAS FOR EVERYONE.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Fredward on May 06, 2009, 08:34:45 PM
No, that's Finland. You guys need to brush up on your European stereotypes.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kayma on May 06, 2009, 08:56:06 PM
Which one has the chocolate?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on May 06, 2009, 09:05:32 PM
THEY ALL HAVE CHOCOLATE
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Niku on May 06, 2009, 09:21:48 PM
THEN WE MUST HAVE THEM ALL
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kazz on May 07, 2009, 12:27:13 AM
I'm going to be in Zurich in less than 72 hours.

It's true but I can not actually comprehend it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Arc on May 07, 2009, 12:40:46 AM
UR FACE is gonna be in Zurich in less than 72 hours.









wait


 
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 07, 2009, 01:10:27 AM
Zack isn't taking an airplane to Romania, Arc is just gonna kick his ass all the way there.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Fredward on May 07, 2009, 03:03:18 PM
Zurich
Romania

 :facepalm:

am I seriously the only one here who knows about countries in europe
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Niku on May 07, 2009, 03:05:26 PM
like russia
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 07, 2009, 03:26:16 PM
I'm commandeering assault Frog's computer for the duration of his trip to Romania.  Expect #ff hassling from me on the 8th-20th or some crap.
 :cake:

I'm assuming Zurich is a stopover.

Which in this scenario means Kazz is going to bounce once on the way over.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ocksi on May 07, 2009, 05:25:45 PM
As a note, Robert Gates wants compulsory military service.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: JDigital on May 08, 2009, 11:59:15 AM
The idea is that the more we tax them the less productive they'll be or something.  As explained by the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve), a popular staple of supply-side economics.  Basically if we suddenly start taxing them on this money they were hiding, they'll have less money to be able to pay for capital and labor.  Then the business will lose productivity and the government will lose taxes and workers will get fired and so forth.  Nothing in that scenario about the people at the top taking home less pay, but they worked hard to not be productive so the only sane solution is to fire a bunch of bottom rung workers rather than take a pay cut.

Did I mention how the entire point of supply-side economics seems to be based on making rich dudes even richer?

A good businessman will keep the tax savings unless it's more profitable to put the money back into his business. Supply-side makes the rich richer either way; whether this is at public expense is perhaps debatable, but the public assumes all the risk while the businessman always profits. It's no wonder it's popular among rich people.

This got me thinking about an article on Bob Cringely's site commending an Indian twenty-something millionaire who owned a string of e-book sites, the dodgy sort that hype an e-book using rambling marketing text, copious amounts of yellow highlight and probably-fake testimonials, and charge $80 for the PDF. The comments were remarkably polarized and at first I couldn't understand why.

Then I realized that it depends who you identify with: the buyer, or the seller. Readers who coveted the seller's financial success were sympathetic to the seller because they wish it was them making all that money. Readers sympathetic to the buyers thought it was a scam, because they imagined that they would hate to pay over the odds for a flashily-hyped product.

Perhaps this is the same mentality behind the Tea Party. Middle classes turned out to protest a tax that only applied to much wealthier people, because they wish they were those rich people.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Doom on May 08, 2009, 07:00:05 PM
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger_myth) of the commonplace stupidity among middle class people that they can never act against rich people because once they are rich they will have hurt themselves.

This is how the average American thinks.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 08, 2009, 07:01:42 PM
Quote
Horatio Alger, Jr. (13 January 1832 - 18 July 1899) was an American author of young boys’ stories. Alger wrote over 100 books for young working class males, beginning with "Ragged Dick,"

FUCK I can't read any further.  I know there's more to read... but... ha ha.

EDIT: Okay, no, seriously, here is ex-fucking-xactly what is wrong with Reagan-and-post-nomics.

Quote
German CEOs only make 15 times more than their employees; Swedish CEOs get 13 times as much. However, the gap in the U.S. is considerably greater. The ratio of CEO to average worker pay was steady until 1979 at 35 times more than an average worker. In 2003, CEOs earned 143 times more than their workers and in 2005, CEOs made 262 times the amount of the average employee.

Holy :scanners:.

That means for every dollar I make, my boss gets 262 dollars.  Meanwhile, I would be happy with just 262 dollars.

Meanwhile, all the large companies in the US are failing.  Hey everybody, let's figure out how to cut overhead spending.  We'll start with layoffs.   :facepalm:

(PS wanna do some math?  Calculate the average rate of expansion of the gap between the upper and middle/lower classes per year.  Show your work.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on May 08, 2009, 07:48:04 PM
Your data is also old.  CEOs now make close to 339 times what you make.  I personally blame Milton Friedman and his monetarist views.  There is this kind of economic singularity (http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp191.html) when the supply-siders took over where CEO pay skyrockets, average worker pay stagnates, and the middle class begins to shrink.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Doom on May 08, 2009, 07:53:39 PM
Fire a bunch of dudes, pocket the difference, force the survivors to work harder and stall out their benefits while decrying unions as inherently evil.

I guess this is why things like the Tea Party frustrate the hell out of me: RICH PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS BECAUSE THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED AS MUCH COUNTLESS TIMES.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Saturn on May 09, 2009, 02:38:09 PM
and the government cant do anything to shrink that ratio because it would be SOCIALISM  :ohshi~:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 09, 2009, 02:55:54 PM
And socialism is bad because it's linked to all those other bad places like Communist Russia, Communist China, Communist North Korea, Communist Cuba...

Fuckers can't even attack an established strawman without setting up a strawman for it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on May 09, 2009, 03:44:41 PM
It's worth noting that socialism != communism.  Socialism is closer to what we had during the 1930s-1970s, where government ran stuff hand in hand with the free markets.  While not a purely socialist system, projects such as social security, the minimum wage, our highway system and such ring quite truly of socialism.  And nobody complains about those.  Then in the 80s supply-side became popular and the middle class began its steady decline.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 09, 2009, 04:30:13 PM
For the record, the American version of 'socialism' was and is pretty right-wing, compared to most of the worlds other liberal democracies.

For instance, you guys were probably the ONLY major liberal democracy in the world to not introduce socialized medicine at some point after WWII.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 09, 2009, 04:32:37 PM
Spoiler: [spoiler]It's because doctors use the metric system.[/spoiler]

While not a purely socialist system, projects such as social security, the minimum wage, our highway system and such ring quite truly of socialism.

Right-wingers complain about those all the time.

...well, except asphalt-paven highways of course.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Romosome on May 09, 2009, 08:28:53 PM
I'm no economics major but the more I hear about it, the move to supply-side just seems like people started focusing on what would make them, personally, the richest person ever, as opposed to other economic models that actually tried to help the whole economy.

This is pretty goddamn obvious in hindsight but no less sick.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 11, 2009, 01:51:05 PM
Hey, I'm getting pre-approved credit card offers again.  Yay thawing credit market.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 12, 2009, 12:25:41 PM
Hey, I'm getting 10 spillion pre-approved credit card offers again.

:OoO: Did they just hold all of their bulk mail until the end of the credit freeze or what?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on May 12, 2009, 03:27:06 PM
You realize that the credit card market is different from the bank credit market, right?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 12, 2009, 03:44:39 PM
Nope!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on May 13, 2009, 01:26:55 AM
They're not linked?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 06, 2009, 05:08:46 PM
Banks start losing patience, threaten to break California's kneecaps if it doesn't pay up. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692354575702881.html)

Gotta wonder what's going to happen when Schwarzenegger finally raises up his hands and says, "Look, ve doo not haff eet, guys.  Stop vhining."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 06, 2009, 05:18:21 PM
Small victories from the bottom of the heap. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124691958931402479.html)

Food stamp increase has been more directly beneficial than many other forms of stimulus.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 06, 2009, 05:40:37 PM
Someone reversed the polarity on the Reagonomizer.  And it's working.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Saturn on July 06, 2009, 06:14:50 PM
Banks start losing patience, threaten to break California's kneecaps if it doesn't pay up. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692354575702881.html)

Gotta wonder what's going to happen when Schwarzenegger finally raises up his hands and says, "Look, ve doo not haff eet, guys.  Stop vhining."

maybe he wont threaten to veto any bill with even the smallest tax increase included.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on July 06, 2009, 07:32:48 PM
Someone reversed the polarity on the Reagonomizer.  And it's working.

That's the only way it does work.  And it works well.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on July 23, 2009, 10:02:17 AM
Okay, this is the tipping point.  This is where we should throw our fists in the air and demand to have our basic human rights back.

Pay of Top Earners Eroding Social Security (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124813343694466841.html)
Quote
The pay of employees who receive more than the Social Security wage base -- now $106,800 -- increased by 78%, or nearly $1 trillion, over the past decade, exceeding the 61% increase for other workers, according to the analysis. In the five years ending in 2007, earnings for American workers rose 24%, half the 48% gain for the top-paid. The result: The top-paid represent 33% of the total, up from 28% in 2002.

Basically, the rich are getting so fucking rich that the middle class an the poor are actually suffering as a direct result of their largess.  This leads me to one conclusion about economics that is never stated and would be laughed at the face, but which I find to be fundamentally true: Rich people are bad for the economy.  Hell, rich people are bad for society.  They soak up the wealth, hoard it for themselves, then use it to rig the system in their favor.  This is not a free market, this is not democracy.  This is an oligarchy, plain and simple.

And the main elucidation from this article is that it wasn't our economy that collapsed in September, it was our middle class.  Our economy hummed along fine, with wall-street traders and the rich still generating the money they always had without having to lift a finger.  What they had done is sucked the money out of all the people at the bottom who believed that Wall-Street's "Best and Brightest" were helping them make money.

We can argue about health care and EFCA and other things all we want.  But we're quickly losing our ability to fight back.  At this point, if the ordinary person is to survive, we can either tax the hell out of the rich or we can cut off their heads.  These are the only options.




Note: If you can't read the article because it asks for a subscription, put the title of it into google.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 23, 2009, 10:56:39 AM
Heh, in a small way, that's similar to the worst kind of excesses found in pre-revolutionary France.

For centuries, France had an economic base that - on paper - beat the hell out of anyone else in Europe. But due to all the exceptions the nobility granted themselves, most of the nation's wealth remained inacessible to the government, resulting on a tax burden that became steadily more onerous to those who could not buy their way out of taxation.

In the end, smaller nations with a better grasp of healthy Finance, such as Britain and Holland outperformed France - in some cases drastically.

That's the crux of the problem right there. Any government, democratic or not, needs tax revenue to survive and function. When wealth disparities are so great that the wealthy can simply buy a wholesale - and fully legal - exemption from taxation, your society will quite literally break down. It doesn't matter if it's a landed title or a small army of lawyers and accountants that you bought, the net effect is the same.

I would certainly worry because historically, the relative size of a nation's middle class is almost directly proportional to its relative prosperity, and the American middle class has been under seige for several decades now.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on July 23, 2009, 02:46:05 PM
Fuck the rich.
(http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/Bon_Bon_2009/scruffy-1.jpg)

To be more specific, it's being super rich that is detrimental.  Being upper middle class is fine, actually it's great for the economy.  But anyone who has enough money that they can live for 10 or more years, with a ridiculously high standard of living might I add, without doing a single day's work has become an evil mother-fucker.  It can't be helped at that point, that amount of wealth actually physically does something similar to the human brain to the effects of crack cocaine.

There are very few exceptions to this rule.  And it seems that the only way to solve this problem is to relieve them of their money by force and make them slowly suffer through withdrawal in poverty to once again become a respectable human being.  Although that's hard to prove as that never happens without them being killed or killing themselves immediately afterward.

The problem we face now is, how the fuck do we, as citizens go about fixing this problem when one of the rich fuckers has the voice of 1000 or more of us?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 23, 2009, 02:53:04 PM
Two words:

BEAR ARMS!!!






...fuck, here it comes.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on July 23, 2009, 04:41:48 PM
I've decided 1000000$ a year is the upper limit that talent, luck and honest work can get you. Any more than that, you're probably screwing somebody.

ANYONE MAKING OVER A MILLION A YEAR MUST BE PUT TO THE GUILLOTINE IMMEDIATELY

THE ASS GUILLOTINE

IT'S LIKE A REGULAR GUILLOTINE BUT INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE HEAD IN THE HOLE YOU BEND THE GUY OVER AND

WELL I'M SURE YOU CAN FIGURE OUT THE REST
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 23, 2009, 04:44:29 PM
Congratulations, you are Swedish.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 04, 2009, 09:08:55 AM
Some interesting economic bombshells this morning.

GM displays it is still capable of making massive errors in judgement. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/unions-germany-russia-fume-over-opel/article1350559/)

That's just a brutal, brutal 180. I hear lying to the governments of Russia and Germany to steal billions of Euros ("Oh no, we didn't REALLY. We'll pay it back if you ask!") and then taking a giant crap on their citizens is not the way to revitalize your business.


And in nerd-land... State of NY files antitrust suit against Intel. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/ny-files-antitrust-suit-against-intel/article1350897/)

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on November 04, 2009, 05:18:48 PM
Kinda sorry I bought a pity car from them.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on November 11, 2009, 05:06:35 PM
Counts on the H1N1 vaccine (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-nancy-snyderman/planes-vaccines-and-no-eq_b_353727.html)

Quote
Here are some of the numbers:

Citigroup - 1,200 doses

Goldman Sachs - 200 doses

Morgan Stanley - 1,000 doses


Now look at what some of the New York City Hospitals received:

Memorial Sloan Kettering - 200 doses

Lennox Hill - 200 doses

NYU Medical Center - 300 doses


And the local universities:

Columbia University - 200 doses

NYU - 300 doses
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: PhilosopherDirtbike on November 12, 2009, 12:33:24 AM
Goldman Sachs doesn't care about black people rich people.

Only 200 is surprising but I guess the fact that they got any when there are probably at least 200 asthmatic kids who could die from this bug somewhere out there is an outrage. I heard that there was something in the works that would force your employers to give you paid time off if you got the H1N1 bug. I did hear it on the comments section of YouTube, though, so who can say? Would be nice to have something to entice people to stay home and not go out giving this crap to everyone. Especially with the down market and everyone scared of taking the time off. The timing couldn't be worse for this kind of thing.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 12, 2009, 04:00:23 AM
My favourite quote on that issue was from some random government rep "Look, just because it's Goldman Sachs, doesn't mean it's wrong."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on November 12, 2009, 02:34:42 PM
Contrariety GO!

When I mentioned this to Lexi, she didn't see what the big deal was as she figured they were a high-risk group. If it were any of you schmucks I'd probably call bullshit, but not with a nurse-in-training.

I suppose it would make sense if you were trying to keep one of these massive banks from failing any more. It would probably make things worse if a bank already weakened by the financial crisis also had a bunch of it's employees call in sick. That scenario might make sense in a perfect and just world, but then I remember this is a world where motor company execs fly in on private jets to beg for handouts. By this point, I don't know what the hell to think.

:tldr:: Are these guys actually a high-risk group and everyone is still just angry at them? Or are they actually scum that deserve to be hung by their ankles from a streetlight?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on November 12, 2009, 02:55:37 PM
Pretty sure anybody who is already in a hospital, even as an employee, is at a much higher risk than an office worker.

But if the nurses themselves don't even care then I've got nothing else to say.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on November 12, 2009, 03:31:06 PM
If I had to make one, the rationale I'd give would be about how much these people travel to make on-site inspections. Making them exceptionally good vectors for disease.

I don't know if Lexi has any reason to believe that this distribution actually services people at high risk, or if she's "just" trusting other professionals. Nor do I really have the guts to even suggest asking her.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on November 12, 2009, 04:40:22 PM
They're high risk in that if one gets H1N1, they'll immediately spread it around to everyone packaged as derivatives.  That's how banker's immune systems work, they're a hive-like species who's hive mentality mimics their inner workings and that's exactly how they dealt with their illness that was bad loans.

OR

They're high risk in that rich people are extremely prone to catch illness from the disgusting unwashed masses as they have no resistances to disease from living in their alternate reality that they live in.  What you didn't know that if you have enough money, god opens up a rift in space for you were you can live in infinite bliss as long as you make the masses on this plane of existence suffer?  Well, God does.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on November 12, 2009, 04:55:17 PM
These are people who don't even touch their own car doors, who the fuck are they going to spread disease to?  It's also the distribution.  You'll notice that Citigroup and Morgan Stanley combined have about 10 times more than any other group.  And I'd be hard pressed to justify saying that a Wall Street banker is more high-risk than a college student.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on November 12, 2009, 05:07:33 PM
Some interesting economic bombshells this morning.

GM displays it is still capable of making massive errors in judgement. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/unions-germany-russia-fume-over-opel/article1350559/)

Quote from: TFA
Server not found

Firefox can't find the server at www.theglobeandmail.com.

   
  •    Check the address for typing errors such as

          ww.example.com instead of
          www.example.com
   
  •    If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network

          connection.
   
  •    If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure

          that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

If only there were some way it was possible to phrase links so that their meaning would be clear without having to click on them.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 12, 2009, 06:01:44 PM
??? The article still works for me. And I know the G&M isn't banned to US IPs or whatever. Don't know why you're having problems.

The long and short of it is that GM, which has owned Opel for years sold it in a complex sale partially bankrolled by Germany to preserve jobs that were otherwise going to be cut (the European Auto industry has had a terrible capacity glut for a while now). The sale itself was old news - they were forced into it as a result of the bankruptcy/bailout. It was finally sold to a Canadian company, partnered with a Russian company with the stated goal of retooling to make cars for the emerging Russian market.

Now that GM's been bailed out, they basically gave everyone the finger and cancelled the sale AFTER IT HAD BEEN COMPLETED. And also after receiving $1.5 Billion Euros from the German government. So, uh, both Russia and Germany hate GM, the workers are furious (since this means thousands of them will be laid off after all) and GM has alienated all the markets it needs for Open to turn a profit anyway, so it's probably not even worth the massive fallout that will ensue.

As we speak, the German government is suing GM for a return of the money, plus interest & damages.

... and that's why I just type links and let people read the damn article. Not everyone does concise as well as you do Thad.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mothra on December 15, 2009, 11:43:46 AM
Around half (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/us/15poll.html?hp) of the US' unemployed population has had some kind of depression. This gonna make our generation end up like those Great Depression boys?

All teaching us the value of hard work and all that?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 15, 2009, 11:57:32 AM
Not featured: All the people who didn't make it out of the great depression alive.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mothra on December 15, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
See now, that's what's concerning. My grandparents and old-as-hell relatives just never talked about the Great Depression, at all. Few really seemed to, that I'm aware of. We know the history of the thing and a couple extreme personal accounts that made it into general knowledge, but as far as what regular people had to deal with when there wasn't any employment anywhere... it was avoided and danced around. It would certainly be useful to avoid some of the mistakes they made, or at least have some sense of what to expect, but people from that time have this awful preservation of innocence thing going on where "the kids don't need to know about that."

Well yeah, I kind of do now.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 15, 2009, 12:19:51 PM
First off, we don't have it even a tenth as bad as they did back then.

The difference between 8% unemployment and 30% unemployment is by several orders of magnitude. While there's valuable lessons to be learned from the hard times our grandparents or great grandparents experienced, not all of them may directly apply to our own era and circumstances.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mothra on December 15, 2009, 12:28:24 PM
I guess.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on December 15, 2009, 01:45:25 PM

The difference between 8% unemployment and 30% unemployment is by several orders of magnitude.

Eight? EIGHT? Oh, you poor hapless fool. You're so, so lucky to not be living here.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 15, 2009, 01:51:54 PM

The difference between 8% unemployment and 30% unemployment is by several orders of magnitude.

Eight? EIGHT? Oh, you poor hapless fool. You're so, so lucky to not be living here.

Well, the average in Canada peaked at 8.X%, though in certain hard-hit areas such as say, Windsor, it's worse, by up to twice as much - but those are very localized problems.

In the US reports, I continually hear a national average of roughly 10% being quoted. Where do you live, Detroit?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on December 15, 2009, 02:45:46 PM
They don't count people who've been jobless since the last count, sir. As of last September, the REAL unemployment rate was around 18%.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mothra on December 15, 2009, 04:28:27 PM
Ha!  :hi5:

Our Great Depression makes their Great Depression look like a pussy!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 15, 2009, 04:34:49 PM
17.2% real unemployment now, comparable to 25% during Great Depression.

That 25% figure during the Great Depression, however, is kind of close to a guess.  The US government didn't start recording employment figures until after World War II, and the 25% figure was pieced together afterwards.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 15, 2009, 05:36:13 PM
Well, regardless, I still stand by my assertion that we're all a lot better off now than anybody was back then.

If there's anything else our grandparents can teach us, it's not to have an overinflated view of our own hardships.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Kashan on December 15, 2009, 07:01:19 PM
We are a lot better off right now, but mostly because we have a functional safety net of sorts.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on December 15, 2009, 07:06:37 PM
Who is "we?" I've just been contacted by the unemployment insurance agency 14 months after being laid off. I'm $10,000 in debt. I may or may not have a job starting in a week. Nothing will save me if i don't. There are millions and millions of people like me.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 15, 2009, 07:09:01 PM
Shouldn't you be dead of SwinePox by now?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 15, 2009, 07:10:29 PM
A man who still has an internet connection 14 months after being laid off has it better than someone who was 14 months laid off during the Great Depression.

EDIT: Not trying to belittle the shittiness of what you're going through right now Nor. No job and 10k debt is still bad times, but seriously man, I am trying to tell you that things can be far far worse and have been so in the past.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on December 15, 2009, 07:13:01 PM
Was about to say the same thing.  I assume you can eat daily as well through one means or another. 
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 15, 2009, 07:13:51 PM
I think he's in college?  Or living with yyler?  Also there are libraries?



Either way his poorness is dirtying up these forums and if he's not going to fetch my slippers I'd appreciate it if he'd just roll over and die already.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 15, 2009, 07:15:09 PM
If he's in college that doesn't exactly help his argument. :/
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on December 15, 2009, 07:59:35 PM
I am waiting on money for school which i probably won't get and have lied and wheedled to stay where i am as long as i have. if it doesn't show up i'll probably be completely screwed.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 17, 2009, 08:24:14 AM
Legislation brought forward to re-enact the Glass-Steagall Act, that was repealed in 1999, by... uh... John McCain. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126098299342794005.html)

This is a fantastic bill, actually, that is not receiving support from the White House for some reason.  It's also awkward for John McCain because his chief economic advisor on the campaign was Phil Graham, who's responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall in the first place.

I honestly don't know why the White House isn't supporting this.  It's not the only thing that caused the crash, but it was a pretty good jumping off point.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: R^2 on December 19, 2009, 10:55:46 AM
A man who still has an internet connection 14 months after being laid off

I will not perish so long as free Internet lives in the hearts of public libraries [spoiler]puff[/spoiler]
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on January 03, 2010, 01:24:20 PM
An interesting audio slideshow on the emptyness of Detroit (http://audiovideo.economist.com/?fr_story=366e4e386d27759d5b8034c7f377399b5386de46)

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on February 05, 2010, 06:20:06 AM
Unemployment rate drops to 9.7% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/05/AR2010020500396.html?hpid%3Dtopnews).  The real unemployment rate actually made a bigger drop, from 17.3 to 16.5%.

It's a little too early to say that things are finally turning around, and even if things were this could just be symptoms of yet another bubble that'll burst, but it's probably the best news Democrats have had in months.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on February 15, 2010, 08:21:52 PM
Here's a fun article for you to read on the day after valentine's (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201003/jobless-america-future), all about how bad it is that nobody will ever have jobs again, and nothing will get better.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 15, 2010, 08:44:53 PM
North America's middle classes and society in general have been losing ground since the 70's. We were just good at lying about it for a long time. Real prosperity declined and shiny gew-gaws became cheaper. Nothing new under the sun, really.

We'll never have houses, job security, retirements, or do anything meaningful, but video games and Wal-mart T shirts are cheap and plentiful! Of course, some people would consider that a fair trade, I guess?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on February 15, 2010, 08:51:30 PM
yeah, but the new research this article talks about is a real ray of sunshine.

Quote
Strong evidence suggests that people who don’t find solid roots in the job market within a year or two have a particularly hard time righting themselves. In part, that’s because many of them become different—and damaged—people. Krysia Mossakowski, a sociologist at the University of Miami, has found that in young adults, long bouts of unemployment provoke long-lasting changes in behavior and mental health. “Some people say, ‘Oh, well, they’re young, they’re in and out of the workforce, so unemployment shouldn’t matter much psychologically,’” Mossakowski told me. “But that isn’t true.”

Examining national longitudinal data, Mossakowski has found that people who were unemployed for long periods in their teens or early 20s are far more likely to develop a habit of heavy drinking (five or more drinks in one sitting) by the time they approach middle age. They are also more likely to develop depressive symptoms. Prior drinking behavior and psychological history do not explain these problems—they result from unemployment itself. And the problems are not limited to those who never find steady work; they show up quite strongly as well in people who are later working regularly.

:endit:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on February 15, 2010, 08:56:32 PM
Anecdotally, that's bullshit.  Cheer up.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on February 15, 2010, 09:59:46 PM
I literally can't.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on February 15, 2010, 10:50:50 PM
Then your only option is to develop a habit of heavy drinking (five or more drinks in one sitting).
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: R^2 on February 16, 2010, 06:12:38 AM
All of the people I know who are apable of heavy drinking (five or more drinks in one sitting) are only thus because they have jobs and can afford their liquor.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 16, 2010, 06:23:45 AM
There's always the old Toronto standby of crack cocaine and stealin' bicycles!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 27, 2010, 07:54:03 AM
According to this, the Administration plan to eliminate the sub-bureau that collects comparitive labour statistics. (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/02/obama-finds-something-to-cut-out-of-big.html)

I suppose no news is good news? LALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on April 16, 2010, 07:45:18 AM
Apparently Goldman Sachs is being retroactively charged by the SEC with fraud as a result of the subprime shenanigans. No details yet.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 05, 2010, 09:56:20 AM
Just a little question to satisfy my own morbid curiosity: Has anyone else been following the Greek/PIIGS (LOLcronym)/European credit crunch with anything like attentiveness?

Just curious.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on May 05, 2010, 11:10:00 AM
How can you not expect me to see this. 

LOLed a bit on the Globe and Mail Article accusing Germany of being the empire. 

Also, there was a cool application of GIS (I'm a bit closer to my own indicators of wealth poverty project I've mentioned on another board btw).  Essentially there was this one community with 1423 give or take a hundred pools tracked using google earth.  In the same census region, only 123 people claimed they earned more than 60k in euros a year. 

I'm really surprised Merkhel has the clout to be able to lead the bail out, knowing well that her constituents will be rightly pissed off.  And why do they, the people who work hard into their seventies have to bail out a nation of inexplicably high numbers civil servants who barely even show up to work, and won't commit to settling their books without outright riots that have left  bankers dead today. 

If I was Germany, I would be considering my status in the Euro Club, specifically the currency.  Between the lesser states including Greece and Portugal losing it in the head (albiet portugal will probably do better overall in the long), and Italy and France just being plain suicidal with their bread and circuses, Germany deserves much better than being stuck in the 20's and 30's once again.

Also I imagine the UK is looking pretty smug right about now.  Good call Brown, the king is dead, long live the king!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 05, 2010, 12:09:36 PM
The German Empire article was kind of cute.

I think there's some truth in the background (that the way the EU is set up benefits the large, established players to the detriment of the smaller ones and the deck is stacked against smaller players hoping restore a balance of trade), but they have a ways to go before they're the US-in-South-America or China-in-the-US.

The EU as a whole has really refused to get their legislative sort-of-a-house in order, this situation being a great example of how the current system is broken. Whether you view this as okay because the EU is "still an early work in progress" or "a catastrophic socio-economic time bomb" probably depends on your outlook.

I do think that the whole situation is right on the edge at the moment, despite surface appearances to the contrary. We may have escaped the last recession, but it has finally dawned on the bankers of the world that "Wow, holy shit just about everybody is way over their eyeballs in debt and we might not actually be paid back."

Since the problem is now so overwhelming, we can't go back to glossing it over like we have for the past 15-20 years. I don't know about no doom n' gloom, but I do figure things will be unstable for a while yet. Under the circumstances, I try to keep an eye on the fulcrums of things.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on May 05, 2010, 12:26:10 PM
The EU is a fantastic historical example of how you cannot lead by consensus, and it shows us how it does just that by creating layers of overlapping bureaucracy that is redundant and emasculated from the get-go, only more expensive than that of the host nations respective departments.  One of the few good things that have come out of that conglomerate is their policies on inter-nation immigration and work, as evident with the habits of polish workers during the recession versus Pakistani and N African immigrants, who are much more likely to be on the dole compared with the east Europeans who just returned home when the work went dry.  

Our economy will be fine, even as the core of Canada shifts to the west.  Quebec and Ontario has only themselves to blame.  Otherwise, considering that the nation has done fine by sucking off of Alberta's teat for sometime, we should be alright.  The US is in a rock-solid position because it is the world's reserve currency, and by that I mean the real currency for every failed state in the official sense (Zimbabwe) and the unofficial sense (IE NK Black Markets).  Something big needs to happen for the US to get knocked off in the next twenty, and in that case all bets are off. 

Where our real twilight may come in however has to do with simple demographics.  As I've said before, the population distribution is becoming pretty skewed, to the eXtreme in Nippon and Ruskia.  Russia only because the population is shrinking, and Japan because the women have just not been putting out for sometime, not that a large chunk of their younger men are really worth doing.  Both nations are xenophobic at worst and ethnocentric at best, and do not share the same buffer that we do.  If there's anyone who will fail first, look there.  
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 05, 2010, 12:47:14 PM
Otherwise, considering that the nation has done fine by sucking off of Ontario's teat for sometime, we should be alright.

*AHEM*

Don't make me go all statscan on you. :mahboi:

(Note that sadly this does not invalidate the notion that Ontario is a place where ambition and ideas go to die).

Also, demographics are a killer, and it's interesting to bring them up, but the two specific examples you brought up are not the best ones to back up the point.

Russia will limp along on as a commodity economy for quite some time. Japan might be in for some pain, but they have always managed to survive suffering through that peculiar Japanese combination of stoicism and affordable hedonism.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on May 06, 2010, 04:01:05 PM
I respectfully disagree on both accounts, due to more recent trends, although I am more willing to rethink Russia, given their gov's value of human life sometime back.  You are fully correct about Ontario, although I'm interested when the next round of census come out.

Their trends towards ethnocentrism or xenophobia are what make them unique compared with the European nations which are on the same path.  I won't talk about the rest of Europe here however, except mocking their concept of the universal bank tax!

Which is the same boat for the Prime Minister, for good reason (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/economy/canada-eu-at-loggerheads-over-bank-tax/article1557236/). Again, while some things may or may not call for a tax, the Euro's answer for everything seems to be just to add another layer of bureaucrats, this time in the tax collection office as a "buffer" for failed banks. 

Meanwhile, an opinion piece of the Economist shows why we might be on to something (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16059938).  In addition this week they talk about our luck, while comparing the west to Brazil (http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16060113) in terms of resource management. 

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 06, 2010, 04:38:59 PM
That reminds me. I saw an article yesterday that said that the default risk for canada is actually half-unknown internationally (though it's roughly assumed to be incredibly low), because - unlike almost every economy in the known world - the number of transactions of Canadian Credit Default Swaps is so low that there's no sample size to build a baseline.

Technically, Norway is considered the safest investment for national CDS's but we're such a low risk we're not even worth trading. Our risk is so low we don't even chart.

 :profit:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 23, 2010, 06:43:01 PM
Can you stabilize the US Debt? (http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/#)

Cute. I don't know if it's actually educational, because I don't know how biased it is. Looks pretty fairhanded at first (and second) glance though.  

EDIT: Got it to 60% by 2018, mostly through tax increases and revenues revisions, though I did hammer away at defense spending pretty hard.  
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 23, 2010, 07:27:23 PM
59%.  Kept tax cuts for <250k earners, didn't add any other taxes (except for increasing service charges) and greatly expanded R&D and biofuels.

...I also completely fucked up the military, the rich, the elderly, and the business owners.  It'd be interesting to see that simulation run with a corresponding indicator of your chances of actually being elected on that platform, because I get the feeling my plan would get me assassinated before the campaign even started.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on May 23, 2010, 07:42:58 PM
Got it to 51%, but yeah.  Totally not surviving my first year.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on June 18, 2010, 03:16:47 PM
So what's this making the rounds on various States heading for possible bankruptcy on July first?

There's a lot of wild news reports floating around, some claiming as many as 40+ states are headed for either a) the crapper, b) Washington, cap in hand.

Warren Buffet made the very salient point that The administration can hardly bail out big corporations and not bail out the states - and that most state bonds are only AAA rated because of the implicit assumption that Washington backstops them. 

EDIT: I mean, I know the states being broke is old news, but this is apparently significant because the worst-off ones (i.e. Califailnia) are about to reach the breaking point where the state will collapse, Greek-style, barring further cash infusions. And once one state does it...
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on June 18, 2010, 04:08:32 PM
56%, primarily by closing/enforcing tax loopholes and removing a lot of exemptions, as well as doubling the cap on social security taxable income.  I also saved about a half a trillion by bumping medicare thresholds up a few years.  1.5 trillion in increased revenue, and I made Making Work Pay, the EITC, and the higher education tax credit permanent.

I might even go back and lower the corporate tax rate just to make Matt Taibbi cry.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on June 22, 2010, 06:29:40 AM
Fun historical comparison of the Pecora Comission and the modern non-equivalent (http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/pecora-201006)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on July 05, 2010, 03:37:22 PM
A nice little explanation of how fucked we are in Sharkey-style whiteboard form!
RSA Animate - Crises of Capitalism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0&feature=player_embedded#ws)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 15, 2010, 04:24:55 PM
Goldman Sachs fine rings in at $550 Million (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/goldmans-record-fine-a-lesson-to-wall-street/article1641573/)

I guess that'll buy a few of those marine tank-tractor things.

EDIT: Haha, whoops, sorry! Wrong *-illion.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 13, 2010, 10:26:46 AM
Oh dear. So apparently the Republicans supported the vote to extend unemployment insurance, but are dropping the small business lending legislation?

:lol: Oh GOP, you so wacky.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: SCD on August 13, 2010, 11:31:57 AM
Let this be a lesson on why you don't gerrymander.  Things just keep getting wackier and wackier...
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 25, 2010, 03:18:49 PM
Okay.

Well, there's a recent kerfuffle about a rather shameless conspiracy novel that's all the rage in China. The basic premise is that Goldman-Sachs is the antichrist and source of all the world's ills and is trying to kill China (this is what big American corporations try to do, y'see).

Turns out it's mostly plagiarized from an excellent investigative article in Rolling Stone* (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796?RS_show_page=0), and while the original article contains nothing about them targeting China specifically, it is largely accurate.

Anyway, I don't believe in single-party scapegoats, but there's more than enough to spread around that everything ascribed to G-S in the article is still credible. The actual article is well worth the read - and then some. Just don't read it if you have a weak stomach or are easily prone to Catloaf-esque rages.

*Who seem to have somehow stolen the mantle of 'most credible paper in town when it really counts' from the major players - which is really just depressing when you think about it. Of course we should thank our lucky stars that SOMEBODY is doing something.

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 27, 2010, 05:54:25 AM
Economist argues that the actual US debt is not $13 Trillion (which is bad enough) but $200 Trillion. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/the-scary-actual-us-government-debt/article1773879/)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 03, 2010, 11:57:37 AM
Oh hey, Quantitative Easing 2 (aka WE PRINT MUNNIES!) is a go, announced by Bernanke this afternoon (600 Billion, with 75 Billion being spent a month to buy US debt, until the sum's played out).

Any comment on the timing of the announcement?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on November 24, 2010, 05:45:05 AM
Just a friendly reminder that while several people I know on these forums and in real life are struggling to find jobs, corporate profits are skyrocketing (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html?_r=1&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1290535349-/s7dlLyBZkhUxfo0xG5B3Q).

Quote
Corporate profits have been doing extremely well for a while. Since their cyclical low in the fourth quarter of 2008, profits have grown for seven consecutive quarters, at some of the fastest rates in history. As a share of gross domestic product, corporate profits also have been increasing, and they now represent 11.2 percent of total output. That is the highest share since the fourth quarter of 2006, when they accounted for 11.7 percent of output.

Meanwhile, it's time for us to make Tough Choices and start with some huge austerity cuts, Make the Hard Sacrifice, harvest the poor, etc, etc.

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 24, 2010, 06:56:36 AM
Dead Kennedys - Kill the poor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I#)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on November 24, 2010, 03:47:58 PM
Plutocracy vs. Kleptocracy, discuss.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 01, 2010, 07:03:10 PM
The audit of the Fed during the early days of the financial crisis hit today (http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/01/fed-audit-of-emergency-lending-during-financial-crisis-released-today/)

Zach Carter of Campaign for America's Future breaks down some interesting bits pretty well (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010124801/fed-audit-post-bofa-citi-bailout)

Quote
BofA and its predecessors Countrywide and Merrill Lynch accessed the Fed's Primary Dealer Credit Facility 416 times, for a total of $2.783 trillion. A full $476 billion in junk bonds were pledged as collateral for the loans, or roughly 17 percent. The PDCF is an overnight facility, so a lot of these loans are simply being rolled over day-to-day. Nevertheless, it's a staggering amount of money, with an enormous degree of totally worthless collateral being pledged to justify it.

The Fed and Treasury had to do something in 2008 to keep the financial system from falling off a cliff. But by treating the problem as a liquidity issue with no strings attached, they didn't solve the underlying problem: lots of very big banks were simply insolvent.

Now, over two years after TARP, it's clear that many of our largest banks are only "solvent" due to accounting irregularities being approved by regulators that are terrified of letting big banks go under. As a result of this fear, we aren't really regulating our banks.

So Paul Krugman's prediction of zombie banks creating a drag on the economy has not come true. The reality is, in fact, much worse. Krugman foresaw zombie banks that didn't lend due to capital concerns, preventing the recovery from getting off the ground. We're seeing plenty of that, but we're also seeing zombie banks actively prey on the economy through the foreclosure process in an effort to repair their balance sheets. The zombie banks aren't just failing to boost the economy, they're actively sabotaging it
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on December 02, 2010, 08:32:22 AM
So you could say that the zombie banks are eating the American consumer's brains, basically?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Saturn on December 03, 2010, 12:40:19 AM
Plutocracy vs. Kleptocracy, discuss.

What's the difference?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on December 03, 2010, 08:43:43 AM
Hypothetically, a Kleptocracy is fixable.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on December 04, 2010, 07:25:32 AM
The difference is dependent on just how full of shit you think Plato really was.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 04, 2010, 07:56:57 AM
Plenty!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 05, 2010, 06:14:35 PM
So I guess the compromise in the works is to not take in any more money and spend more on unemployment.

Not that I can argue much against unemployment when one in ten people are out on their asses, but man... having a bipartisan government is like having a trophy wife.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: on December 05, 2010, 06:25:18 PM
Despite the name, you can't beat people to death with it?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 05, 2010, 08:08:17 PM
August spends three (http://www.someguywithawebsite.com/blogarchive/week_2010_12_05.html#003070) great (http://www.someguywithawebsite.com/blogarchive/week_2010_12_05.html#003071) posts (http://www.someguywithawebsite.com/blogarchive/week_2010_12_05.html#003072) pretty much saying that Obama's being a punk and needs to tell the Congressional Democrats they're assholes.

And force them to come to work on Christmas, because the goddamn President can do that.

Of course, August knows just as well as the rest of us do that that's not going to happen and they're going to extend all the tax cuts, because Obama is a punk.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 06, 2010, 06:04:38 AM
It seems ridiculous that Dems would be losing on this, until you realize that losing is what they're going for (http://buffalobeast.com/138/Surprise.htm)

Quote
Why is this? No, it’s not that Democrats are wimps. They’re dive artists. Obama promised health care reform, but do he and his DLC inner circle actually want to weaken the stranglehold medical profiteers have on the public? Or do they just want to make a good show of losing the struggle?

*That piece is about the Health Care reform fight, but really it applies to just about any Democratic party position.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 06, 2010, 08:04:12 AM
Bit of a violation of Hanlon's Razor, but yeah, I don't think they're nearly as enthusiastic about raising taxes for rich donors as they pretend.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 06, 2010, 08:16:09 AM
I don't know - would it really be a violation of Hanlon's Razor to say that greed has overrode public concerns?

I mean,the article doesn't make a new argument. It's just saying the Dems are as bought-off as the GOP.

The main issue is that I doubt most people who're bought-off think of it that way. They heavily rationalize the whole thing so as to protect their mental image of themselves. But the effect on public policy is almost the same.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on December 06, 2010, 08:28:33 AM
So......
There are only moderate Republicans and extreme Republicans in congress.  And the moderate ones are in disguise as democrats, only doing so to further the agenda and slow down the process of America's utter destruction so the public doesn't notice.  Then FOX news makes morons angry at the wrong people* ideas and ......

Fuck it.
 :bam:

*As there are no good people in this argument.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 06, 2010, 08:49:50 AM
Pretty much.

What's funny/sad about the whole thing is that my family members who didn't understand my Nader vote a decade ago have pretty much come to understand my position.

As irritated as I've been with Nader since '04, I'd probably vote for him again if the election were tomorrow.  I'd say "Does anybody know any good third-party candidates?", but of course third-party candidates don't generally start running for office two years prior to the election like major-party candidates do.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 06, 2010, 09:05:19 AM
Our first mistake was to be lulled into the "Democrats have done so much for us" argument.  The last good period for the Democrats was in the 30s, and that's because, against all odds, we managed to finally get a real firebrand populist into office at the right time.  That's now to say he overcame his rich roots, as FDR managed to back off the New Deal stuff towards the ladder part of his presidency under rhetoric about "deficit" and "America's debt" and bullshit argument we hear now.  And despite the successes the Democrats garnered during that period, it was still a shitty time to be black.

The model that progressives should have followed during the last two years was the Civil Rights movement during the 60s.  The idea that Lyndon Johnson could be a civil rights hero is laughable, but it was the work of people marching on the steps and basically shutting down industries and putting their lives on the line that brought about the Civil Rights Act, not the President or the Congress.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 06, 2010, 09:18:44 AM
Well, sort of.  Can anyone really see Nixon passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if he'd been in office?  Johnson browbeat his party until they passed it, knowing the political costs.

That said, the "What have you done for us LATELY?" mentality is, in my opinion, forgivable if "lately" is defined as "in the past thirty years".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 06, 2010, 09:45:58 AM
Really, it's just funny to see how hard everyone's still chasing Reagan's tail.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 06, 2010, 07:11:30 PM
It's official: All the tax cuts are being extended (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tax-cut-deal-president-obama-expected-announce-terms/story?id=12327282)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 06, 2010, 07:37:26 PM
It's worse than that (http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/06/with-pressure-on-all-sides-white-house-defends-tax-cut-framework/)

Quote
The estate tax, in a monstrous deal, will be lowered from 2009 levels, with a $5 million dollar exemption and a 35% rate, for two years as well. And, the deal adds what is now an annual patch to the alternative minimum class so it doesn’t hit people in the middle class. In exchange, extended unemployment benefits between 26 and 99 weeks will be continued for 13 months, to the end of December 2011 (costing around $65 billion)

Not only is the anti-Aristocracy tax being gutted, but this unemployment is just going towards current unemployment tiers, which only extend up to 99 weeks.  Meaning people who've already been unemployed for 99 weeks are SOL.

I think it is time to ditch Obama and the entire Democratic party.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 06, 2010, 07:41:04 PM
I think one of the most interesting things is that we actually have no idea how many voters would really get out and actually vote for a blatantly socialist option, because the only politicians advocating such measures are derided fringe lurkers and (for the most part) the only media calling for such measures are really awful blatant left-wing hack rags.

Everyone else is trying so hard to be seppuku bipartisan or Glenn Beck that nothing else seems to even exist.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 06, 2010, 07:42:05 PM
At this rate we'll have to downsize the Senate anyway.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 06, 2010, 07:49:25 PM
Oh, and in case anybody hasn't heard, Bernanke was quoted as saying QE3 isn't out of the question. Get ready for more money being printed!

Maybe we're not actually giving Obama enough credit and his long-term plan is to make the US dollar par with the Yen, making the current US debt worthless. Ha ha.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 07, 2010, 07:57:14 AM
Goddamn you Kerry, where the fuck was this six years ago? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40517103#40517103)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 07, 2010, 08:30:06 AM
Firewall'd.  Context please?

Course, even without it, I can probably give a pretty accurate answer about how Democrats running for President are even bigger pussies than Democrats serving in the Senate.  And right now Kerry's job is to please voters in Massachusetts, not the rest of the country.

(Obama did a moderately better job of pretending not to be a pussy when he was running for President, but anyone who thinks telling the people who got him elected to go fuck themselves is a new development has forgotten about his vote on Bush's warrantless wiretapping.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 07, 2010, 08:51:39 AM
Try and watch the video later when you have the chance.

It features Kerry completely dismantling Republican arguments and generally demonstrating an amazing amount of spine. True he's justifying the recent tax cut extension disaster, but I haven't seen this clear an anti-Republican message from a senior Democrat in forever.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on December 07, 2010, 01:51:55 PM
There is a not-very-poorly-concealed pattern here.

Expect Obama to make a killing on the lecture circuit in 2017~
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 07, 2010, 03:00:19 PM
Maybe Obama at 55 will lead the charge for a modification of the 22nd Amendment from absolute to consecutive. 

Too bad that even if that pie-in-the-sky pans out, he's going to waste the next six years anyway.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 07, 2010, 07:19:47 PM
Also included in the tax deal is a Payroll Tax Holiday.

This wouldn't be a big deal, except for that the payroll tax goes to paying for one very important thing: Social Security.

As such, some people are looking at it and wondering why the Democratic party is destroying Social Security (http://my.firedoglake.com/nancyaltman/2010/12/07/the-end-of-social-security/)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 08, 2010, 06:40:59 AM
Emboldened by how easily they won this tax cut deal, Republicans are now pushing for more (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/two-major-conservative-obstacles-emerge-to-tax-cut-compromise.php).

You know, the easy way out for the Dems is right there at the bottom. 

Quote
...Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire in just over three weeks.

If the Dems simply do nothing at let the tax cuts expire, they can sit back and let the Republican House worry about it.  Then they could just sit back and say that Obama would veto any bill that doesn't end the top tax cuts.  Then the Dems would have a shot at keeping the House in 2010.  Of course, all of this assumes that the Dems actually want to get rid of that tax cut, and it's clear that I'm referring to some fictional alternate universe.

Still though, you gotta have some kind of twisted admiration for how the Republicans have managed to dictate policy for the last two years despite having one of the smallest minorities in history.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 08, 2010, 07:02:42 AM
I've been living with a government like that for the past six years. Believe me, minority right-wing idiots miraculously dictating everything in the face of a completely useless leftist majority is no fun. ::(:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 08, 2010, 07:54:21 AM
Emboldened by how easily they won this tax cut deal, Republicans are now pushing for more (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/two-major-conservative-obstacles-emerge-to-tax-cut-compromise.php).

I am SHOCKED.

You know, the easy way out for the Dems is right there at the bottom. 

Quote
...Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire in just over three weeks.

If the Dems simply do nothing at let the tax cuts expire, they can sit back and let the Republican House worry about it.  Then they could just sit back and say that Obama would veto any bill that doesn't end the top tax cuts.  Then the Dems would have a shot at keeping the House in 2010.  Of course, all of this assumes that the Dems actually want to get rid of that tax cut, and it's clear that I'm referring to some fictional alternate universe.

One, it's too late as Obama's already capitulated; the other thing is that even if he hadn't, that wouldn't be a good way of framing it.  "Obama will veto middle-class tax cuts and unemployment benefits if they also include tax cuts for the rich" is not a good soundbite; you don't want to be the guy obstructing two popular pieces of legislation for the sake of partisan bickering.

Which is, of course, exactly where Obama fucked this one up (again, assuming he actually WANTED the tax cuts to expire for the rich, which he probably never had any intention of doing).  He could have gone on TV and, instead of chastising the people who got him elected, pointed out that THE REPUBLICANS JUST THREW A TANTRUM AND FILIBUSTERED MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUTS AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH.  And then he could have told them they weren't going home for Christmas until they passed something.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 09, 2010, 04:48:15 PM
So, what's this I hear about the house Democrats (man, all of a sudden I had a terrible mental image of "House Democrats", if you get my drift) defying Obama on the tax cut extensions and holding the legislation 'till they get what they want?

Also, Thad, did you ever get to see that Kerry video?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 10, 2010, 06:07:34 PM
Bernie Sanders goes on actual, 9 hour long filibuster of tax deal (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/sanders-launches-actual-filibuster-of-tax-relief.php?ref=fpa)

Quote
"How can I get by on one house?" Sanders railed, sarcastically. "I need five houses, ten houses. I need three jet planes to take me all over the world! Sorry, American people. We've got the money, we've got the power."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: McDohl on December 10, 2010, 08:49:00 PM
Bernie's a good man.  Isn't he losing his seat this year?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cait on December 10, 2010, 09:10:16 PM
No, he's up for reelection in 2012.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 11, 2010, 12:37:23 AM
Current estimate of bill's cost to the deficit: $857.8 billion.

:over9000: That's over seven hundreeeeeeeeed!!!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 11, 2010, 10:38:20 AM
Isn't that over 10 years, though?  On a bill that expires in two years?

Granted, we're going to have this exact same song and dance again in two years.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: TA on December 11, 2010, 01:19:59 PM
The issue of tax cuts for the ultra-rich coming to a vote shortly before the 2012 elections is, I feel, not entirely a bad thing.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Metal Slime on December 11, 2010, 02:16:10 PM
Their plan is to likely hope they can oust Obama and then force the tax cuts to be permanent under a new Republican administration.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on December 11, 2010, 02:29:56 PM
they can, and they will

stop hoping for anything good to happen for the rest of your life

hope is dead

long live the black
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 11, 2010, 02:30:22 PM
If you think there's any situation where temporary tax cuts won't become permanent during an election year, then you obviously weren't paying attention  a month and a half ago.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 14, 2010, 05:48:32 AM
My new rule of thumb for whether a bill is bad for America: If it easily overcomes the supermajority requirement for a cloture vote, it's probably really bad for America (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/12/14/tax_deal_passes_senate_test_vote/)

Looks like we're fucked, people.  And remember: Never trust the word "temporary".  That's just a euphemism for "permanent".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 14, 2010, 06:59:09 PM
I wish Democrats would stop phrasing their arguments in terms of "It benefits the rich."  You make it sound like you just have an axe to grind and nothing more.

"It's costing us money we don't have for no fucking reason other than really, really obvious political blowjobbery" is a bit better, even if it is probably too wordy and full of swearing.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 15, 2010, 09:59:17 AM
Focusing on specific rich people (or at least specific subgroups of them) is a good rhetorical tactic too.  "It benefits the bank CEO's who caused this mess" is a good rhetorical tactic.  And referring to the estate tax as the "Paris Hilton Tax" has worked up to this point, though she showed in '08 that she's pretty good at turning political attacks against her back against the politicians.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 15, 2010, 08:06:54 PM
No, fuck, no.  Stop being an enemy of the rich.  Stop being an enemy of anyone is really a better piece of advice, but the Dems who openly take up arms against the oil barons and media hypnotists are mostly the Dems who are suddenly out of a fucking job now.

Which is not to say you can't undermine them, just don't do it by shouting and waving your political guns in their faces, or they'll politically shoot you first, and you can't save the world if you're politically dead.  But the amassing rich - the ones actually trying to get richer - are really easy to control.  They're like turkeys.  If there's food to eat, they'll try to eat it, no matter how full they are or how poisoned the food is.  Trying to appeal to normal, moral, conscious-thinking people, on the other hand, is ludicrously difficult, because they will try to judge you in normal, moral, conscious-thinking terms, and it's pretty easy to fuck that up no matter how good your intentions.

The counter argument you will now probably put forth is "The current Democratic party got their asses booted because they tried to appeal to the red/rich TOO MUCH", and that's only half true.  Brobama especially has a bad habit of appealing to that base in action while shouting at and denouncing them in speech.  The end result: the turkeys are still afraid of him, the farmers know he's full of shit, and nobody's left on his side.  I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else that I heard the prediction, before the man took office, that he would leave with a lower approval rating than Bush.  It sounded ridiculous at the time, but I'm starting to actually believe it now.  In qualitative terms Obama is still laughably not even close to Bush's level of utter fucking bullshit, but in terms of how many people, head by head, are actually happy with him... well, Bush had 33% of the population who would eat his shit if he asked.  If things continue like they are, in two years, Barack won't even have that.

There was going to be a fourth paragraph here but I think the final point was buried under the mental image of George W. Bush pooping into a redneck's mouth.

[/rant]
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 15, 2010, 08:12:12 PM
Political populism has always been successful, Brentai.  People are not angry at the Democratic party because they've positioned themselves as enemies of the rich, but mostly because they seem to not care.  The problem the Dems have been having since Carter is that when the conservatives start bellowing about how Government is so awful, their reaction is "Well, yes but we're not that awful" rather than "Holy shit these rich people want everything".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 15, 2010, 09:52:39 PM
No, fuck, no.  Stop being an enemy of the rich.  Stop being an enemy of anyone is really a better piece of advice, but the Dems who openly take up arms against the oil barons and media hypnotists are mostly the Dems who are suddenly out of a fucking job now.

Not really.  The blue dogs and the moderates got hammered just as badly as the liberals.

Which is not to say you can't undermine them, just don't do it by shouting and waving your political guns in their faces, or they'll politically shoot you first, and you can't save the world if you're politically dead.

Depends on the resources at your disposal.  Instead of going on TV the other day to insult the people who voted for him for half an hour, Obama could have, well, done what Jon Stewart did the other day and said "Guess what?  The Republicans don't get to say they care about 9/11 anymore."  Sure Fox News would spend the next two years attacking him for it.  But that simple statement, coming from the President of the United States, would never go away.

The counter argument you will now probably put forth is "The current Democratic party got their asses booted because they tried to appeal to the red/rich TOO MUCH", and that's only half true.  Brobama especially has a bad habit of appealing to that base in action while shouting at and denouncing them in speech.  The end result: the turkeys are still afraid of him, the farmers know he's full of shit, and nobody's left on his side.

I'll agree, more or less.  "If people on both sides criticize you, you're appealing to the majority" is a common homily that also happens to be a giant fucking obvious logical fallacy.  Sometimes, if people on both sides criticize you, it's because you're not appealing to ANYBODY.

Honestly, the tax cut deal wouldn't piss me off so thoroughly if he'd actually put up a fucking fight first.  If he'd argued for two months and it looked like he'd exhausted all of his options, and THEN they'd settled on this deal, okay, it would've stunk, but I would have understood why it happened.

Instead, he signaled immediately, the moment the fucking election was over, that he was willing to give them the tax cuts for the rich.  He didn't fight it for a damn second.  Yes, he lectured about what a bad idea it was, but every time he did was with the disclaimer "but I'm going to cave and let you do it anyway."

He didn't exhaust ANY of his other options.  He didn't call their bluff.  He didn't go on TV and call them out for filibustering middle-class tax cut extensions and FUCKING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS.

He DID, as you note, go on TV to chastise the people who fucking voted for him.

Think it was Colbert who made a comment to the effect that Obama will never stop fighting -- as long as it's the people who elected him.

Related: I was thumbing through a Newsweek at the barbershop today and ran across a political cartoon where Obama says "I fold" and Boehner points to the dealer and says "He hasn't finished dealing yet."

Also related: a friend of mine campaigned for Obama in '08.  Like, went to New Mexico to work on the campaign.  As a volunteer.

She came back within a few weeks -- simply put, Obama's continual waffling had just left her in a position where she couldn't justify the personal sacrifice she was making to support him.  She still canvassed for him locally, and of course she still voted for him, but he pretty much convinced her he wasn't worth giving up her day job for.

I'm not saying he should cater solely to people who are as liberal as I am.  But I am saying, hey, guess what, asshole, if you keep talking to me like I'm stupid for asking you to show a fucking spine, I'm going to write in Jon Stewart's name next time.  And maybe you'll win in '12 without guys like me, but you probably wouldn't even have RUN in '08 if it weren't for guys like me, let alone gotten past the primaries.

I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else that I heard the prediction, before the man took office, that he would leave with a lower approval rating than Bush.  It sounded ridiculous at the time, but I'm starting to actually believe it now.  In qualitative terms Obama is still laughably not even close to Bush's level of utter fucking bullshit, but in terms of how many people, head by head, are actually happy with him... well, Bush had 33% of the population who would eat his shit if he asked.  If things continue like they are, in two years, Barack won't even have that.

There's no way he goes down in '12 with an approval rating below 33%.  Even if he's looking at a thoroughly alienated base in '12, I find it hard to believe he'll lose the election given the field of his contenders; if he goes down it'll be close.

And if he gets a second term, he's not going to end it below 33%.  Nearly every two-term President's approval goes back up during his last months in office; Reagan's did even after Iran-Contra.  Bush had to preside over the destruction of a major American city and an economic collapse to leave office as low as he did.  I myself don't expect I'll be checking the "approve" box when Obama leaves office, but more than 33% of the country will.

Obama doesn't really have to worry to the extent that the Congressional Democrats, or whoever gets the Democratic nom in '16, does.

Course, I could be wrong.  If he continues being a craven pussy, he's going to lose most of the base and some of the moderates and independents (most of whom opposed the extension of the tax cuts for the rich -- again, if he had fought, he would have had public opinion on his side), and if the economy doesn't improve because the Bush tax cuts somehow continued to not fix the economy, well, at that point he's just dead in the water.  Unless he's running against Palin.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 15, 2010, 10:11:21 PM
Well, I still harbor a fantasy in which Clinton decides to bite the hand and run for candidacy again.  It would make her no greater a betrayer than the man himself.

But yeah I qualified that statement with "if things continue like they are" and I think you'll agree on that caveat.  If he gets two terms that's 6 years to grow a spine and yeah, second term Presidents tend to do that.  I have a feeling we'll all be operating on the "benefit of the doubt" principle come 2012, but it's a lot more mature than the last time when a sizable handful of people tried to tell us that it was really fucking obvious this was going to happen and we all hurp-a-durped our way into a brick wall based on something we saw on a t-shirt.

But yeah overall I'd like to stay away from the populism game because, let's face it, the other guys are way better at that, but terrible at subtlety and giving a shit.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 16, 2010, 07:17:13 AM
I know it's been decades in the making, but I still think it's funny that we've reached the point where the right is way better at populism than the left.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 16, 2010, 07:43:20 AM
But yeah I qualified that statement with "if things continue like they are" and I think you'll agree on that caveat.  If he gets two terms that's 6 years to grow a spine and yeah, second term Presidents tend to do that.

I'm not optimistic.  But I HAVE often wondered what Clinton could have done if he hadn't spent his second term fighting impeachment.

I have a feeling we'll all be operating on the "benefit of the doubt" principle come 2012

Eh, I'm in Arizona.  I don't really have a compelling reason to vote for a lesser-evil candidate.

but it's a lot more mature than the last time when a sizable handful of people tried to tell us that it was really fucking obvious this was going to happen and we all hurp-a-durped our way into a brick wall based on something we saw on a t-shirt.

I knew he was going to cave on things I thought he shouldn't.  I knew he was going to downright piss me off.  But I thought he was fucking competent.

I heard something on NPR last week -- forget who was talking, but his argument was that Obama is a terrible negotiator and doesn't know how to bluff, and that Clinton, by contrast, was a really friggin' good negotiator who knew how to bluff and, most importantly, when to call the Republicans' bluff.  It's back to my rhetorical question about shutting down the government -- the Dems of today don't have the sense to let them.

But yeah overall I'd like to stay away from the populism game because, let's face it, the other guys are way better at that, but terrible at subtlety and giving a shit.

Well, they're better at it than Reid, Pelosi, and most of the leadership.  The hell of it is that they're NOT better at it than Obama, that he's fucking great at it but has backed the hell off from it.

You know who else was pretty good at it is John Edwards.  Pity he turned out to be such a gigantic piece of shit.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 16, 2010, 09:07:25 AM
I don't think he's incompetent so much as way too pacifistic (token war notwithstanding).  Like I've said before, we voted him in on the understanding that he was not a gigantic asshole; this turned out to be exactly the worst thing for a President to not be.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 16, 2010, 10:05:25 AM
Well, striking deals isn't inherently bad.  It's not that negotiation is bad, it's that Obama is bad at negotiation.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: JDigital on December 16, 2010, 10:11:45 AM
I thought he would be magic but instead he's just like a regular president
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on December 16, 2010, 10:18:11 AM
I'm starting to believe that the first day a new president gets in office, some FBI x-files liaison comes in and tells them "okay, here's what's really going on", and whatever the revelation is, it just breaks their mind.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 16, 2010, 10:21:57 AM
I thought he would be magic but instead he's just like a regular president

Yeah, I'm pretty much tired of the debate being mischaracterized this way.

"Put up a fight once in awhile, god dammit" is not equivalent to "I live in fairyland".

Like I said, I was perfectly aware I wasn't voting for a doey-eyed liberal in '08.  I just thought I was voting for someone who'd have at least as much spine as Bill Clinton did.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 17, 2010, 05:03:30 PM
Quote
"It's a good first step, but let's be clear, if we actually want to help our economy get back on track and to begin creating jobs, we need to end the job-killing spending binge. We need to cut spending significantly and we need to provide more certainty to small businesses around America," House Speaker-designate John Boehner, R- Ohio, said before the signing.

Man the look on his face when he actually reads the bill is going to be so priceless.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 17, 2010, 05:31:54 PM
Quote
job-killing spending binge...cut spending... small businesses

That's... that's too many shots in a row I need to stop this republican drinking game immediately.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 18, 2011, 08:33:51 PM
That link about the Swiss bank leaker led to this really well-done piece on law school grads (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html?src=me&ref=business)

Man, given that I know way too many lawyers, I knew that out of the old "Traditional Pillars" of high end jobs (Doctors, Lawyers, etc.), the outlook was grimmest for law grads. Rising standards on absurd things, lowered standards overall to get more suckers students to enroll... all the "professional" jobs face this these days. But this is much worse than I thought it was. And the offshore outsourcing I hadn't heard about.

Blah blah jokes about sympathy for lawyers aside, until recently, the law was one of the few paths left in higher education that came with a reasonable guarantee of economic security. I guess you can ball this in with the general decline of higher education overall, but it's still brutal to read.

I wonder what sort of enigmatic comment Paco has about this. 
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: TA on January 19, 2011, 09:38:54 AM
Yeah, you can't get a legal job in this market without either knowing the person hiring you or having 3+ years of specialized experience.  Wasn't true when I went into law school, but the bottom fell out of the market in the past couple years.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on January 19, 2011, 11:24:45 AM
You know, you can take the words "legal" and "law" out of your post and it works just as well.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Rico on January 19, 2011, 12:08:04 PM
While we're a huge step away from 1Ls getting cushy firm internships from a few years back, I'm not really that convinced by the article: for 7 pages, it doesn't even mention some pretty important factors to the equation. While right away I found the quote, “I guess I kind of assumed that someone would hook me up with something,” I was strangely unable to find a single statement or data on the percentage of these people who took, say, a judicial internship 1L to up their experience, or the number of people who tried for law review, or, having not gotten on law review, who went for another journal, etc.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on January 19, 2011, 01:26:50 PM
I won't comment on this article other than to say there is a robust dialogue about this, and it is viewed by many as The Problem.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 19, 2011, 03:25:22 PM
That is fascinatingly vague.

(^ not meant as an insult)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on January 19, 2011, 05:02:53 PM
I work at a law school, man.  I'm not going to talk about this in depth on a public web forum.

At least not before I publish about it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 19, 2011, 05:13:58 PM
I knew you worked at a law library. Didn't know it was directly under a school.

Though in retrospect, where the hell else would you have a library specifically for law and legal matters.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on January 19, 2011, 05:14:24 PM
Fed?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: JDigital on January 19, 2011, 07:57:41 PM
Yeah, you can't get a legal job in this market without either knowing the person hiring you or having 3+ years of specialized experience.

It's the same in any industry. A man's salary and related expenses are a lot of money and the CEO doesn't want to accept any more risk than necessary. The job opening will go first to someone who's done the same job before. You'll only get the position if none of those interview with the company.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 19, 2011, 08:05:18 PM
Or if the job is shit and you are disposable.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: TA on January 20, 2011, 08:02:04 AM
In this case it's more than a lot of large firms are shutting down, so you have entry-level associate positions asking for 3 years of specialized experience and being able to get it.

I like the postings for jobs that want 4-8 years of experience, "but are willing to consider more".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on January 20, 2011, 09:52:13 AM
Well, I will say there IS another, rosier side to it: everybody's 401ks got slaughtered in 2008, so the attorneys who were projected to retire at that time couldn't and since have stayed on.  The degree to which business has shrunk is somewhat exaggerated (after all, when shit goes belly-up, people want to sue) but a much larger issue is that jobs that were projected to open up when TA and others like him enrolled in law school simply haven't.  Once things "turn around", the Dept. of Education predicts a mass exodus of older attorneys and equilibrium will resume.

The New York white shoe firms have heavily downsized because half their clients vanished, it's true, but other markets like Chicago, Dallas, and Atlanta are still doing reasonably well; this is probably cold comfort to the new grads in those markets who are now competing with the several thousand wunderkinden who were supposed to have been in New York.

The more immediate problem, as TA hints at, is that the system of summer internships leading to job offers upon which initial legal career development relies was shaken up; law schools are not always as circumspect as they ought to be with regard to actual career skills training, so this has sort of resulted in a Lost Generation of law graduates.  The kid in the article demonstrating a complete lack of ability or vision in setting up a solo practice right out of the gate is not at all surprising.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on January 20, 2011, 10:23:00 AM
I like the postings for jobs that want 4-8 years of experience, "but are willing to consider more".

I like the ones who want "5 or more years' experience with Windows Server 2007."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on January 20, 2011, 11:32:47 AM
You know, you can take the words "legal" and "law" out of your post and it works just as well.

Also, this is definitely true, but different industries have been hit by the Depression in different ways, so they call for different responses.

"Phase out lawyers" isn't the best response here, at least not to the degree it is in other industries.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 04, 2011, 12:50:37 PM
So I was reading this amusing article on Kenneth Cole's, uh, well I guess you could call it a "gaffe" (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/digital-culture/trending-tech/kenneth-cole-learns-the-meaning-of-blowback/article1894392/) earlier today when a line of thought came to mind.

Much hay has been made lately (and in the past decade, really) about how the rich have been getting richer and the rest of us have been getting the shaft and blah blah blah. While I agree with this sentiment in broad terms, the average man in the street really hasn't cared much. When you really get down to it, the average person just doesn't care enough about the issue yet.

Given that the income disparity is now as bad as it was in the 20's, it has struck me as a bit odd that people aren't angrier - or at least more active about this. But for the most part I was satisfied with what passes for the current arguments for why that is: People's survival isn't at stake as much. We do have something of a safety net, even if it is in tatters. There's enough food. etc. etc.

I did think that maybe that wasn't the whole story. As much as the rich love grasping as much as they can, so do the poor. While a wealthy man may buy off the government to grab what they can, the poor will band together to demand entitlement programs. Sure, you may point out that the neocon and post-neocon expansion of spending without matching tax increases is exactly that kind of stuff, but that misses the point: There's always been a broad range of poor folks that aren't merely satisfied with entitlement programs - they want to Stick It To The Man. For this bunch, higher taxes on the rich is like a benefit in and of itself.

So anyway, it occurred to me that the real reason we haven't seen more plebeian rage is simple: Because the rich have gotten much better at not reminding the poor how hopelessly out of touch they are. Sure, they're still prone to the occasional comment as linked above, but for the most part, they use their funds to buy precious Kane-esque seclusion and issue all statements through multiple layers of PR men. That's not to say the wealthy never used barriers or mouthpieces before, but the process has been vastly advanced in the intervening century. 

So anyway, not much point here other than to wonder out loud what our "Let them eat cake" moment will look like and how bad things have to get before we get there.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on February 05, 2011, 06:16:52 AM
The barriers to our much-needed revolution are largely
1) The media has successfully redirected many people's rage at the government, and the wrong side at that (tea party)
2) Racism, while no longer overt, is still very strong in America, and so many are distracted by the president's skin (tea party)
3) The American people are stupid.  And socialism and anything that even vaguely demands equality of any sort and/or any action relating to such has been so demonized over the years that such things are dismissed before even fully coming into being.  Instead it is insisted that it's the government's fault. (Tea Party)

Right now, I think we have a greater likelihood of the government being dismantled and the country dissolving into a complete clusterfuck and chaos that will bring new meaning to dystopia.

So, basically.  I BLAME THE TEA PARTY.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on February 05, 2011, 06:19:32 AM
I heard once that the biggest indicator of a revolution (of any kind) is the percentage of the population that are males 16-24. Higher percentages indicate a more likely revolution (again, not necessarily violent).
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 05, 2011, 07:17:58 AM
The unemployment levels of that age bracket are also pretty important.

That said, I doubt that's the only indicator. I actually took a senior history seminar entirely on the causes and progression of revolutions once, but it's been a while so I'd have to actually look up the details of anything.

In other news, I see there were no responses besides Catloaf's. A sure sign that I'm probably talking out of my asshole again. I suppose it would have helped if I'd made it clear that I don't actually expect or want a Revolution, in spite of the Marie Antoinette reference. Just policies that seem to require a leader with the surname Roosevelt to implement.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on February 05, 2011, 07:46:59 AM
Marie Antoinette never actually said "let them eat cake". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on February 05, 2011, 12:56:39 PM
The unemployment levels of that age bracket are also pretty important.

That said, I doubt that's the only indicator. I actually took a senior history seminar entirely on the causes and progression of revolutions once, but it's been a while so I'd have to actually look up the details of anything.

In other news, I see there were no responses besides Catloaf's. A sure sign that I'm probably talking out of my asshole again. I suppose it would have helped if I'd made it clear that I don't actually expect or want a Revolution, in spite of the Marie Antoinette reference. Just policies that seem to require a leader with the surname Roosevelt to implement.

Well, you know. We all want to change the world.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on February 05, 2011, 12:58:46 PM
i didn't respond because every time i talk about this kinda thing everyone just thinks i'm mental
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 05, 2011, 01:06:54 PM
Marie Antoinette never actually said "let them eat cake". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake)

Whether or not it she actually said it does not in fact invalidate my point.

What matters is that the average French citizen had little problem believing it. To say that the French aristocracy was "widely seen as out-of-touch", is to put things so mildly, it borders on euphemism.

Of course these days, it's the right wing that has the average citizen taking everything at face value. There's a number of ways that can go, but few of them are any good.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on February 06, 2011, 03:34:18 AM
i didn't respond because every time i talk about this kinda thing everyone just thinks i'm mental

While I respond in spite of the fact that everyone thinks I'm mental.  Partially because I'm somewhat in agreement with their sentiment.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: sei on February 06, 2011, 08:11:24 AM
To say that the French aristocracy was "widely seen as out-of-touch", is to put things so mildly, it borders on euphemism.
so how about that technology legislature (IP, patents, etc.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 06, 2011, 10:00:42 AM
You may be given to the impression that geeks are now mainstream. This is quite understandable, given various social and technological developments in last twenty years.

However, it is not wholly correct.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: sei on February 06, 2011, 12:17:03 PM
Silly me. I forgot that only geeks were capable of downloading music, visiting YouTube, or being sued by RIAA.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on February 06, 2011, 12:22:44 PM
The Groupon commercial in the third quarter is a pretty good candidate.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 06, 2011, 12:37:26 PM
Silly me. I forgot that only geeks were capable of downloading music, visiting YouTube, or being sued by RIAA.

Patent and IP law, etc. You're speaking of things about which the average citizen is largely clueless over.

Think of the average idiot raging because they were "busted" over mp3's or were "screwed over" by their ISP. When you see people like this ragin' away on message boards or news comments or wherever, how many of them bring up IP law and how many of them just mash "BLUH BLUH THESE GUYS R RIPP OFF ARTISTS MOTHERFCKERS!"?

You can't have a visceral feeling that the powerful are out of touch when you're not in touch yourself. Shit, look at old Ted Stevens. That's probably the furthest spread something's like that had and it had a negligible effect. I'd argue that that's because it there simply isn't a critical mass of voters that would respond to Ted's idiocy the way most of us did. 

TL;DR - preaching to the choir never gets anybody anywhere. Neither does overestimating the size of the choir.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: sei on February 07, 2011, 06:43:51 AM
Not entirely sure this is the right thread, but this was a fun read:

Are the American people obsolete? (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/07/27/american_people_obsolete/index.html) (subheading: The richest few don't need the rest of us as markets, soldiers or police anymore.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 07, 2011, 10:03:28 AM
A bit silly at times (especially the military-privatization stuff), but not without some merit.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 17, 2011, 11:21:28 AM
So I hear we're a hairsbreadth away from a "What the fuck, Wisconsin?!" thread.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 18, 2011, 10:30:03 AM
Obama Budget Cuts Visualization (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE#)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on March 13, 2011, 11:51:02 AM
GOP budget plan to cut 700,000 jobs. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-spending-plan-would-cost-700000-jobs-new-report-says/2011/02/28/ABBK9oJ_story.html)

:whoops: This is my surprised face.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on March 13, 2011, 01:23:24 PM
And now it's time for another round of "How will the Democrats fuck this up?"
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 17, 2011, 05:43:42 PM
So in an unbelievably sporting show of cooperation, the G7 has agreed to an unprecedented nearly unprecedented* act of well, charity, by dumping Yen to help lower the Japanese currency. The yen has skyrocketed lately, on speculation that Japan will have to sell overseas assets to pay for rebuilding, so the currency's rise really hurts Japan at a time it can obviously ill afford it.

*The G7 did this once before, in 2000, to help the Euro out of a major post-implementation crisis.

This afternoon has been...     well, I don't know when I fell in the parallel universe where people aren't retarded, but boy it would be nice to just stay here. Maybe I should listen to Queen all week more often.


"I'll defy the laws of nature and come out aliiiiiiiiiiiiive!

THEN I'LL GET YOU!"

*WRRRAMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!*
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 31, 2011, 03:24:46 AM
GOP furiously tries to hide Wisconsin Congressman's whine session about his shockingly low pay (http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/gop-trying-desperately-to-cover-up-video-they-previously-published-on-internet)

Ohhhhhhhh this is too good.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on April 08, 2011, 09:17:39 PM
Haha, oh wow (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1#)

Citigroup put out a report on 2005 that pooh-poohs the risks of wealth imbalances. But only from the perspective of the wealthy.

EDIT: Man, that thing is gas.

Basically the paper posits that equity investment decisions made on the basis of consumer behaviour are foolish, since wealth imbalances have now reached the point where the rich have so much money that they ARE the economy (here called a "Plutonomy", a play on "Plutocracy"). The behaviour of the vast majority of the population is irrelevant because they simply don't have any money. The paper recognizes that income inequality cannot continue to grow forever, but argues that this is not going to change anytime soon.

The article then suggests that the correct investment response is to place your funds with stocks from companies that exclusively (or nearly-exclusively) produce high-end luxury goods.

A lot of his information is wrong (savings rates being the most egregiously so*), but his conclusions may still be correct even now. I would be very curious know the relative performance of the so-called "Plutonomy basket" in the past two years. It seems safe to say it took a dip in 2008 and possibly the first half of 2009 - beyond that I wouldn't chance a guess, other than to point out that income inequality is not being addressed and continues to grow.

The accidental insights into the concerns of hyper-rich investors is also kind of funny.

* Saving rates among the wealthy are estimated to actually sit around 25%, save for a big dip to negative number in 2008 and 2009 (the rates are now returning to the natural 25% levels. Whereas savings rates among the poor are closer to 4% - on a good day.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on April 09, 2011, 06:13:27 AM
Blazing Saddles - We Must Do Something! Harrumph! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY#)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 06, 2011, 09:07:02 AM
I thought this was a really interesting introduction on just how bad the Greek economy really is. (http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010) Granted, it's almost six months old, but I doubt there's been an earthshaking cultural shift since then.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 13, 2011, 06:27:09 AM
A Senate subcommittee has gift-wrapped the evidence against Goldman Sachs - now, will anybody actually prosecute? (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511?page=1)

Once again, Rolling Stone of all publications runs in where others not only fear to tread but actively pretend don't exist.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on May 13, 2011, 12:34:34 PM
Mike Rowe: There's a hole in the American supply of skilled labor (http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/dirtyjobs/mike-rowe-senate-testimony.html)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on May 13, 2011, 02:16:41 PM
Excellent link; thanks.

I don't buy the angle that our labor force is in trouble because so many people go to college and pursue white-collar jobs, but I definitely agree that blue-collar jobs deserve more respect than Americans generally give them.  Rowe's done a great job over the years of demonstrating that skilled laborers are, indeed, skilled, and that they're smart and gutsy besides.  They deserve our respect and admiration, and we need more of them.

To the point: his show's title is what it is for a reason.  The rest of the expression is, of course, "but somebody's gotta do it."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Joxam on May 13, 2011, 02:25:41 PM
I don't think he was saying that people go to college and get white collar jobs though, as a matter of fact I would argue that his statement about our jobless rate being so high while our skilled labor job openings are so high is pretty much exactly arguing both of your points.

People THINK the only job they should get is a white-collar job, and they end up not being employed and/or thinking that a skilled labor position is some how second or even third place.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 13, 2011, 02:40:24 PM
That story's about ten years old here.

And yet a solid decade of "Skilled labour will earn you good money" stories being into people has not stopped students from chasing worthless university degrees - enrollment continues to skyrocket - nor has it resulted in anything more than a tiny uptick in registration rates for skilled labour courses/college programs.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on May 13, 2011, 06:39:08 PM
But it still seems that a lot of skilled labour (manufacturing, at least) is being outsourced to other nations.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Joxam on May 13, 2011, 07:17:13 PM
I was under the impression that 'skilled labour' meant stuff like electrician, glazer, carpenter or mechanic. Things that you'd apprentice for or actually have to go to a trade school to do. Not like, factory work.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 13, 2011, 08:55:27 PM
I was under the impression that 'skilled labour' meant stuff like electrician, glazer, carpenter or mechanic. Things that you'd apprentice for or actually have to go to a trade school to do. Not like, factory work.

Yeah. Factory work CAN be skilled labour (machine mechanic, tool & die guys, etc.), but the line grunts and basic machine operators are just higher-end general labour.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on May 14, 2011, 07:01:45 AM
MST3K - WHy Study Industrial Arts?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUPXVtFcl5U#)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on May 14, 2011, 08:31:20 AM
Yeah. Factory work CAN be skilled labour (machine mechanic, tool & die guys, etc.), but the line grunts and basic machine operators are just higher-end general labour.

True.  But in those cases, we ARE outsourcing skilled factory labor.

There IS plenty of stuff that can't be outsourced -- waste management, construction, carpentry, etc. -- which is why we need a major public works program yesterday.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on May 14, 2011, 08:49:03 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a major public works program provide more skilled labor jobs, not more skilled labor workers? Employment opportunities alone simply aren't going to fill the hole - there's a deeper cultural issue that we have to address first.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: sei on May 14, 2011, 09:08:59 AM
If the program includes training/education and blue collar propaganda, then no.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on May 14, 2011, 09:44:12 AM
Right.  A public works program can be a solution to the cultural issue.  People are ready to work and just waiting on an opportunity; a public works program can give them the opportunity for entry-level work, train them for higher-level work, and play up American patriotism and can-do spirit.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: sei on May 14, 2011, 10:05:46 AM
Here's hoping that they avoid Larry the Cable Guy and other redneck-panderers in the program. Anti-intellectualism will demean labor, not glorify it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: JDigital on May 14, 2011, 11:33:00 AM
The jobs that aren't outsourced are generally repairmen for the few things it's not practical or economically feasible to replace: cars, plumbing, etc.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on May 15, 2011, 07:26:18 AM
If the government creates a skilled labor job that pays $60,000 a year, people will learn the skills necessary. Especially if we provide training.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 15, 2011, 05:18:58 PM
Except we probably just squandered the last best chance for that for the next couple of decades.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on May 16, 2011, 04:56:15 AM
Oh, yeah, my statement totally assumes that either political party cares about fixing unemployment for the working class.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 16, 2011, 05:02:23 AM
In fairness we've ALSO had stuff like THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY IS THE FUTURRRRREEEEE and THE MOST DEVELOPED ECONOMIES WILL BE DRIVEN BY CREATIVE INTELLECTUALS for years now.

The latter is not wrong per se, but that group of people will never form a majority - or even a large minority - of the population. And it depends a hell of a lot more on culture than it does on raw numbers or education.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on May 16, 2011, 05:08:29 AM
In fairness we've ALSO had stuff like THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY IS THE FUTURRRRREEEEE and THE MOST DEVELOPED ECONOMIES WILL BE DRIVEN BY CREATIVE INTELLECTUALS for years now.

The problem is, this thinking was always predicated on those two classes being separate from the working class. IE If you can think of things there's no reason to know how to build them. Then it made a firm point of reminding everyone that life sucks if you're the working class. Catastrophe loomed.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: JDigital on May 16, 2011, 08:01:55 AM
Oh, yeah, my statement totally assumes that either political party cares about fixing unemployment for the working class.

Why fix what you can blame on your political opponents

edit: I assume this is how it works; I get all my knowledge of US politics from Youtube videos
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on May 16, 2011, 08:55:05 AM
Sounds about right, but I get all my politics from Fark and here, so...
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 16, 2011, 09:17:52 AM
Don't worry, the US will reclaim the WORLD'S #1 MANUFACTURER spot once they get factories advanced to the point where they can employ like 3 guys whose only job it is to fix the machines that fix the machines that fix the machines.

That actually isn't really much of a joke.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on May 16, 2011, 09:31:02 AM
But Japan will have designed and manufactured the machines in the first place.

And working on the ones that will replace those three guys.

edit: also japan will be nothing but old guys and robots
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 16, 2011, 09:55:23 AM
Fair enough.

But the Japanese are far more likely to share that technology with the US than they are Japan.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on May 16, 2011, 10:45:45 AM
Because the japanese actually care about their working class.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Rico on May 16, 2011, 10:54:04 AM
Don't worry, the US will reclaim the WORLD'S #1 MANUFACTURER spot once they get factories advanced to the point where they can employ like 3 guys whose only job it is to fix the machines that fix the machines that fix the machines.
This was the best single change to the most recent Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adaptation.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 16, 2011, 11:16:20 AM
Because the japanese actually care about their working class.


Well, considering it's like six guys who all meet at the same kendo club, it's easier to have a personal attachment to them.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on June 08, 2011, 05:12:42 AM
So, I know this column (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/us-panic-over-potential-debt-default-well-founded/article2050857/) is bunko, but can anyone with a better knowledge of the situation explain where this guy's bullshitting the numbers?

I mean I know Obama is guilty of a big debt expansion (with that guilt somewhat mitigated by bad circumstances), but never in a million years would I believe a claim that the debt was the same at the end of Bush's rule than it was at the beginning.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on June 08, 2011, 06:40:08 PM
The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not included in the national debt until Obama took office.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Dizzy on June 10, 2011, 03:13:48 PM
So does anyone follow any econ blogs or columnists? I try to keep up with Paul Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/), naked capitalism (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/) (Yves Smith), rortybomb (http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/) (Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute) and Jared Bernstein (http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/) and pretend I can follow along.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on June 10, 2011, 06:06:18 PM
I read a smattering of stuff, but I don't follow anybody in particular.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on June 12, 2011, 08:22:40 AM
The Bush Tax Cuts: Ten Years Later (http://www.alternet.org/story/151229/the_bush_tax_cuts_turn_10%3B_let%27s_look_at_the_damage_they%27ve_caused?page=1)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on July 04, 2011, 07:40:16 PM
Minnesota's government shuts down over $5 million debt. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/minnesota-government-shuts-amid-debt-fallout/story?id=13973572)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 04, 2011, 07:50:26 PM
Er, that's 5 billion.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on July 04, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Oh.

Oh well, that's much worse.

Happy 4th of July, everybody!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 05, 2011, 03:46:37 AM
Well, it ain't all THAT much these days. :/
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on July 05, 2011, 08:28:08 AM
It's enough to shut down a state government.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 09, 2011, 07:49:48 PM
Debt ceiling agreement talks break down over that pesky tax-breaks-for-the-overly-wealthy and nothing else.

This sort of shit is going to happen forever as long as it's the overly wealthy making the decisions.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 09, 2011, 09:59:49 PM
That is, quite clearly, :justasplanned:.  It's why Obama pissed off his entire party by offering to cut social security and Medicare.  Now he can say "See?  I offered to cut entitlements, and that wasn't good enough for them; the Republicans are holding our economy hostage for the sake of the richest people in America."

Politically, it's a great strategy, as long as he can manage not to fucking cave this time.

Guess how confident I am in that outcome.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 10, 2011, 04:46:38 AM
This reminds me about a joke Warren Buffet made. He said something to the effect that you guys would never run a deficit again if you just passed a law that made all sitting representatives ineligible for re-election whenever the deficit went over 3% of GDP.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 19, 2011, 09:49:07 PM
...haven't talked much about the debt ceiling; mainly that's because I think it's a goddamn political sideshow.

James K. Galbraith (http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/07/11/hawk-nation-a-guide-to-the-catastrophic-debt-ceiling-debate-51211/) summed up my opinions nicely: Obama gets to score a political victory here, by taking money away from people who need it (and declaring victory by taking almost as much away from people who don't).  The debt ceiling itself is a relic intended to appease a population reluctant to enter World War I, and violates the Fourteenth Amendment ("The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.").

I will say this: I totally support a balanced budget amendment.  Because it would be the end of the Republican Party as we know it.



(And yes, I'm joking with that last part.  The insanity of a no-exceptions balanced budget amendment is obvious, and we've already seen the Republican Party settle the "we can go to war without paying for it" issue simply by not including the war in the budget.  But the hypothetical case of "Okay, you can have your war, but you have to raise taxes on the rich or tell your constituents you want to eliminate Medicare" DOES make me smile.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Rico on July 19, 2011, 10:19:09 PM
Not enough is being made of the part where raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with current expenditures and everything to do with paying bills already accrued (by previous administrations....).
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cait on July 20, 2011, 07:06:10 AM
The fundamental problem with budgetary accounting as practiced by most U.S. governmental entities is that it essentially treats a given year/biennium as if it were in a vacuum. As a result, shortsightedness looks best on paper: if you borrow a trillion dollars, that's a trillion in revenue this year, and a trillion plus interest as expenditures in some future year. Similarly, expenditures now that would save money in the future only reflect the expenditure portion in the current budget; to someone wanting to look 'fiscally responsible' at a surface glance, this is a poison pill.

Double-post avoiding EDIT:

As well, the problem with balanced budget proposals is that governments function similarly to not-for-profit entities: They're fundamentally expenditure-driven, not revenue-driven. Effort can (and should) be made to control expenditures, but they're still the primary driver for a functional government. Balanced budget proposals inevitably try to force cuts in expenditures to match incoming revenue, which throttles the effectiveness of government during lean years. Not that forcing increased revenues to cover expenditures doesn't have its own issues above and beyond being political suicide.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 20, 2011, 04:32:50 PM
It's a lot broader than just government entities; that's the problem with EVERYBODY who's got an annual budget.  Quarterly budgets are worse yet.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 20, 2011, 08:43:41 PM
Okay either my reading comprehension has gone to shit after a month of being fucked over by property laws or we've somehow, as democrats, went from demanding a lapse on tax breaks for the top bracket to stumping a plan that lowers the top bracket tax rate 10% over THE CURRENT TAX BREAK.

Help me out here.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Rico on July 20, 2011, 09:48:10 PM
You can go even broader than that: short -term thinking is the cause of almost every economic problem we're currently facing.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cait on July 21, 2011, 06:59:59 AM
It's a lot broader than just government entities; that's the problem with EVERYBODY who's got an annual budget.  Quarterly budgets are worse yet.

There are other methods of budgetary accounting in practice, some of which address the aforementioned issues to varying levels of success. Of course, none of those would be remotely considered by FASAB, which is largely toothless. (Unlike other bodies of governance for accounting practices, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board is... well, an Advisory Board. They make polite suggestions to the federal government.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 21, 2011, 01:20:38 PM
Okay either my reading comprehension has gone to shit after a month of being fucked over by property laws or we've somehow, as democrats, went from demanding a lapse on tax breaks for the top bracket to stumping a plan that lowers the top bracket tax rate 10% over THE CURRENT TAX BREAK.

Help me out here.

Last I heard we were looking at $4tn, $1tn of which would be in "revenue increases" (mostly subsidy cuts) and another $1.5tn each on entitlement and defense cuts.  The deal is, of course, a moving target, and the situation you propose is not in the least bit surprising if true.

You can go even broader than that: short -term thinking is the cause of almost every economic problem we're currently facing.

Arguable.  I would submit that the Iraq War was a case of planning that ignored short-term reality in favor of a long-term fantasy.

And that a lot of the other decisions that got us into this mess are ideological dogma that has no basis in either short- or long-term reality.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 22, 2011, 06:15:38 AM
This might be the funniest economic study ever (usefulness, well, that's another question):

Finnish research suggests there is a correlation between average penis size and the rate of GDP growth (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/the-strangest-study-ever-of-penis-size-and-the-economy/article2105003/)

How do you even go about asking for a grant for this?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Beat Bandit on July 22, 2011, 07:09:09 AM
Quote
The bottom line is that the smaller the penis, the faster the economic growth. Indeed, for every centimetre more, there's a 5-per-cent to 7-per-cent decline in expansion. The strongest economies are those where men have average penises. And if you want an economy that promises you a job, you'd better hope you weren't too blessed
*High-fives R^2*
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 22, 2011, 09:24:42 AM
How do you even go about asking for a grant for this?

Well, if the guy signing grants has either a very large or very small penis, you're in.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: R^2 on July 22, 2011, 02:27:33 PM
*High-fives R^2*

Owww... That wasn't my hand...!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 22, 2011, 03:47:09 PM
I am currently getting a "Server is too busy" error when I attempt to connect to speaker.gov (http://speaker.gov).

If I could connect, here is the message I would send:

Quote
Dear Speaker Gingrich,

Clinton/Gore '96!



Love,

George Santayana



PS: Should you be looking for work in the immediate future, I hear there will be an opening at Fox News soon.  I already know you're good at crying; how are you at writing crazy shit on blackboards?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 22, 2011, 04:25:24 PM
With slightly less snark:

Everything I said before still holds; this is a sideshow, and while it's nice to see Obama finally grow a spine, I'm not going to praise him for playing chicken with the economy instead of arguing the Fourteenth Amendment.

Maybe they'll get a Band-Aid in place in the next week and maybe they won't.  If we DO miss the deadline, I don't think we'll hit the apocalyptic scenario that many are describing, but it IS likely to be worse than the '96 government shutdown.  And yeah, the parallels are pretty obvious; I don't think '12 will be kind to the Tea Party.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 22, 2011, 05:24:53 PM
Say, what if Obama has fallen for the Republican claptrap and honestly believes he can't invoke the 14th?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 22, 2011, 05:42:18 PM
I think he's just very tired of talking about it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 22, 2011, 06:15:19 PM
Say, what if Obama has fallen for the Republican claptrap and honestly believes he can't invoke the 14th?

Dude's got a Harvard degree in constitutional law.  I think this is a nakedly political move.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 22, 2011, 07:02:11 PM
I am currently getting a "Server is too busy" error when I attempt to connect to speaker.gov (http://speaker.gov).

It's up now but the JavaScript's been borked to make nearly every link on the page point to his latest press release.

Redirecting a "Contact" link to a press release is a pretty good metaphor for our entire political system, really.

Heard both press conferences earlier on the radio.  Was nice hearing Obama finally sound pissed off about something; Boehner, meanwhile, came across as a petulant child swearing that he is too a grownup.  A charismatic leader might be able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat here, but Boehner has no shot at competing with Obama in terms of oratory.

Meanwhile, new CBS poll shows 71% disapproving of Republicans' handling of the crisis (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-503544.html).  It presumably was not taken in the past six hours, so things are going to get even worse for them.

Boehner knows all this; there's a reason he's been trying to strike a deal with Obama.  He knows just how fucked he is at this point, but he also knows he no longer has any control over his caucus.

Really this all belongs in the Eat Itself thread: establishment Republicans have spouted a bunch of nonsense they don't really believe in since the Reagan Administration, and didn't really think through what would happen if their constituents started voting for people who ACTUALLY believe in it.  Relevant cartoon. (http://www.someguywithawebsite.com/cartoons/2007/071217_clown.html)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Saturn on July 22, 2011, 07:32:22 PM
Bohener is clearly afraid of norquist/other clowns withholding donations to the gop if there is any chance of the ultra-rich having to pay more taxes

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 22, 2011, 07:39:44 PM
Well, yes.

Which he and his party should have thought of over the course of the past 25 years they spent kissing Norquist's ass to court the lunatic fringe vote.

Because it turns out that granting increasing control of your party to crazy people is, well, a great example of the short-term thinking we were talking about on the previous page.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 22, 2011, 09:46:39 PM
The previous page? Oh come on, do you expect anybody to remember anything from that long ago?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 23, 2011, 07:03:55 AM
The problem with defaulting is that it may or may not have been so bad by itself but it's going to be a huge bitch now that one party has realized that their popularity next year is directly tied to how badly the middle class gets fucked over by it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 23, 2011, 07:05:23 AM
I'm gonna really enjoy the month or so I get to keep my house btw.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on July 23, 2011, 07:06:50 AM
Do you have homeowner's insurance?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 23, 2011, 11:13:37 AM
The problem with defaulting is that it may or may not have been so bad by itself but it's going to be a huge bitch now that one party has realized that their popularity next year is directly tied to how badly the middle class gets fucked over by it.

Assuming you're referring to the Democrats, well, that still gives them quite a lot of motivation to pass something that un-fucks the middle class.

As for the Republicans, we'll see.  There's a contingent of the party now that seriously will not budge no matter WHAT happens, and that's why we're here now.

Some of the Tea Partiers will probably change their stance after a default (assuming one happens and we don't just slap a McConnell Band-Aid on it, which seems like the likeliest outcome at this point but which itself depends on House Republicans budging), either motivated by reelection or just because some of them are not entirely insane.  Scott Brown, for example, has proven willing to cross the aisle in the past (though again, he's a Senator and the problem is the House).  The question is will ENOUGH of them change sides?

I don't think anything's going to pass the House without pressure from the GOP leadership, and pressure from the leadership hasn't helped so far -- and they're only going to exert so much pressure if they can't get at least 50% of the caucus to go along with them.

(Also, while I think Boehner would play ball if the rest of his party would go along with it, Cantor has made it pretty clear he won't.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 23, 2011, 11:21:24 AM
Some of the Tea Partiers have already tried to redefine the meaning of the word "tax", which as right-wing doublespeak goes isn't quite as bad as "rape" and "war".

Also I was referring to the Dems.  Obama in particular has as much as said he will take special pains to put the bill on the elderly if this goes to default, because he knows exactly where to kick these assholes while they're down.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 23, 2011, 01:16:01 PM
Some of the Tea Partiers have already tried to redefine the meaning of the word "tax"

Plenty of that on both sides.  But yeah, cute how cutting subsidies counts as a tax hike instead of a spending cut.

Norquist is playing the "Cutting subsidies isn't a tax hike as long as you replace them with equal tax cuts" game.

Also I was referring to the Dems.  Obama in particular has as much as said he will take special pains to put the bill on the elderly if this goes to default, because he knows exactly where to kick these assholes while they're down.

Yeah, he is absolutely playing this for maximum political benefit instead of minimal human suffering.  But I doubt it's just Social Security checks that will suffer if there IS a default; I expect immediate '95-style government shutdown as well.  And, you know, a stock market plunge.

Would be swell to see a bunch of lobbyists start screaming "You dumb fuckers, we just lost more money than if you'd just raised taxes 2%", but I'm not holding my breath for that.

And I should add that, schadenfreude aside, I am hoping there ISN'T a fucking default/shutdown/market plunge, because again, political points are not worth human suffering.  But I'm not the President.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on July 23, 2011, 02:03:26 PM
Yeah, I'd probably want to see the US government shut down a lot less if I wasn't Canadian.

But there's that thing about Canada sneezing when the US has the flu, main trade partner and all, so yeah that schadenfreude is gonna be well and truly paid for I bet.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Smiler on July 25, 2011, 08:47:24 AM
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/25/277811/harry-reid-calls-house-republicans-bluff/ (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/25/277811/harry-reid-calls-house-republicans-bluff/)

Quote
Something you often see in negotiations is a mismatch between one side’s stated sticking points and its real sticking points. In the debate over the debt ceiling, for example, Republicans have sought to portray themselves as having two bottom lines. One is that any increase in the debt ceiling must be met dollar-for-dollar with spending cuts. The other is that no revenue increases can be part of the deal. What Harry Reid did yesterday was essentially call the GOP’s bluff by outlining a plan that raises the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion and includes $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, a healthy share of which comes from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 Republicans are rejecting this even though it nominally meets their demands. Why? Because it doesn’t achieve either of their two real objectives. In particular, the plan doesn’t cut Medicare, which means that Democratic party candidates for office in November 2012 and 2014 can accurately remind voters of the content of the Republican budget plan. In case you forgot, this plans repeals Medicare. Having repealed Medicare, it then gives seniors vouchers to purchase more expensive private health insurance. And having replaced Medicare with a voucher system, it then ensures that the vouchers will grow steadily stingier over time. It was only after voting for this plan that Republicans seem to have realized that repealing Medicare is unpopular. Since that time, they’ve been trying to entrap Democrats into reaching some kind of Medicare détente with them, which would immunize them from criticism. Reid’s plan doesn’t do that.

 Second, while Reid’s plan doesn’t raise taxes, it also doesn’t take tax increases off the table. Currently, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2012. If Reid’s all-cuts plan passes, that still leaves the door open to significant revenue increases. Now that doesn’t mean this is brilliant 11-dimensional chess. The Reid Plan is consistent with substantial revenues coming online in 2012, but that will only happen if President Obama and Senate Democrats stand firm and play hardball on the tax issue. Back in December 2010, they utterly failed to do so.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Bal on July 26, 2011, 02:58:41 AM
I'm mostly concerned about this because if the SSDI payments don't go out like they should, I have family that will literally die because they can't afford their medication. So... Probably get SOMETHING done, government.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ziiro on July 26, 2011, 08:24:51 AM
Full Video-Obama Addresses Nation On Debt Ceiling Negotiations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_Ez-xBcmM#ws)

Boehner's response:

John Boehner's republican response on debt crisis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2pgV_LjmkE#noexternalembed-ws)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mothra on July 26, 2011, 09:41:44 AM
Christ, what a jackass
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 26, 2011, 10:43:26 AM
He isn't just a bad Speaker, he's a bad speaker, besides.

WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576470083852743922.html): he may not even have enough votes to get his OWN bill passed.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 26, 2011, 09:14:58 PM
If Obama accomplishes nothing else, he will still have my approval just for deliberately DDoSing his own entire government.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on July 27, 2011, 05:15:29 AM
In a way, I almost welcome default, having been waiting for the other shoe to drop since March 2003.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 27, 2011, 09:14:57 AM
If Obama accomplishes nothing else, he will still have my approval just for deliberately DDoSing his own entire government.

Sorta.  While I'll grant something probably would have passed by now if he'd capitulated like he usually does, the fault here really lies in the GOP Will Eat Itself thread.  Which is great, because I was starting to think maybe we were wrong and the Republicans were unified after all.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 27, 2011, 01:20:38 PM
No, I mean he literally DDoSed the government.  After his call for the nation to open up lines of communication with their representatives, almost every .gov website got slammed or crashed under the load of people sending angry emails.

Sorry, I meant to link an article with that, but I haven't been to my actual computer in days despite it being set up and whatnot.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 29, 2011, 12:34:34 AM
It may be idealistic, but my hope - and one that actually seems likely if one assumes the long stretch of the American public being smart and paying attention - is that the rage at this state of affairs ends up directed not at the Republican party as a whole but at the Tea Party specifically.  It's becoming more and more clear that these definitive assholes aren't here to help anybody - they'll vote against their own party, and they'll vote against a plan that gives them exactly what the fuck they said they wanted.  They want this thing to go into the shitter because, surprise people, that's what they said they were going to try and do from day one - take on the name of an event that caused massive sociopolitical strife for everybody involved and promise to "shake things up" in America.  ARE YOU SUFFICIENTLY SHAKEN NOW?

I really am a moderate.  In a perfect world I would agree with the left 50% of the time and the right 50% of the time.  But that's never going to happen until this malignant neoconservative cancer is removed from the system.  Do I have to lose my new house for that to happen?  Fine.  But I reserve the right to wave my second amendment around the very next time someone has the sheer balls to get up on a podium and say the word "God".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 29, 2011, 08:03:39 AM
The Tea Party really is to blame, and I hope and expect that most of the freshman class will now be one-termers.

But the "moderate" wing of the Republican Party is just as much to blame.  They're the ones who have been spouting this nonsense for the past 25 years; they're the ones who supported Bush's extremism and then pretended Obama's moderation was extreme.  While it's true that they've been willing to "compromise" over the years, their terms tend to be awfully one-sided.

And I'm not talking about REAL moderate Republicans here; it's just that there aren't that damn many of them anymore.  Chafee's out, the Doles are out -- who's left?  Hutchison?

I posted a Taibbi article a couple years back where he said that the basic ideals of the Republican Party are not wrong, that in fact we NEED somebody to keep the government from spending too much money and abusing its power -- it's just that the motherfuckers who gave us the Iraq War have made it abundantly clear that they're not really interested in either of those things.

I think essentially we're saying the same thing, though; the Republican Party is not inherently wrong, but nearly everyone serving under its banner in Congress is.  I can get behind that.

(And, shoe on the other foot, the Democratic Party is not inherently a bunch of ineffective pussies, but nearly everyone serving under ITS banner in Congress is.)

And of course the problem as much as anything is that the definition of "moderate" has been so heavily sidetracked at this point.  Reid's Senate bill is being depicted as a "compromise bill" -- when actually it's pretty much Boehner's original proposal.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: sei on July 29, 2011, 11:23:16 AM
Quote
Reid's Senate bill is being depicted as a "compromise bill" -- when actually it's pretty much Boehner's original proposal.
This is probably a naive question, but how exactly did the country's political dialog come to this?

It seems like "compromise" means "total capitulation," whenever it comes up on the news.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 29, 2011, 11:32:39 AM
I think it's a development of the post-Fox News, post-GW Bush polarization, but I'm 28 years old so it's possible I'm looking back at my childhood with rose-tinted glasses.  It seems like Clinton drove some hard bargains but I can't think of any offhand (and Lord knows a vocal minority went after him on the flimsiest of pretenses).  I respect Bob Dole a great deal, though I wouldn't have voted for him, and he never had a chance against Clinton precisely because he was a moderate.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on July 29, 2011, 11:54:09 AM
This is probably a naive question, but how exactly did the country's political dialog come to this?

Resurgence of the religious right dovetailing with a complete collapse of unions as a political entity (with a healthy dollop of abortion/racialized wedge issues).  Libertarian psychopaths are hardly new (we used to call them "landed nobility") but the big shift was when it stopped being a movement of Chiefs with No Indians.

I had some pithy things to say about it but they did not come out anywhere near as witty and insightful as they sounded in my head, so

(also, baby boomers are awful and have always been awful, even when they were hippies)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 29, 2011, 01:40:15 PM
Yeah we can pretty much blame this all on the Baby Boomer generation.  There's no clearer example than looking at both Bushes nearly back to back; the former grew up pre-War and learned how to compromise and even take personal setbacks for the greater good, and the latter was born in 1946 and grew up so fucking entitled that he considers the time someone called him a bad name his personal low, not the time he let a major American city get destroyed which  prompted the name calling.

tl;dr: kill your parents.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 29, 2011, 07:02:29 PM
The funny thing is that even if the Boomer generation isn't really to blame, they are totally going to be remembered that way.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2011, 11:55:15 AM
Well, we have a bill.

My favorite part is the reductions committee.  Instead of voting to cut Medicare, we've set up a group of people who we can throw under the bus and blame 100% for inevitably cutting Medicare.

Stay classy, government.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2011, 09:19:23 PM
I think this is the moment when some Democrats are truly going to start sharpening their knives for Obama. Any great compromise leaves everyone mad. Unfortunately that seems to be the case here (note that I don't actually think this was a compromise. The Teabaggers practically moved the fucking goalposts three counties over while everybody else scrambled to stay in the game).

Over/under on how long it takes before we start seeing a leftist extreme bunch? I suspect we still have to starve and impoverish a few million more folks before comfort levels are sufficiently trashed, but we're well on the way.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 03, 2011, 08:44:59 AM
My favorite part is the reductions committee.  Instead of voting to cut Medicare, we've set up a group of people who we can throw under the bus and blame 100% for inevitably cutting Medicare.

Depends.  Sometimes Dems on committees are less likely to cave than the party at large.

Course, as I understand it if the committee can't agree it just gets sent back to the full Senate, but that means the committee doesn't get the blame.

I think this is the moment when some Democrats are truly going to start sharpening their knives for Obama.

Eh.  We've had a handful of No votes, and some grousing, but I doubt we'll see anything more than that.  No way will there be a primary challenge.

Any great compromise leaves everyone mad. Unfortunately that seems to be the case here (note that I don't actually think this was a compromise.

Oh, it was a compromise.  Between right-wing Republicans and extreme, far-right Republicans.

Over/under on how long it takes before we start seeing a leftist extreme bunch?

Depends what you mean.  In Congress?  Don't hold your breath.  Kucinich represents the liberal end of the Democratic Party, and Sanders is an avowed socialist, but I don't see either of them representing actual "leftist extremism".

If you're thinking more in terms of liberals supporting a third-party candidate, I don't see that happening either.  Everyone's still gunshy after Nader's scapegoating in 2000, and the last wave of grassroots liberal activism got us Obama.  The grassroots are FUCKING DEMORALIZED right now.

I don't see liberal backlash starting a movement.  I see liberal disappointment dismantling the movement.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 03, 2011, 08:50:30 AM
I don't know if it will go through the Democratic party or not, but as long as the right keep pushing harder and harder, at some point there's going to be some really nasty anti-right-wing backlash.

However, as stated earlier, more grandmothers needs to be Snidely Whiplash'd before the current wave of inertia is broken.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 03, 2011, 09:29:38 AM
Oh, I still think the Tea Party's going to be smacked down in '12.  But that's not going to make the Republican Establishment more reasonable, help the Democratic Establishment grow spines, or teach Obama how to play poker.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 03, 2011, 09:40:44 AM
Oh, I still think the Tea Party's going to be smacked down in '12.

I don't know about that.

What's that old Mencken quote about nobody ever going broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American consumer? Because at this point the Tea Party still has the best marketing machine out there, no matter that it operates on the other side of reality.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 03, 2011, 10:19:14 AM
But in the end they can't overcome the fact that they're batshit fucking crazy.  Most people are not impressed with how this thing went down, and while there's plenty of blame to go around most people aren't saying good things about the Tea Party.

And the trouble with running your campaign on "You need to boot that guy who promised to fix everything and then failed to deliver in two years" is, well...
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on August 03, 2011, 10:46:36 AM
The Tea Party was never that popular. They only one because progressives and leftists had no one to vote for, so they didn't vote.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 03, 2011, 10:47:40 AM
Well, their main argument will be that there aren't enough of them, that they need to hijack the Republican party entirely. I think the corporate/landed aristocracy wing of the GOP can handle that kind of challenge, but I'm not 100% sure.

And as has been cited in many sources, they're also working very hard to find folks who don't immediately seem crazy.

I really think this could go either way. After all, there was a time when we all thought there was no way someone as obviously deficient as Bush could be elected.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on August 03, 2011, 11:30:20 AM
As usual, I blame the religious.
The idea that a leader should be relatable or personable as well as (or, superseding) inspiring and competent sounds suspiciously like the post-enlightenment "personal relationship with god" plea. And without context or knowledge to accurately conclude which idea came first I'll blame the source I'm disposed to dislike.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 03, 2011, 12:51:28 PM
The Tea Party was never that popular. They only one because progressives and leftists had no one to vote for, so they didn't vote.

The nonvoting public, as a potential voting bloc, is something I always try to keep in mind -- particularly ethnic minorities.  But as much as anything I think the Tea Party victories were based on anti-establishment fervor rather than general policy agreements.

Well, their main argument will be that there aren't enough of them, that they need to hijack the Republican party entirely.

That's not a sustainable long-term strategy.  Look at the Democrats.

Of course, the Democrats aren't nearly as good at getting what they want as the Tea Partiers.

I really think this could go either way. After all, there was a time when we all thought there was no way someone as obviously deficient as Bush could be elected.

HE WASN'T.

Not in 2000, anyway.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 03, 2011, 09:18:09 PM
Okay, well, leaving my opinions on WE WUZ ROBBED 2000 aside, it was close enough that they could fake it. It's not like Gore had a margin so great as to make it incontestable and they somehow inverted the electoral votes of ten states. Point being that a sensible, educated, attentive electorate should not have let Bush within a thousand miles of 4% of the vote, let alone 40% (or whatever).

As for getting what they want, the Tea Party has this going for them: They're the hungry ones.

The Teabaggers have the drive and the desire, and they're the ones out there looking for ways to win more votes and break their opponents. They are the ones who are happy to be underestimated. Old-guard Republicans and Democrats as a whole are floundering and listless, bumbling about the status quo. Everything I have seen so far shows the Teabaggers gaining increasing sophistication and resources. Make no mistake, they are very dangerous and should not be dismissed.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 03, 2011, 10:08:10 PM
And now for some levity.

This is one of the best Onion articles I've seen in a long, long time. Drunken Ben Bernanke Tells Everyone At Neighbourhood Bar How Screwed U.S. Economy Really Is (http://www.theonion.com/articles/drunken-ben-bernanke-tells-everyone-at-neighborhoo,21059/)

The pictures really put the icing on this funny cake.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 04, 2011, 07:25:29 AM
Meanwhile, the NY Times provides a factual account of the above (minus the drunken Ben Bernanke) (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/double-dip-or-not-economy-is-falling-farther-behind/)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 04, 2011, 08:18:52 AM
Okay, well, leaving my opinions on WE WUZ ROBBED 2000 aside, it was close enough that they could fake it. It's not like Gore had a margin so great as to make it incontestable and they somehow inverted the electoral votes of ten states. Point being that a sensible, educated, attentive electorate should not have let Bush within a thousand miles of 4% of the vote, let alone 40% (or whatever).

No argument there.

I just don't want to legitimize Bush's appointment.

As for getting what they want, the Tea Party has this going for them: They're the hungry ones.

The Teabaggers have the drive and the desire, and they're the ones out there looking for ways to win more votes and break their opponents. They are the ones who are happy to be underestimated. Old-guard Republicans and Democrats as a whole are floundering and listless, bumbling about the status quo. Everything I have seen so far shows the Teabaggers gaining increasing sophistication and resources. Make no mistake, they are very dangerous and should not be dismissed.

Agreed as well.  I don't mean to dismiss them -- saying "This is what I think is going to happen" is different from advocating complacency.

I WOULD add that, generally speaking, people like politicians who are strong but flexible.  The Democrats fail the first test and the Republicans fail the second.

I DO think the voting public wants people who are willing to compromise.

And, as unyielding as I probably seem, there are precious few issues where I am unwilling to accept some sort of middle-ground.  (Torture.  That's actually the only one I can think of off the top of my head.)

My problem is that the "middle ground" our politicians typically agree on is nowhere near the middle.

There are plenty of issues -- the economy, healthcare, copyright law, the military -- where I'm very liberal but am willing to accept a result that's more centrist than what I really want.  The trouble is that the solutions the federal government passes are inevitably to the right of the middle ground I think we should be willing to settle for -- and indeed, I think the President and many in his party START the debate by asking for an acceptable middle-ground compromise.  Which is not the correct way to haggle.

MEANWHILE: Fred Kaplan analyzes the military budget (http://www.slate.com/id/2300670/) and discusses areas where we should consider targeted cuts.  I'm not really down with the idea of mass layoffs but I understand the argument that we're not likely to need as many troops as we have.  And that's the nature of cutting government spending without increasing revenue: you're costing people their jobs.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 04, 2011, 11:10:37 AM
...I know that judging day-to-day market results is a mug's game, and that it's silly to expect an immediate fix when legislation passes, but..."Dow down more than 400 points as market plunge continues" (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/08/dow-drops-more-than-400-as-market-plunge-continues.html) is one of those headlines that suggests to me that raising the debt ceiling has not saved our credit rating or reduced or fiscal uncertainty.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 04, 2011, 03:30:40 PM
I've effectively lost $3200 since Tuesday.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: on August 04, 2011, 03:39:02 PM
But the Steam Sale only started yesterday
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 04, 2011, 07:23:05 PM
I've effectively lost $3200 since Tuesday.

I don't know how much I lost and I frankly don't want to.  I'm going to ballpark it at "My 401(k) has lost all the interest it ever earned."

But actually, my knee-jerk assumption that this is about faith in the nation's credit simply isn't borne out by the data -- investments in bonds actually went UP while everything else was going down.  So more likely this is a delayed reaction to last week's economic growth report.

Which, frankly, was disastrous and indicated that the recovery is even slower than we thought and now is pretty much the WORST POSSIBLE TIME to be talking about multitrillion-dollar spending cuts.  So, you know.  We're all gonna die.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 04, 2011, 09:38:39 PM
Shut up Thad.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on August 05, 2011, 05:57:58 AM
Over/under on how long it takes before we start seeing a leftist extreme bunch? I suspect we still have to starve and impoverish a few million more folks before comfort levels are sufficiently trashed, but we're well on the way.

I've never been one for the "Americans are lazy and stupid" thing as it applies to government participation, mainly because there really isn't much of a point in being politically engaged on an individual level and there never has been.  Unless you start rioting you're more or less confined to the power of your vote, so tying yourself in knots over it won't make you more politically effective than the guy who just votes as an excuse to leave work at 2 PM.  The really maddening thing is that the other guy is probably right.  You can't expect the vast majority of people to take to the streets to change society if they have other things with which to distract themselves.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 05, 2011, 07:12:07 AM
Over/under on how long it takes before we start seeing a leftist extreme bunch? I suspect we still have to starve and impoverish a few million more folks before comfort levels are sufficiently trashed, but we're well on the way.

I've never been one for the "Americans are lazy and stupid" thing as it applies to government participation, mainly because there really isn't much of a point in being politically engaged on an individual level and there never has been.  Unless you start rioting you're more or less confined to the power of your vote, so tying yourself in knots over it won't make you more politically effective than the guy who just votes as an excuse to leave work at 2 PM.  The really maddening thing is that the other guy is probably right.  You can't expect the vast majority of people to take to the streets to change society if they have other things with which to distract themselves.

Well, "Americans are stupid" is a kneejerk Canadian thing, but I doubt we'd call you guys lazy. Crazy for working too hard letting corporate bosses work you to death, more like it.

I do think the the American political process has become so far removed from individual citizens that the public and political spheres (or rather the public and ruling spheres) are essentially separate things now. Intentional or no, that's probably the best way to murder a democracy.

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on August 05, 2011, 09:19:19 AM
On the plus side, blue chip stocks have apparently recovered much their losses from the past few days, because the ECB said it would go to the wall for Spain and Italy and the minicrash was as much, if not more, about Europe as it was about US debt bullshit.

Still looking forward to taking my honeymoon in a Weimar-esque Mediterranean hellscape~
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 05, 2011, 09:38:23 AM
I've never been one for the "Americans are lazy and stupid" thing as it applies to government participation, mainly because there really isn't much of a point in being politically engaged on an individual level and there never has been.  Unless you start rioting you're more or less confined to the power of your vote, so tying yourself in knots over it won't make you more politically effective than the guy who just votes as an excuse to leave work at 2 PM.  The really maddening thing is that the other guy is probably right.  You can't expect the vast majority of people to take to the streets to change society if they have other things with which to distract themselves.

Now see, this is exactly the sort of fatalism I've been trying to avoid in my own worldview.

And keep in mind my last post ended with "We're all gonna die."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Smiler on August 05, 2011, 09:54:32 AM
Guys I figured it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTP7jRgOIEw&feature=player_embedded#at=28 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTP7jRgOIEw&feature=player_embedded#at=28)

Fucking smurfs.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on August 05, 2011, 09:55:02 AM
The turning point for me was my last year of law school when I took a class on Cyber Law and we got into all these really interesting and technical issues about privacy and copyright and whatnot and how corporations and the government basically fuck the average dude six ways from Sunday.

So at the end of the course, the prof comes out and says to this six-person class, "so what do you guys make of all this?  Do you support policies like what we've discussed?  Oppose them?  Sup?"  and then he added somewhat facetiously, "do you care?"

I don't know if I was insulted by the question or didn't like the class or was a week from graduation and didn't give a shit, but I just straight up said "You know, I can't really bring myself to care."  Prof looked nonplussed, asked me why.  I said it was because the sea levels were going to rise twenty feet by the time I die, displacing hundreds of millions of people, drinking water was drying up, people were getting tortured, millions dying every year in Africa from treatable diseases, the US spending billions to support the tobacco industry, 50 million without health insurance, the US and Europe generally approaching insolvency, etc., all seemed like much greater problems to me than college kids getting busted for stealing hollywood movies or the CIA making a record of what kind of shit I buy on ebay.*

In an attempt to, I guess, sympathize or placate me or whatever, the prof said he understood that a lot of people could adopt this stance of rational ignorance, but that kind of ticked me off.  I said it wasn't rational ignorance at all; I perfectly understood the implications of IP and privacy and what have you, but I simply didn't care, because these are First World Problems and while yeah, the RIAA is kind of shitty for theoretically suing someone for 150 grand for downloading a song, that does not rise to even the fourth or fifth tier of injustices mankind is perpetrating on his brother at this exact moment, so no, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.  Sorry.

I got an A in the class, one of two I got in a substantive class throughout law school.  Hilariously, the other was Copyright.






*I expanded on this second point in library school to browbeat other library students who honestly felt protecting the privacy of a patron's borrowing records made them Christ figures or something (real talk)



Now see, this is exactly the sort of fatalism I've been trying to avoid in my own worldview.

And keep in mind my last post ended with "We're all gonna die."

If you really want to be frustrated, try to find one instance of somebody saying "Americans should take more time to educate themselves on the issues before they vote" without actually meaning "anybody who doesn't vote the same way I do must be ignorant".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 05, 2011, 10:15:40 AM
Freaknomics predicts a boom in 2012 (http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/08/05/why-the-market-meltdown-is-crazy/)

Well, it's a bold prediction at least.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mothra on August 05, 2011, 11:03:49 AM
Yeah, but the mind-boggling fact that literally millions die every year in Africa from treatable diseases does not make these other copyright/privacy problems any less shitty. It's entirely possible to care about both things, you know, if you gave enough of a shit to give a shit.

That said, yes, our priorities are well out of place, and we should not care about some kid getting sued by the RIAA nearly as much as people actually dying incredibly shitty preventable deaths every day.

You can still take like an hour of one day to review your class and develop an opinion on this handful of topics.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 05, 2011, 11:08:09 AM
I said it wasn't rational ignorance at all; I perfectly understood the implications of IP and privacy and what have you, but I simply didn't care, because these are First World Problems and while yeah, the RIAA is kind of shitty for theoretically suing someone for 150 grand for downloading a song, that does not rise to even the fourth or fifth tier of injustices mankind is perpetrating on his brother at this exact moment, so no, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.  Sorry.

I get that.  OTOH, I think people naturally focus on things that are closer to home.  Copyright overreach and invasion of privacy are things that, on some level, already directly affect me, and they're considerations I have to take into account in my day-to-day life.  If I ever produce any substantial creative works, copyright and licensing are going to be damned important issues for me, and I have to consider privacy concerns every time I do pretty much anything at a computer.

If you really want to be frustrated, try to find one instance of somebody saying "Americans should take more time to educate themselves on the issues before they vote" without actually meaning "anybody who doesn't vote the same way I do must be ignorant".

Point taken, but it is of course an exaggeration.  You hear the "people need to educate themselves and stop voting against their own self-interest" all the time around these parts, but I doubt any of us frothing-at-the-mouth liberals would accuse, say, Clutch of being ignorant; he just has a different set of priorities than we do.

Point of fact I think a good bit of the last few pages of this thread has been Brent and me pointing out that the fundamental tenets of the Republican Party are perfectly valid, it's just that the elected officials preaching them don't actually tend to practice them.

(I certainly won't deny a general ignorance in the voting population, the American population, the world population -- but it cuts across party lines and political philosophies.  The first person who ever forwarded me an "OBAMA IS SCAREY MOSLEM" E-Mail was a Democrat.)

I'm sure some voters ARE Kool-Aid drinkers who buy whatever their granfalloon sells them.  Hell, a LOT.  But if I had to make the call I'd say most, of whatever persuasion, are cynics like me who think all politicians are crooks out to swindle them and just bite the bullet and vote for a lizard so that the wrong lizard doesn't get in.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ziiro on August 05, 2011, 11:13:33 AM
It's entirely possible to care about both things, you know, if you gave enough of a shit to give a shit.

No, actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number). People outside this number for you/outsideyour social circle are difficult for the brain to consider actual people. This explains it. (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on August 05, 2011, 11:19:15 AM
Quote
Yeah, but the mind-boggling fact that literally millions die every year in Africa from treatable diseases does not make these other copyright/privacy problems any less shitty. It's entirely possible to care about both things, you know, if you gave enough of a shit to give a shit.

The issue is not necessarily caring about Abstract, Non-Lethal First World Problem X, but allocating resources/time/money to it as opposed to any number of infinitely more deserving causes.

These causes may include world hunger, environmental protection, or not antagonizing your immediate supervisor at work or your spouse/children at home by spending time worrying about Abstract, Non-Lethal First World Problem X. 


Quote
Point of fact I think a good bit of the last few pages of this thread has been Brent and me pointing out that the fundamental tenets of the Republican Party are perfectly valid, it's just that the elected officials preaching them don't actually tend to practice them.


For what it's worth, the Right and the Left pretty much everywhere are still playing out the State-versus-Aristocracy power struggle that has essentially been going on since the beginning of recorded history.  Our unfortunate lot is that we have front row seats to what happens (once every fifty years or so) when one side wins.


Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 05, 2011, 08:47:05 PM
In case you haven't seen yet, S&P just downgraded the US's credit rating around 9pm, in a surprise HAVE A NICE WEEKEND, KISS YOUR ECONOMY GOODBYE  kind of way.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 05, 2011, 09:26:15 PM
downgraded the US's credit rating

Epic villain laugh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMqHJrdXj0s#)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 05, 2011, 09:35:02 PM
I'm going to ballpark it at "My 401(k) has lost all the interest it ever earned."

Checked mine today; it went from tacking even YTD yesterday to actually losing money (bam, I just lost another $300.)

It comes as a relief, actually, for two reasons.  First, I don't have to do a whole lot of complicated math to justify my decision to stop paying into it and shunt that money towards my credit cards instead, and second, I get to illustrate WHY I don't have to do a lot of complicated math by posting a video of The Joker, which I somehow failed to do last post.

The Dark Knight - Joker Burns Money (FULL) HQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqcbgSpHMFs#noexternalembed)

So uh yeah thanks for tanking the world economy everyone.  In about a year I'll be very bitter about it but right now it serves as a source of comfort, and let's face it, it's all about the short term.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Smiler on August 05, 2011, 09:44:29 PM
Well look on the bright side. There's a slight chance that no one will take S&P's downgrade seriously.

pupy bow tie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgUbL1DPAww#)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 05, 2011, 09:48:54 PM
Well, in more lighthearted news, pretty much the whole world is making fun of Fox for this gem:

(http://ebonymompolitics.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/fox-news-obama-bbq.jpg?w=570&h=531)

Ladies and gentlemen, that is in fact a real picture. BLACK PEOPLE! AMIRITE?!

Elsewhere, this has already become a running gag, with people posting endless variations on "THIS POST DIDN'T CREATE JOBS!"
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 05, 2011, 09:49:45 PM
The best part is the ticker.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on August 06, 2011, 08:43:51 AM
In case you haven't seen yet, S&P just downgraded the US's credit rating around 9pm, in a surprise HAVE A NICE WEEKEND, KISS YOUR ECONOMY GOODBYE  kind of way.

I think the only silver lining to this is that we can all say we were there for the end of the era. We're seeing history happen, right guys?

Right?


Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 07, 2011, 07:23:12 PM
Grabbed elsewhere:

Quote
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/business/workers-wages-chasing-corporate-profits-off-the-charts.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
Quote
In the first quarter of 2011, the latest figures available, the new estimates indicate corporate profits accounted for 14.2 percent of national income, well above the 13.1 percent that had previously been estimated.
...
The latest figures indicate the smaller businesses’ share of national income fell to a 17-year low of 7.7 percent in 2009, but recovered to 8.3 percent in 2010 and in the first quarter of this year.

Employees have always received more than half the total national income, until now. In 2010, the percentage of national income devoted to wages and salaries fell to 49.9 percent, and it slipped a little more to 49.6 percent in the first quarter of this year.
...
The figure for wages and salaries reflects only what employees are directly paid, and does not include the cost paid by employers for benefits, which has been steadily rising over the years. It is thus not an accurate gauge from the point of view of employers, for whom a dollar spent on health insurance premiums is no less real than one spent on wages. Adding the two categories together may provide a better view of the share of national income going to workers or being spent for their benefit. The 2010 total, of 62.1 percent, is not close to the record low share of 54.5 percent, set in 1929, the first year for which numbers are available. But it is the lowest for any full year since 1965. In the first quarter of 2011, it slipped further, to 61.7 percent.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 07, 2011, 08:51:45 PM
TRICKLE DOWN
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Smiler on August 08, 2011, 07:00:07 AM
The stock market is open.

LLLLLLLEEEEEEET'S GET READY TO TUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE!

Jock Jams - Lets Get Ready To Rumble (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcyyc8owqoM#)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 08, 2011, 08:08:53 AM
Paradoxically, treasury bonds are still going up.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on August 08, 2011, 08:43:16 AM
This morning, I went to the bank to pull some money out of my savings account and for the very first time in three years I managed to get in and out without the banker helping me busting my balls about holding that much money in cash.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 08, 2011, 09:01:23 AM
Paradoxically, treasury bonds are still going up.

You keep saying that, but mine aren't.  It's deep red across the board.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 08, 2011, 12:35:01 PM
Just reporting what I see in the news (http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=bonds&safe=active#ds=n&pq=bonds&hl=en&cp=18&gs_id=24&xhr=t&q=us+treasury+bonds&safe=active&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=nws&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=39089fa8db703cb6&biw=1680&bih=957).  If you've got more information I'm happy to hear it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cait on August 08, 2011, 02:08:03 PM
Rates have been trending downward lately; there was a spike on Friday, but today they're at or below Thursday's rates again.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 08, 2011, 06:25:04 PM
I've lost $325 since Friday.

I CAN KEEP THIS UP ALL RETIREMENT
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on August 08, 2011, 07:48:53 PM
Will you survive until then?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 08, 2011, 07:55:17 PM
Sure, since it looks like he'll be working until he dies.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 08, 2011, 09:01:07 PM
I'm with the camp that thinks that the market will rebound now that everybody's done dumping their ballast in sheer panic and will start picking likely winners in the second recession race.  If I still had the requisite thousand bucks sitting in my bank account to play horses with I'd go and put my chips on Del Taco, Amazon.com and good ol' Coca-Cola, but I don't so never fucking mind.

Meanwhile I'm watching the housing market closely for obvious reasons.  General consensus seems to be that as a buyer, I did pretty much as well as it's possible to do (locking it in at the lowest rate it gets, ever), and as an equity holder I am of course screwed fucking sideways and about to be upside down in short order.  Oh well; as long as I don't get a bug up my ass and decide to try and flip the place in the next year, I should come out ahead.  I hope.

(Not trying to turn this thread into my incredibly boring 28-year-old-with-real-money blog.  I just figure putting these trends in terms of how they affect a completely generic middle-class person should put them into some kind of perspective.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 08, 2011, 09:38:12 PM
I'm inclined to think you're right.  Smart investments are a long game.

I don't really have any beyond my 401(k) and savings account.  Not going to panic about the 401(k); it's a bummer but if it doesn't rebound before I retire then I've got much bigger problems.

I don't own a house but my family owns a few of them; I'm inclined to think that you got in at the best possible time as long as you can manage to stick out out.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 09, 2011, 03:13:41 AM
Poof it's gone! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAKsMnAM8vk#ws) Oh hey so this is relevant again
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 09, 2011, 02:00:24 PM
Dow up 430 today; graph looks fucking crazy. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/business/global/daily-stock-market-activity.html)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 09, 2011, 02:13:26 PM
Bounceback higher than expected; Tea Party support down 10% since debt vote; Obama winks at the camera and says, "Damn, that's good barbecue."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 10, 2011, 05:39:43 AM
(http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01306/wededcar10co1_1306474cl-8.jpg)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 16, 2011, 08:02:28 AM
Quote from: Doug
Quote from: Paul Krugman
It’s very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy. But if you had a program of government spending plus an expansionary policy by the Fed, you could get that. So, if you think about using all of these things together, you could accomplish, you know, a great deal.

If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months.

Nice plan, Adrian Veidt

:lol:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 16, 2011, 07:56:09 PM
Incredibly good post about Texas jobs data (http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 17, 2011, 07:34:20 PM
Justice department chasing S&P (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-justice-department-probes-standard-poors-over-mortgage-securities/article2133244/)

UuuuuuuuahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhLEEEETTTSSSS GEEEEET REEEEADDDYYYYYEEEEE TOOOO RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 18, 2011, 07:38:43 AM
The Economist muses on tax rates. (http://www.economist.com/node/21525851)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 18, 2011, 07:54:55 AM
Soooo, the markets are cratering as we speak. Is next week going to be another crazy yo yo week?

Fuck, this is (a little) stressful to me and I don't even own any stock at all.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Beat Bandit on August 18, 2011, 11:10:05 AM
Meanwhile the company that handles my job's 401ks is offer blowjobs to start paying in. Don't know if want.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Rico on August 18, 2011, 11:22:03 AM
Nothing sourceable, but in a few conversations I've had the number 8000 has come up for an honest sustainable level for the Dow, which is... a long way to go.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 19, 2011, 07:37:00 AM
I've lost $200 since yesterday etc etc etc.  Still up from the economy's local minima.

My 401(k) payments finally unproced though and the sudden application of taxes to it didn't hurt nearly as badly as I thought it would, so that's good.  I get the feeling that now is not the time to try and ride thousands of dollars of debt.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on August 20, 2011, 09:03:24 AM
Picky employers can't find workers (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-07/employers-ready-to-hire-in-u-s-can-t-find-qualified-workers-among-jobless.html)

 :slow:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 22, 2011, 07:43:43 AM
Finally, a tax the GOP and the Tea Party ARE in favor of! (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/201302/20110821/taxes-payroll-tax-payroll-tax-reduction-republicans-democrats-boehner-obama-tea-party.htm)

SPOILERS: [spoiler]It disproportionately affects the poor and working class.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on August 22, 2011, 07:51:24 AM
But... poor people already have a tax. It's called the lottery.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on August 22, 2011, 10:11:41 AM
They also support a national sales tax, so it's not true that they're anti-tax. They just don't think anyone making over $250k should participate in society.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on August 22, 2011, 11:00:10 AM
I'm livid.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 22, 2011, 02:13:59 PM
They also support a national sales tax

HUHWHAT?!

Really?

Sales taxes are probably among the most progressive and least damaging taxes around. The GOP supporting a National VAT of some sort is is like :scanners:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ziiro on August 22, 2011, 02:22:44 PM
They also support a national sales tax

(╯°д°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Norondor on August 22, 2011, 02:23:43 PM
Sales taxes are probably among the most progressive and least damaging taxes around. The GOP supporting a National VAT of some sort is is like :scanners:

...nnnnno
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Caithness on August 22, 2011, 02:32:33 PM
The way I understand it, sales taxes are one of the most regressive taxes around. Poor people spend nearly 100% of their disposable income on things which are sales-taxed. Rich people save and invest most of theirs.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on August 22, 2011, 02:36:13 PM
I'm almost expecting, within my lifetime, a Republican bigwig to come right out and state "look, we've been working on it for a while, but let's put it straight: we want serfdom back, that was a pretty sweet deal".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 22, 2011, 03:40:35 PM
Okay, you guys need to GET EDUCATED! on Sales Taxes.

The way I understand it, sales taxes are one of the most regressive taxes around. Poor people spend nearly 100% of their disposable income on things which are sales-taxed. Rich people save and invest most of theirs.

You are correct! Rich people do spend a higher proportion of their income on savings/investments, etc. I forget what it is for lower-income folks, but I think it's less than 15% on average, where as rich folks save somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25% (that second figure I do remember clearly).

However, when you do the math, this actually results in higher revenues taken in from rich citizens, because rich folks spend a TON. This might seem cockeyed at first, but let's do the math.

Let's take a fellow who makes 15k a year, another fellow who makes 150k, and a third guy who makes 1.5 mil. Let's say the poor guy saves 5% of his income and spends 95%, the middle guy saves 20% and spends 80%, and the rich guy save 30% and spends 70%. Let's assume a 5% Value Added Tax.

The poor guy spends $14,250 per year on VAT-taxable products. Of this, $712.50 would be spent paying for the sales tax.
The middle guy spends $120,000 per year on VAT-taxable products. Of this, $6,000 would be spent paying for the sales tax.
The rich guy spends $1,050,000 per year on VAT-taxable products. Of this, $52,500 would be spent paying for the sales tax.

But wait! There's a crucial additional factor. It's a solid fact that the poorer folks are, the higher proportion of their income they spend on shelter, which is is a huge chunk of spending and which is NOT taxable under a consumption tax.

Let's go back to those numbers again. This time, let's assume the poor fellow spends 60% of his income on shelter, the middle fellow spends 45%, and the rich fellow spends 30% (actually the proportions are usually higher for the poor and lower for the rich, but let's say mister moneybags has a truly obnoxious mcmansion). 

The poor guy now spends $5,250 per year on VAT-taxable products. Of this, $262.50 would be spent paying for the sales tax.
The middle guy now spends $37,500 per year on VAT-taxable products. Of this, $1875 would be spent paying for the sales tax.
The rich guy now spends $600,000 per year on VAT-taxable products. Of this, $30,000 would be spent paying for the sales tax.

The second numbers are a little closer to reality. As you can see that's less money all round, and of course the curve is less exponential, but the poor guy is paying dramatically less in the second version. And those dollars make a much bigger difference there.

This is anything but regressive. If you believe a sales tax is regressive, then I guess conservative marketing has won again?

It also helps if you understand a few other things:

1) A proper sales tax applies to all consumer goods, including big ticket items.
2) You can easily tune a sales tax for the poor and middle class by exempting things that are deemed absolute necessities, such as basic foods, baby supplies, etc. (gasoline should NOT be one of these things, ideally).
3) When implementing an across-the-board sales tax, you need to reduce income taxes to compensate. You MUST. Obviously if you don't, it IS a regressive tax grab instead of a restructuring, but it's not just that: You're empowering people, especially the poor. If they want to save, the option is more open to them and is more rewarding based on a reduced income. This is not a BAD thing - you're giving people choices and flexibility and you're doing so in a way that actually benefits poorer people more. WITHOUT handouts or other measures that punish people for being on social assistance.
4) Don't buy the line that "Killing consumption will kill the economy!" - THAT'S the real corporate bullshit. Consumerism and overconsumption are already in massive overdrive, have been for years, and savings rates are well below healthy levels. People still need to BUY STUFF and a VAT is not going to stop that.
5) This is the big one: It is infinitely more difficult to avoid sales taxes than it is to avoid income taxes. Even if you massively reformed income taxes, the rich still have myriad ways to avoid paying what they should based on income (I'm sure at this point anyone who's interested already saw the Warren Buffet rant). But it's almost impossible to avoid paying the full value of a VAT. 

When they cut the GST from 7% to 5% up here in Canada, they polled a pile of economists and mathematicians from across the political spectrum and the response rate was something like 98% "Tax relief is good, but this cut is fucking retarded". I did quite a bit of research on this at the time, and trust me, I am all in favour of less income tax and more sales tax.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 22, 2011, 03:52:42 PM
I think you're operating under the assumption that they're going to care enough to make the basic distinction between necessities and sale items.  If anything, I think they'd tax necessities MORE if they could spin it th right way; anything to make it impossible for the masses to scale their gilden walls.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: patito on August 22, 2011, 04:11:54 PM
Their argumet will be since everybody has to buy food, even rich folk, it will be a fair tax for everybody.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 22, 2011, 04:18:19 PM
Okay, the tl;dr version is:

1 - Rich people actually do spend a crapton of money on junk that ought to be taxed. Way more so than the poor do.
2 - Rich people do have higher savings rates, but not enough to change the fundamentals behind this.
3 - Giving poor people more and better choices is pretty important.
4 - It's way harder for rich people to avoid sales tax than it is for them to avoid income tax.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 22, 2011, 04:58:27 PM
On board with #4.  One of the biggest mistakes the Democratic party has made was EVER letting the opposition talk about income taxes for the rich as if they mattered.  You can set the rate to 0% or 100% and they'll still pay the same amount in practice.

This is of course assuming the Dems themselves care - as it needs to be pointed out again and again, most Democrats in Congress make way more than $250,000 a year.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on August 23, 2011, 08:01:53 AM
I would be in favor of the Traficant Tax if there were substantial tax credits for everyone making up to 3 times the poverty level.  Problem is it's not enough to tell somebody they'll catch a windfall after April 15 in refunds when they are living paycheck to paycheck the rest of the year.

Simpler method would be to just eliminate all income tax deductions other than the personal deduction and the mortgage deduction.

EDIT: Actually, you'd probably be fine just eliminating (or severely reducing) the charitable deduction.

(fuck the charitable deduction)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on August 23, 2011, 10:15:03 AM
Easiest method is just to get rid of rich people, install flat 100% rate at over $250k.

Also, Mongrel, your argument about the national sales tax works only if the numbers you completely made up are true about consumption. But it's hard to tell, because you just made them up.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on August 23, 2011, 01:32:53 PM
Tell you what, I'll give you a million bucks, and you can go and give $750,000 of it straight to the Federal government.

They will then use that money to send more drones to Afghanistan.

As much as I hate to admit it, the Tea Party schmucks do have a point buried deep down in there.  The over-entitled in this country fucking goddam do have a responsibility towards the society they've taken everything from, but handing it over to the TP/Obama/Dual-War regime is probably not the most constructive way to go about it.

Of course nobody ever frames the argument like that; the two sides of this debate are "we want to swim in our money bins" vs. "give us all your cash so we can kill more sand niggers".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 23, 2011, 03:48:51 PM
I would be in favor of the Traficant Tax if there were substantial tax credits for everyone making up to 3 times the poverty level.  Problem is it's not enough to tell somebody they'll catch a windfall after April 15 in refunds when they are living paycheck to paycheck the rest of the year.

Well, the way across-the-board income tax reductions are supposed to be implemented is to reduce payroll deductions, rather than increasing tax refunds.

Easiest method is just to get rid of rich people, install flat 100% rate at over $250k.

Also, Mongrel, your argument about the national sales tax works only if the numbers you completely made up are true about consumption. But it's hard to tell, because you just made them up.

Look, I don't have any vested interest in bullshitting you guys to score magical internets debating team points.

I don't think anybody would say my numbers were anything remotely close to something you'd see on a real tax return or pay stub (hell, I didn't even have a billionaire), just some very rough basic math to demonstrate that sales taxes are not in fact, regressive.

The math bits were also some of the least important parts of my post.

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on August 23, 2011, 04:34:46 PM
Tell you what, I'll give you a million bucks, and you can go and give $750,000 of it straight to the Federal government.

They will then use that money to send more drones to Afghanistan.

As much as I hate to admit it, the Tea Party schmucks do have a point buried deep down in there.  The over-entitled in this country fucking goddam do have a responsibility towards the society they've taken everything from, but handing it over to the TP/Obama/Dual-War regime is probably not the most constructive way to go about it.

Of course nobody ever frames the argument like that; the two sides of this debate are "we want to swim in our money bins" vs. "give us all your cash so we can kill more sand niggers".

Well yes, but the people arguing against higher taxes and the people arguing FOR our various foreign interventions happen to have a hell of a lot of overlap.

I'm all for the government spending our money more wisely.  Fucking EVERYBODY is.  The breakdown comes from a disagreement on the definition of "more wisely".

Wanting to raise taxes on the rich AND cut funding for two wars is not a logically inconsistent position.

Wanting to LOWER taxes on the rich and INCREASE funding for two wars, on the other hand...



There's also the nontrivial fact that tax cuts and spending increases are not as distinct as politicians make them out to be.  Is a subsidy a tax cut, or a spending increase?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on September 12, 2011, 06:16:57 AM
So apparently the Euro-zone crisis is now so severe (this is my surprised face) that the German rep on the European commission suggested a military occupation of Greece and forcible seizure of Greek property (by UN forces) (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/in-europe-a-crisis-teeters-toward-cataclysm/article2162098/).

:whoops:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on September 29, 2011, 10:02:01 PM
All-around decent article on a marquee short-seller (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/chanos-calls-china-syndrome/article2183539/page1/).

Bit of a puff piece, but there's plenty of meat under there too. For those of you who don't know, short-sellers make money off of stocks going down in price. They do so by borrowing stock, selling it immediately (at what they perceive to be an inflated value), but with an agreement to return the same stock to the lender at a later date. If their prediction is correct, they can repurchase the stock later at a much lower price, netting a nice profit.

I've been more interested in short-sellers lately. The Sino-Forest story has been pretty interesting (tl;dr version: a Chinese-Canadian lumber firm turned out to be a giant Enron-like fraud, only the fraud was laughably crude and transparent, making the fact that it went undetected that much more embarassing), to say nothing of the 2008 debacle.

The two most interesting things I noted in the article were: 1) the fact that the SEC actually outright banned short selling of 799 American financial companies (!) at the height of the 2008-2009 disaster. That's actually a huge deal and not something I'd heard before, and 2) this rather chilling quote:

Quote from: Jim Chanos
I can’t think of one major financial fraud in the United States in the last 10 years that was uncovered by a major brokerage house analyst or an outside accounting firm. Almost every such fraud ultimately was unmasked by short sellers and/or financial journalists.


:mikey:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 17, 2011, 10:07:32 PM
Soooo - get this - I just heard Obama's latest plan to promote job growth is to trash Sarbanes-Oxley.

HAR HAR. GOOD ONE, GUYS.

FUCKIN' BRIL-LI-ANT
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 17, 2011, 10:14:16 PM
And you guys still think a primary challenge would be a bad thing, right?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on October 18, 2011, 12:47:42 AM
Thirteen Observations made by Lemony Snicket while watching Occupy Wall Street from a Discreet Distance (http://occupywriters.com/by-lemony-snicket).

This felt like a better place than the actual OWS thread.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on October 18, 2011, 05:16:26 AM
All-around decent article on a marquee short-seller (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/chanos-calls-china-syndrome/article2183539/page1/).

Bit of a puff piece, but there's plenty of meat under there too. For those of you who don't know, short-sellers make money off of stocks going down in price. They do so by borrowing stock, selling it immediately (at what they perceive to be an inflated value), but with an agreement to return the same stock to the lender at a later date. If their prediction is correct, they can repurchase the stock later at a much lower price, netting a nice profit.

I've been more interested in short-sellers lately. The Sino-Forest story has been pretty interesting (tl;dr version: a Chinese-Canadian lumber firm turned out to be a giant Enron-like fraud, only the fraud was laughably crude and transparent, making the fact that it went undetected that much more embarassing), to say nothing of the 2008 debacle.

The two most interesting things I noted in the article were: 1) the fact that the SEC actually outright banned short selling of 799 American financial companies (!) at the height of the 2008-2009 disaster. That's actually a huge deal and not something I'd heard before, and 2) this rather chilling quote:

Quote from: Jim Chanos
I can’t think of one major financial fraud in the United States in the last 10 years that was uncovered by a major brokerage house analyst or an outside accounting firm. Almost every such fraud ultimately was unmasked by short sellers and/or financial journalists.


:mikey:

Have you read The Big Short by Michael Lewis?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 18, 2011, 07:29:01 AM
Newp.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 18, 2011, 12:28:07 PM
And you guys still think a primary challenge would be a bad thing, right?

I don't.

Well, it depends.  I still don't like Clinton but I have to admit her supporters are probably right that she'd have done a better job at the negotiating table.  Couldn't have done much worse, anyway, short of invading Iran.

Problem is that it's not gonna happen.  I'm not putting much stock in Americans Elect (http://www.americanselect.org/), but it's more likely they'll get a candidate on the ballot than a Democratic challenger will step up.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 18, 2011, 01:54:54 PM
Well the main problem with the idea I that there IS nobody to step up.  Clinton is right out, she'd never win in a biting-the-hand scenario.  Reid is perfect on principle but he's an ancient lich kept alive by dark rituals and also probably a lot more useful where he is now.  Neither Boxer nor Feinstein could really win a national election and I'm just about out of candidates I can name off the top of my head.

So barring a hero, we've got about a year before we have to ask a very tough question: would the corporate wing (I don't want to say the right wing - conservatism isn't the actual enemy here) do better with Obama or Romney as president?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 18, 2011, 07:51:00 PM
Tough call, and it mostly comes down to whether President Romney would be more like Governor Romney or Candidate Romney.  (And whether an Obama who wasn't worried about reelection would cut loose, but I'm much more confident in hazarding a guess on THAT subject.)

When Boehner says he got 99% of what he wanted in the debt ceiling showdown, it's pretty tough to picture things going much worse with Romney in charge than Obama.  And even the positive stuff Obama's accomplished -- healthcare and the repeal of DADT, for example -- I can't say with confidence that things would have gone differently under Romney.

On the whole, I want a Republican Party that's willing to compromise and a Democratic Party that knows giving the other guys 99% of what they want is not a goddamn compromise.  At the very least, I want the Democrats to be seriously sweating right now, and at the most, I can't honestly say I think we'd be much worse off with Romney than Obama.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 19, 2011, 12:00:05 AM
Quote
(And whether an Obama who wasn't worried about reelection would cut loose, but I'm much more confident in hazarding a guess on THAT subject.)

Well, and again, what that actually means can go either way.

Of course you can hazard a guess about that too.  At the end of the day, Barack Obama is the 1%, and his facade of being above it has been fading since he took oath.

giving the other guys 99% of what they want is not a goddamn compromise.

Yes it is, for Christ's sakes.  It's just that you have to get 100% of what you want too.

...which Reid's plan would have done at both ends, at least on paper.  Maybe we can just sacrifice a goddam chicken or something and get him out there.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 19, 2011, 08:18:46 AM
Well, and again, what that actually means can go either way.

Of course you can hazard a guess about that too.  At the end of the day, Barack Obama is the 1%, and his facade of being above it has been fading since he took oath.

Every President is, though.  And every Supreme Court Justice and most of Congress.  Some of them fight for the 99% anyway.

giving the other guys 99% of what they want is not a goddamn compromise.

Yes it is, for Christ's sakes.  It's just that you have to get 100% of what you want too.

Both sides can't get 99-100% in a zero-sum game.  The budget is a zero-sum game.

You're right in that it's possible to back down on one issue in exchange for a victory on another -- you could argue, for example, that Obama's immediate caving on the tax cuts last year paved the way for the social victories that the lame duck Congress then pushed through.  I think that was an unintended consequence at best and not at all a sign of brilliant negotiation on anyone's part, but leaving aside the specific circumstances it's not a bad example -- give something up on the economic side in return for a victory on the social side.  Yeah, that's a compromise.

Trouble is that if you combine both things into a single bill you wind up piling unrelated shit on top of, say, budget items, which I'm not crazy about, whereas if you push them as separate bills, the only thing guaranteeing your compromise will pass is the word of the opposition leadership.

...which Reid's plan would have done at both ends, at least on paper.  Maybe we can just sacrifice a goddam chicken or something and get him out there.

Again, I don't really consider Reid's plan to be a 99% of one/100% for the other prospect, for the reasons outlined above.  But that doesn't mean it would be a bad compromise!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Disposable Ninja on October 23, 2011, 06:32:05 AM
So I was watching one of those Sunday morning news programs, I forget which one, and Mitch McConnel was on. He was shown statistical fucking proof that the largest problem with the economy is lack of demand, that people don't have enough money to buy things, and he was still espousing the application of Supply-Side Economics.

So let's break this down: the biggest problem with our economy is that people don't have enough money to buy things. The Republican Minority Leader believes we should give more money to the people who make things to sell.

Why are we letting these people anywhere near our Government, again?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 26, 2011, 09:55:56 PM
Meanwhile, in Euroland...

(http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01334/thuedcar27co1_1334713cl-8.jpg)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on October 28, 2011, 06:10:57 AM
"Job Creators: A Poem" By Rep. Gwen Moore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjwI6N0v38M#)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 02, 2011, 05:11:30 PM
So, as per usual, I've been following the Euro events pretty closely and I just want to ask: Does anyone else think that Papandreou's stones require two midget Atlases to follow him around to carry them? 

I mean that guy just turned himself into probably the most hated man in Europe right now and the consequences for his decision are probably catastrophic for just about everyone, but in spite of it all, I am dead certain he's doing the right thing.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Caithness on November 02, 2011, 05:36:05 PM
Can you explain what exactly he is doing by calling a referendum and why it's the right thing, for the benefit of those of us who haven't been paying as close attention?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 02, 2011, 06:02:12 PM
Okay, lets go back about a week and a half. After an incredible amount of prevarication, arguing, delay, and arm twisting, the Euro Zone leaders had FINALLY hammered out some kind of agreement for a partial default and increase in bailout funds for Greece. Close observers argued it was not quite enough and that there'd be more crises in perhaps a year's time, but overall the response was positive. It was a more solid plan than anyone had managed to put together in some time and markets were very happy with the news.

Then Papandreou came out of nowhere with a massive bombshell: The choice of accepting the bailout money would be put to the Greek people in a national referendum. Additionally, the referendum carries the inherent implication that a rejection of the bailout money is also a rejection of the Euro common currency (i.e. a Greek return to the Drachma) as well as Euro-zone membership.

If the bailout is rejected, it is expected Greece will immediately fall into a hard, disorderly bankruptcy possibly taking down all of Europe with it and dragging the world back to recession. Even if a total collapse is averted, Merkel and Sarko will both probably lose their re-election bids.

As bad as all that is, Greece has spent two years now being berated, abused, insulted, scorned and generally shit on by Europe. Any help was grudging, mostly out of sheer self-preservation. Better-off players like France or Germany frequently spoke sneeringly about humiliating Greece in the most ridiculous possible ways as some form of punishment.

The thing is, as much the Greeks are to blame for their own troubles (they basically perpetuated a gigantic and incredibly flimsy fraud to join the Euro zone and abused the hell out of it while times were good), I don't think anyone deserves the treatment they've had. It's as if a wealthy man became homeless due to his own profligacy. His former gambling partners now throw a few dollars in his hat as they pass him on the street, but never without spitting on him or cursing his name.

Ultimately, Papandreou is the leader of the Greek people. Not Europe, not the world, but Greece. He is giving his country its one last chance to stand up and decide its own fate. If they decide that the next time they see one of their old partners that they're gong to deliver a roundhouse to the face, then no one will ever toss coins in their hat again and they will truly be destitute. But it will have been their decision and theirs alone.

He is putting the responsibility to accept the bailout money - and far more importantly the extreme austerity conditions that come with the money - directly on the Greek people. If they do choose to accept the money, they must accept the conditions - no longer will the bailout be something imposed on the Greek people by angry foreigners. If the Greeks do approve the bailout and choose to stay in the Euro zone, that acceptance of responsibility will greatly improve chances for eventual success. It's genius, really.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Caithness on November 02, 2011, 06:28:53 PM
Thank you, that sums things up nicely.

But won't the Greek people claim they're being offered a false dichotomy, and demand an option to receive the bailout money without the austerity measures?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on November 02, 2011, 06:42:05 PM
Well, just as Europe isn't running Greece, Greece isn't running Europe. I'd suspect everyone's sufficiently fed up with them not to give them money without strings attached anymore, especially since the Greeks would basically be saying "give us more cash so we may waste it as we please again".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Dooly on November 02, 2011, 06:43:20 PM
That's worked pretty fantastically for the US financial sector so far.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on November 02, 2011, 06:44:51 PM
The thing is, as much the Greeks are to blame for their own troubles (they basically perpetuated a gigantic and incredibly flimsy fraud to join the Euro zone and abused the hell out of it while times were good), I don't think anyone deserves the treatment they've had. It's as if a wealthy man became homeless due to his own profligacy. His former gambling partners now throw a few dollars in his hat as they pass him on the street, but never without spitting on him or cursing his name.

Quote from: The Story of Abou Hassan, or The Sleeper Awakened
With this intent, Abou Hassan formed a society with youths of his
own age and condition, who thought of nothing but how to make
their time pass agreeably. Every day he gave them splendid
entertainments, at which the most delicate viands were served up,
and the most exquisite wines flowed in profusion, while concerts
of the best vocal and instrumental music by performers of both
sexes heightened their pleasures, and this young band of
debauchees with the glasses in their hands, joined their songs
with the music. These feasts were accompanied by ballets, for
which the best dancers of both sexes were engaged. These
entertainments, renewed every day, were so expensive to Abou
Hassan, that he could not support the extravagance above a year:
and the great sum which he had appropriated to this prodigality
and the year ended together. As soon as he discontinued keeping
this table, his friends forsook him; whenever they saw him they
avoided him, and if by chance he met any of them, and went to
stop them, they always excused themselves on some presence or
other.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on November 02, 2011, 06:45:38 PM
That's worked pretty fantastically for the US financial sector so far.

Any comparison of the US financial sector to Greece is an insult to Greece.

...and possibly vice versa.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 02, 2011, 07:15:52 PM
The thing is, as much the Greeks are to blame for their own troubles (they basically perpetuated a gigantic and incredibly flimsy fraud to join the Euro zone and abused the hell out of it while times were good), I don't think anyone deserves the treatment they've had. It's as if a wealthy man became homeless due to his own profligacy. His former gambling partners now throw a few dollars in his hat as they pass him on the street, but never without spitting on him or cursing his name.

Quote from: The Story of Abou Hassan, or The Sleeper Awakened
With this intent, Abou Hassan formed a society with youths of his
own age and condition, who thought of nothing but how to make
their time pass agreeably. Every day he gave them splendid
entertainments, at which the most delicate viands were served up,
and the most exquisite wines flowed in profusion, while concerts
of the best vocal and instrumental music by performers of both
sexes heightened their pleasures, and this young band of
debauchees with the glasses in their hands, joined their songs
with the music. These feasts were accompanied by ballets, for
which the best dancers of both sexes were engaged. These
entertainments, renewed every day, were so expensive to Abou
Hassan, that he could not support the extravagance above a year:
and the great sum which he had appropriated to this prodigality
and the year ended together. As soon as he discontinued keeping
this table, his friends forsook him; whenever they saw him they
avoided him, and if by chance he met any of them, and went to
stop them, they always excused themselves on some presence or
other.

It's even more apt when you realize that the gambling money my prototypical Greek lost was all loaned to him by the people he lost it to.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on November 03, 2011, 09:01:33 AM
Welp, the referendum is off (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/11/ap-greek-officials-say-bailout-referendum-will-be-scrapped/1). The opposition calls for elections, but Papandreou doesn't want to step down. Heh, like they can even afford to set that up.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 03, 2011, 02:02:45 PM
It's good and it's bad.

It's good because Papandreou's use of the nuclear option sort-of forces the Greek opposition parties to finally cooperate with the government instead of spending all their energy demanding RAWR RAWR ELECTIONS. Elections are just a dodge in this case because the real question is what would have been asked in the referendum anyway: Do the Greek People want to take it in the facehole or the pooper?

It's bad because the Greek people may not take kindly to the loss of the Referendum and force the issue. Whether or not this is the case will probably become apparent in the next couple of weeks, or maybe even sooner.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on November 21, 2011, 07:41:34 AM
Supercommittee fails to reach an agreement, surprising absolutely no one.

GOP is working on an emergency bill to save military funding.

In an alternate universe where the Dems are competent, they are realizing that all their talking points are already written for them, by the Republicans.

In an even less plausible alternate universe, the Dems are realizing that talking points are completely unnecessary and all they have to do is tell the truth: that Republicans want to fund the military at the expense of Social Security because they refuse to raise taxes on the richest 1% of Americans by so much as a dime.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Friday on November 21, 2011, 09:10:22 AM
And in a slightly more plausible universe, the Dems are fighting for humanity against an alien tyrant named Kal-El
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on November 22, 2011, 06:45:16 AM
Obama seems to have finally figured out that the Bush tax cuts are the only arrow in his quiver, and oh hey they're set to expire right around the time these cuts go into effect.

So let's get the ol' crystal ball out here.  I'm going to totally go out on a limb and say that a year from now, most of the spending cuts will be thrown out and all of the Bush tax cuts will be extended.  Regardless of who's President.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on November 22, 2011, 07:21:03 AM
Haha, top headline on Google News right now is Fox News with "Obama Headed to New Hampshire to Push Payroll Tax".

I am sure that the word "cuts" just didn't fit in their character limit.



(EDIT: Fixed now; maybe it WAS just the linebreak in the middle of the title.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 08, 2011, 05:43:52 PM
Not sure where the conversation originally happened (it was a tangent from one of the gaming topics iirc) but now that I'm just coming back from Vegas I'm gonna have to update my theory as to what the hell happened to it.

The truth is, their business volume is FUCKING FINE.  There aren't less people coming in.  But walking around the Strip casinos made two things painfully clear:

1. Like I said before, each person coming in has significantly less money to lose than the casinos are counting on.  This is truer now that the low-rollers have become, well, bottom-rollers basically.  But more importantly:
2. The city itself, operating at maximum capacity, cannot push through enough customers to fund all these fucking new casinos.

There really is a finite number of flights that can arrive and depart from McCarren Airport on any given day, and there is a finite number of taxis that can gridlock up Las Vegas Boulevard.  There are fully twice the number of hotel/casinos crowding up the joint than when I left, and all of the new ones are massive billionaire-funded vanity projects.  Even when the city itself is full, the casino floors are empty - its customers spread out uncomfortably among the various types of expensive floorspace.   It hampers the vampiric moneysucking machine that fuels the city, since all the excitement of being among the crowd is lost (as is the pleasure of ducking out of said crowd into a private room), and more importantly it means that a lot of businesses are hemmorhaging a lot of cash on maintenance for complete junk.  And the worst part is, not a goddam one of them have done the only intelligent thing and scaled it the fuck down.  The glamour of Vegas seems to be more important than the goddam profitability of Vegas.

This is my issue with the American economy in general - it's not that the corporations have gotten greedy, it's that they've gotten fucking stupid.  When the major banks can no longer say "no" to loans they know they're going to lose their asses on, and major hotel owners no longer understand the most basic concept of cost versus return, then the economy is going to do a backflip into the shithole no matter how many smiles and puppydogs the ruling class hands out.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 14, 2011, 11:56:48 AM
CEO pay up 27-40% (http://boingboing.net/2011/12/14/good-news-ceo-pay-is-up.html) from 2009 to 2010.

STOP BURDENING THE JOB CREATORS!  IF YOU RAISE THEIR TAXES A FEW PERCENT THEY'LL HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO HIRE ANYBODY!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 14, 2011, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: https://mobile.twitter.com/pfeiffer44/status/146926829591212033
The House bill simply shortens the review process in a way that virtually guarantees that the pipeline will NOT be approved.

Uhhhh... really?

I mean, there are two possibilities here:

1. Dan is talking right the fuck out of his ass.
2. This really is the opinion and the belief of the Administration, in which case they're willing to go as far as to tie middle class tax cuts to the tracks in order to save the project.

Comments as far as that goes can go a million ways since the scope of he project is really hard to figure out from what information is publically available.  It almost looks like both parties are working for Big Oil, the GOP is being greedy/stupid about it, and the Dems are elbowing them under the desk and whispering "Stop you idiots!"
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 15, 2011, 09:04:07 AM
Census data: Half of U.S. poor or low income (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/)

Quote
The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.

There's some fucking grist for OWS.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 17, 2011, 01:10:46 AM
Looks like a compromise has been reached.  In return for buckling on milionaire taxes and the keystone XL pipeline, we get... looser restrictions on travel to Cuba.

And only a two month extension so we can bend over again faster.

At least we don't have to worry about the middle class paying more in taxes, because all that's going to be covered by slapping huge fees onto new mortgages.  You know, those things that are basically essential for upwards mobility among the non-elite.

How the hell do you negotiate a worse deal than what they offered in the first place?  It's actually a bigger shaft than just letting the cuts expire.  If Obama signs this then I will vote for fucking Santorum over him.

EDIT: Cuts to Pell Grants too, because if you're never going to be able to buy a house, you don't really need an education either.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on December 17, 2011, 11:06:46 PM
What, it took this for you to not want to vote for him? I gave up on Obama when he appropriated the right to drone-murder American citizens without judicial oversight.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 17, 2011, 11:08:44 PM
Well there's a whole spectrum between "not actually wanting to vote for him" and "thinking Mussolini would at least keep the trains running on time".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 19, 2011, 08:39:50 AM
Didn't pass the House.

I'll give the Tea Partiers one thing: they're on the same page I am regarding two-month Band-Aids.

The Democrats, of course, get exactly what they wanted: they get to go home for Christmas and blame the Republicans for raising taxes.

I don't have much of anything positive to say about any of this, but I'm inclined to agree with Brent that we're better off with a tax increase than the deal we would have gotten.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 21, 2011, 10:29:04 AM
BB: Complex Systems Institute claims "bear raid" market manipulation crashed the global economy (http://boingboing.net/2011/12/21/complex-systems-institute-clai.html)

Bit of an exaggeration inasmuch as Citi didn't precipitate the recession all by itself, but leaving aside the headline it's an interesting story of just one more risky investment strategy that contributed to the meltdown.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 21, 2011, 02:20:49 PM
It also appears to be yet another case of post-great-crash regulation, which was subsequantly repealed in the 90's or 00's to disastrous effect.

What do you want to bet that legistation was never restored?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 24, 2011, 11:50:44 AM
Reversing the norm of decades past, It appears Canadians are now richer on average than Americans (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/your-american-cousin-is-now-your-poorer-one/article2282595/)

Can't say as this is cause for gloating though.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 27, 2011, 09:14:19 AM
Holiday sales not good for Sears this year; they're closing 100-120 stores (http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/27/news/companies/sears_kmart_closings/).
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 27, 2011, 09:56:12 AM
Considering how badly Sears tried to fuck me over this year, I'm inclined to say that's their own damned fault.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 27, 2011, 11:59:33 AM
Yeah, but my response is about the same as to the disaster facing the traditional news media: a less diverse market is a bad thing even if I don't feel sympathy for the specific players who have gotten themselves into this mess, and I still feel bad for the thousands of people who aren't responsible but are losing their jobs anyway.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 29, 2011, 09:07:53 AM
What is Money and How Do You Destroy It? (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/12/28/what-is-money-and-how-do-you-destroy-it/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Feconomics%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Real+Time+Economics+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)

A very good basic primer on monetary policy and currency, courtesy of the WSJ. You may find it useful yourself, or to share with people.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 29, 2011, 09:32:10 AM
Good link.

The WSJ is, of course, a fucking great source for actual information about money and economics, even after the Murdoch buyout.  It's just the editorials where it's completely nuts.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 30, 2011, 09:01:41 AM
A good general history on the Euro's path to destruction. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/currencies/ten-years-after-the-euros-launch-how-could-it-have-gone-so-wrong/article2287088/page1/)

If you want the best "Idiot's guide to what went wrong with the Euro" history summation, this isn't it, but it's still a decent overview. The main bonus for this particular article is a wide range of direct interview material with former European leaders involved in the creation of the common market and the Euro, so there's some nice history in there.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 18, 2012, 08:48:28 AM
From a fellow I know in the UK

Quote
Quote
Thatcher state funeral to be privatised

Responsible department: Cabinet Office

In keeping with the great lady's legacy, Margaret Thatcher's state funeral should be funded and managed by the private sector to offer the best value and choice for end users and other stakeholders. The undersigned believe that the legacy of the former PM deserves nothing less and that offering this unique opportunity is an ideal way to cut government expense and further prove the merits of liberalised economics Baroness Thatcher spearheaded.
An amusingly satirical petition I found on the UK Government website.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on January 18, 2012, 09:03:01 AM
govt worker 1: "So how much did we make?"

govt worker 2: (shakes a coffee can) "We've got enough here to tie her up in a garbage bag and throw her in the Thames."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on January 18, 2012, 09:42:51 AM
The cleanup cost for the river afterwards would far exceed the savings on the funeral. Better to just encase her corpse in cement and dump it in a clean, dry tunnel under the earth.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 20, 2012, 09:21:14 PM
I think my fellow Brontos will appreciate it more than most that the phrase "Aggregate Demand" is returning as a popular economic buzzword.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 22, 2012, 10:55:49 AM
The governor of the Bank of Canada think the US economy may never fully recover (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-economy-may-never-fully-recover-carney/article2310768/)

Right or wrong (and Mark Carney is a bright guy who I like quite a bit), that's quite a statement.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on January 22, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
He's probably talking about the grossly overinflated bubble of the Bush years, which is fine.  If we DID recover to that state then it would just be another setup for a worldwide crapper drop.

Now, ask most of the REST of the country, and those years were our divine national mandate and Carney is committing some sort of blasphemy by saying that.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on January 22, 2012, 11:32:58 AM
Well, those or the Clinton years.  That's the beautiful thing about partisanship.

(On the whole I DO think the Clinton boom was more sustainable, but it relied too heavily on the dotcom bubble, on deregulation and other corporate asskissery that has since come 'round to bite us, and didn't do much to help people living under the poverty line.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on January 30, 2012, 10:38:26 AM
Krugman: The Austerity Debacle (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/opinion/krugman-the-austerity-debacle.html)

Quote
How could the economy thrive when unemployment was already high, and government policies were directly reducing employment even further? Confidence! “I firmly believe,” declared Jean-Claude Trichet — at the time the president of the European Central Bank, and a strong advocate of the doctrine of expansionary austerity — “that in the current circumstances confidence-inspiring policies will foster and not hamper economic recovery, because confidence is the key factor today.”

Such invocations of the confidence fairy were never plausible; researchers at the International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/ball.htm) and elsewhere quickly debunked the supposed evidence that spending cuts create jobs. Yet influential people on both sides of the Atlantic heaped praise on the prophets of austerity, Mr. Cameron in particular, because the doctrine of expansionary austerity dovetailed with their ideological agendas.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 30, 2012, 11:40:54 AM
In fairness to the pro-austerity crowd, the issue is deeperm, in that horrific overspending resulted in debt levels that were questionable before 2008 and horrible after the initial round of post-2008 stimulus.

In theory debt carry levels could have been pushed higher and overall debt loads would have been high, but still somewhat sustainable. But aggressive ratings-agency action has created a problem for everyone (At the end of the day, did anyone really think even the shakier European nations would realistically default? They were caught in a ratings spiral that really could have been avoided).

Which is not to say Krugman isn't right. An austerity death spiral will fuck up anyone. The real victim of the ideological nonsense is a sensible solution plan that would feature a substantial tax increases for higher earners as a centrepeice (and serious labour-market reform in Europe).
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on February 01, 2012, 08:54:16 AM
Probably the most important story of the week but I'm not seeing much coverage outside of NPR:

Quote from: http://www.propublica.org/article/freddy-mac-mortgage-eisinger-arnold
Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-owned mortgage giant, has placed multibillion-dollar bets that pay off if homeowners stay trapped in expensive mortgages with interest rates well above current rates.

Freddie began increasing these bets dramatically in late 2010, the same time that the company was making it harder for homeowners to get out of such high-interest mortgages.


(ALSO: this would be a case of NPR exposing embarrassing and potentially shady dealings at Freddy Mac.  Who are Republicans to side with when two of their favorite boogeymen are at odds?)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on February 01, 2012, 09:29:14 AM
I'm going to go with the entity they have stock in.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 12, 2012, 04:57:53 PM
Looks like Greece voted for the new austerity measures, nominally staying in the Euro and avoiding all-out default. For now.

At this point I'm not sure if anyone anywhere really has any idea if that's the best decision for them or not.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on February 13, 2012, 08:11:20 AM
I'm sure that future historians will say that they were careening towards something and will debate as to how they could have not seen the outcome from this juncture when all the signs were there.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 13, 2012, 09:20:12 AM
Shit, half the analysts are saying that NOW.

The main reason we're all playing the denial game is because oh shit Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc. Hell, France even. If Greece stays as the main show long enough, those countries have a sliver of a ghost of a hair of a chance to pull out enough to merely be in bad shape as opposed to trapped in the drain-circling nightmare the Greeks face.

Thing is, new federal elections in Greece are scheduled for April. And pretty well all the main parties are set to be destroyed and replaced by sharp leftist and rightist fringe or semi-fringe parties. So the next chapter is coming soon.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: JDigital on February 13, 2012, 02:51:52 PM
Whose fault is all this again?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 13, 2012, 03:08:05 PM
It's always all my fault.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on February 13, 2012, 03:42:43 PM
Don't know if I saw it here or elsewhere but Vanity Fair's got Michael Lewis's (Moneyball, The Big Short) most recent article up, this time on Greece and how Greece is insane.

I've only had time to read a little bit, but so far it's almost as hilarious as his Vanity Fair article on Iceland's financial meltdown a few years ago.*






*iirc he asks the interim minister of finance if he knows Bjork, and the minister replies that of course he does; everybody knows her and her mother and they have a reputation around Reykjavik (pop. 120,000) for being nuts.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 13, 2012, 03:52:31 PM
Can't find any new such article, but Michael Lewis did a previous Vanity Fair article on Greece in 2010 (It's agonizing to think how long this has already gone on) which is just as ridiculous, no doubt.

I think I've linked this before, but here it is again. (http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Pacobird on February 13, 2012, 04:37:22 PM
haha i'm a fucking moron
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on February 13, 2012, 06:00:11 PM
The funnier/more horrifying part is that the mistake is really easy to make.

Seeing as how anguished headlines like "HOW DID GREECE COME TO THE BRINK OF DEFAULT - WILL THEY BRING EUROPE DOWN TOO?" are, you know, still accurate.

It's not quite "UNREST IN THE MIDDLE EAST" levels of Onion yet, but they're working on it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 17, 2012, 04:44:43 AM
British Government to differentiate pay for Federal-level employees based on how bad their local neighbourhoods are doing economically (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17411117)

Basically, they're arguing that if you live in a shit region, they ought to have been able to hire you for less. While this is technically true of course, somehow I don't see people interpreting things that way. 

Also, does that photo of the Minister not want to make you just punch him in the face? Because it sure as hell does for me.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cait on March 17, 2012, 08:11:15 AM
The US already does that, though they couch it from the other angle. Federal pay grades get a 'locality adjustment' that's higher for areas that have higher costs of living, generally because they're better off.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Caithness on March 17, 2012, 10:16:00 AM
It makes a whole lot more sense to pay someone based on where they live than where they were hired, though.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 17, 2012, 10:19:14 AM
Well, it also makes a lot more sense to try and mitigate regional economic disparities rather than exacerbate them, but whatever.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on March 19, 2012, 07:33:00 AM
Technically "federal" is the wrong word (the UK doesn't have a federalist government), but I think you've got the right general idea.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 19, 2012, 07:52:56 AM
Yeah, I'm too used to using that word as interchangeable with "national" because it applies as such both here and the US.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on March 30, 2012, 09:50:26 AM
Yes, clearly Obama's policies have failed.  Americans barely have $100 million to dump on lottery tickets in a single day.

:/
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Sharkey on March 30, 2012, 10:25:32 AM
Yes, clearly Obama's policies have failed.  Americans barely have $100 million to dump on lottery tickets in a single day.

:/

The alternate interpretation is that people with shitty prospects and a shittier understanding of math are more likely to buy lottery tickets, so a lower number is probably better. Kind of like how check cashing places inside or right next to casinos aren't usually a sign of a thriving local economy. I mean, they bring in revenue, obviously, but it's a kind of economic ketosis.

Dude playing high stakes baccarat = Wow, you must be rich (and stupid.)
Dude buying a bunch of scratch tickets = Wow, you must be desperate (and stupid.)

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on March 30, 2012, 07:30:05 PM
When I'm at my most depressed and concerned about my finances, I start thinking about buying lottery tickets.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 30, 2012, 09:02:33 PM
I can't.

Because we probably lost at least $1 million, possibly even more than $2 million like that.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on March 31, 2012, 11:35:23 AM
The Canadian government is pulling the greatest April Fools joke yet: they're gonna eliminate the penny! (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-scrap-the-penny-this-year/article2386120/)

 :sofunny:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on April 09, 2012, 06:23:24 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577331660464739018.html?mod=WSJ_GoogleNews&mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577331660464739018.html?mod=WSJ_GoogleNews&mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1)

WSJ reports that big U.S. companies have emerged from the deepest recession since World War II more productive, more profitable, flush with cash and less burdened by debt.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on April 09, 2012, 06:53:15 PM
Marx at 193 (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n07/john-lanchester/marx-at-193)

"Here's a terrific piece by John Lanchester on what Karl Marx got right, what he got wrong, and what he managed to get right even by being wrong."

It's pretty neat!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on April 09, 2012, 07:17:43 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577331660464739018.html?mod=WSJ_GoogleNews&mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577331660464739018.html?mod=WSJ_GoogleNews&mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1)

WSJ reports that big U.S. companies have emerged from the deepest recession since World War II more productive, more profitable, flush with cash and less burdened by debt.

Now there's some grist for the Democrats.  Not the way you would initially think - as a means to stir up the rabble who are eating shit while these guys are sitting on their golden thrones - but to garner support from the people who really matter in an election, i.e. the people with money.

"Hey you guys, remember how deregulation dumped all of you down into the shitter?  And now because of Obama's Failed Policies, you're suddenly making money hand over fist?  Just.  Fucking.  Sayin'."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on April 10, 2012, 06:43:29 AM
Well, from a business growth perspective regulation is usually a good thing in the long term. Wall street is mostly pissed that their get-rich-quick-at-the-expense-of-the-company schemes are under scrutiny now. So it's more, "Yeah, I know our business is doing fine, but I had only 100 million dollars banked right now and I hould have 400 million."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on April 10, 2012, 07:11:53 AM
Hey guys, if you want to watch the world burn, just go read page 1 of this thread. It's like a time capsule of the exact time period our economy blew up.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on April 10, 2012, 07:18:18 AM
If nothing else, Kazz's first post in the thread managed to be eeirily prescient.

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on April 10, 2012, 09:49:53 AM
All right, well, I've got no car, no health care, and am shacked up in temporary lodgings that I'm screaming to get out of.  You'll excuse me if I don't share your enthusiasm to further fuck up my situation in order to inconvenience some slimy rich guys.

There's a damned good reason why I don't buy this "last four years of failed policies" bullshit.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on April 10, 2012, 10:20:00 AM
Oh, wait (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20080410&id=8470682)
Meanwhile, buried on page 83... (http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080729.woilprices0729/BNStory/Business/home?cid=al_gam_mostview)
Interesting footnote? (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080930.wbloomberg01/BNStory/International/home)
Subtle update on the above. (http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081012.wrbanksautos13/BNStory/Business/home?cid=al_gam_mostview)

Note the lines towards the bottom of the article.

Sure wish I knew what the fuck those guys were talking about.



But the biggest change since 2008:

I love Dodd.

ALSO:

Tangentially: awhile back, Brad and I were on the beer aisle at Safeway, and an enthusiastic young employee engaged us in conversation.  He pointed out the "per ounce" fine print on the price tags and tried to explain how that's useful for knowing what you're really paying.  I responded that that's great for produce but is completely irrelevant when you're buying a product that, uniformly, comes in 6- or 12-packs of 12-ounce bottles.  He didn't seem to follow.

I just told this story two days ago.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on April 20, 2012, 06:28:20 AM
http://www.yourbofa.com/lessons-learned (http://www.yourbofa.com/lessons-learned)

I don't know if this site is a parody or what. If it is, better get your bleak laughs in now, before they get a takedown notice.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on April 28, 2012, 03:49:37 PM
A very interesting, if all-too-brief point/counterpoint regarding CEO pay in other countries:

1) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/ceo_pay_in_japan.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/ceo_pay_in_japan.html)

2) http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/executive-compensation-by-any-other-name/59209/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/executive-compensation-by-any-other-name/59209/)

Each article also links each other.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on May 15, 2012, 05:25:41 AM
I don't know if you guys have heard about this JP Morgan thing (http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/14/news/economy/jp-morgan-congress/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2) but what are the odds it ends with a no strings attached bailout?

::(:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 15, 2012, 06:23:08 AM
Not high. Bailouts are kind of politically toxic right now, bank bailouts doubly so.

Much more importantly, that isn't really a devastating loss for a bank that size. It hurts, sure, and they *may* actually have to do something beyond just writing it off and adding the loss to the quarterly reports, but it's still not all that large a sum in a big bank's scheme of things.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on June 01, 2012, 05:08:16 PM
http://www.myfinances.co.uk/investments/2012/05/17/can-a-monkey-with-a-pin-outperform-investment-experts (http://www.myfinances.co.uk/investments/2012/05/17/can-a-monkey-with-a-pin-outperform-investment-experts)

I know it's probably junk science, but I can't say no to a monkey.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on June 01, 2012, 08:02:02 PM
I had a math teacher who used to refer to true/false questions as "Beat the Monkey questions".  (He was British.  Presumably "beat the monkey" does not mean the same thing over there.)

The reason was that, in one of his early courses, his class averaged below 50% on a T/F test, and the rest of the math professors razzed him for it, on the grounds that a monkey picking random answers should be able to get better than 50%, and therefore he was actually making his students WORSE at math.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on June 01, 2012, 09:07:12 PM
I had a math teacher who used to refer to true/false questions as "Beat the Monkey questions".  (He was British.  Presumably "beat the monkey" does not mean the same thing over there.)

Peter Gabriel - Shock The Monkey (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OrBhx0wb6k#ws)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on June 19, 2012, 01:31:49 PM
Forbes: The Real Job Creators: Consumers (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/06/17/job-creators/)

Quote
But even if we grant the argument that business taxes and regulations are high (which is by no means clear–in fact, it’s easier to make a case for the opposite), this ignores two crucial facts. First, as my friend Mike Norman has pointed out, employees are a cost, usually the most significant one faced by firms (Mike Norman Economics (http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/)). For that reason, every rational entrepreneur’s goal is to reduce, not increase, the number of workers they have to pay. And quite right. Entrepreneurs have families, too, and they need to feed and clothe them. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

Second and more fundamentally, no matter how much you lower costs, if you don’t have more customers, you won’t hire more workers. If the demand for goods and services stays where it is today and we only cut industry taxes and regulations, there is absolutely no reason to think that firms would expand employment. Rather, they would continue to produce at the same level and simply earn higher profits. On the other hand, if we leave taxes and regulations untouched but increase demand, entrepreneurs will happily add workers. And that is the root of the problem today. The bottom line, lost on Mr. Romney and many others, is that the real job creators are consumers. The direct route to reducing unemployment is boosting demand, not reducing costs.

And this, it bears repeating, is Forbes.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on June 19, 2012, 01:45:55 PM
The tide is slowly turning on the rich as job creators mantra. Mostly because, well, average Americans are seeing a lot of really rich people and hardly any jobs. The easiest way to do this, of course, would be to put a salary cap and increase the minimum wage. The easiest way, however, has been sacked.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on June 19, 2012, 01:57:38 PM
You can't do that. THAT'S COMMUNISM!!!1
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: NexAdruin on June 19, 2012, 04:43:55 PM
Forbes: The Real Job Creators: Consumers (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/06/17/job-creators/)

Quote
But even if we grant the argument that business taxes and regulations are high (which is by no means clear–in fact, it’s easier to make a case for the opposite), this ignores two crucial facts. First, as my friend Mike Norman has pointed out, employees are a cost, usually the most significant one faced by firms (Mike Norman Economics (http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/)). For that reason, every rational entrepreneur’s goal is to reduce, not increase, the number of workers they have to pay. And quite right. Entrepreneurs have families, too, and they need to feed and clothe them. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

Second and more fundamentally, no matter how much you lower costs, if you don’t have more customers, you won’t hire more workers. If the demand for goods and services stays where it is today and we only cut industry taxes and regulations, there is absolutely no reason to think that firms would expand employment. Rather, they would continue to produce at the same level and simply earn higher profits. On the other hand, if we leave taxes and regulations untouched but increase demand, entrepreneurs will happily add workers. And that is the root of the problem today. The bottom line, lost on Mr. Romney and many others, is that the real job creators are consumers. The direct route to reducing unemployment is boosting demand, not reducing costs.

And this, it bears repeating, is Forbes.

The flip side of this that I tend to hear from a rich person I know is that less money taxed means more money to be invested back into the company, which can mean expansion and therefor there would be more jobs. I agree with what that article is saying but that is the argument I hear for "there is no reason to think that firms would expand employment."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on June 19, 2012, 04:52:06 PM
If there is no increased demand, then the firm will not expand employment no matter how much money is invested in it.  Why would it?  It's already meeting demand.

The concept of an infinitely expanding entity in a vacuum needs to die a definitive death.  This boiling pot economy, based on constantly expanding and bursting bubbles, is not benefitting anyone, including and ironically especially the super-rich.  They're in a position where their money is worth less every day in real terms and accruing more money will make absolutely no difference.

Like I keep saying, the current problem isn't that the rich are greedy, it's that they're greedy and incompetent.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: TA on June 19, 2012, 05:16:36 PM
Forbes: The Real Job Creators: Consumers (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/06/17/job-creators/)

Quote
But even if we grant the argument that business taxes and regulations are high (which is by no means clear–in fact, it’s easier to make a case for the opposite), this ignores two crucial facts. First, as my friend Mike Norman has pointed out, employees are a cost, usually the most significant one faced by firms (Mike Norman Economics (http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/)). For that reason, every rational entrepreneur’s goal is to reduce, not increase, the number of workers they have to pay. And quite right. Entrepreneurs have families, too, and they need to feed and clothe them. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

Second and more fundamentally, no matter how much you lower costs, if you don’t have more customers, you won’t hire more workers. If the demand for goods and services stays where it is today and we only cut industry taxes and regulations, there is absolutely no reason to think that firms would expand employment. Rather, they would continue to produce at the same level and simply earn higher profits. On the other hand, if we leave taxes and regulations untouched but increase demand, entrepreneurs will happily add workers. And that is the root of the problem today. The bottom line, lost on Mr. Romney and many others, is that the real job creators are consumers. The direct route to reducing unemployment is boosting demand, not reducing costs.

And this, it bears repeating, is Forbes.

The flip side of this that I tend to hear from a rich person I know is that less money taxed means more money to be invested back into the company, which can mean expansion and therefor there would be more jobs. I agree with what that article is saying but that is the argument I hear for "there is no reason to think that firms would expand employment."

"You've been saying that for thirty years, and every time we listen to you, the evidence is that they don't expand employment.  That, instead, the rich just keep the extra money."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on June 19, 2012, 05:26:54 PM
Forbes: The Real Job Creators: Consumers (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/06/17/job-creators/)

Quote
But even if we grant the argument that business taxes and regulations are high (which is by no means clear–in fact, it’s easier to make a case for the opposite), this ignores two crucial facts. First, as my friend Mike Norman has pointed out, employees are a cost, usually the most significant one faced by firms (Mike Norman Economics (http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/)). For that reason, every rational entrepreneur’s goal is to reduce, not increase, the number of workers they have to pay. And quite right. Entrepreneurs have families, too, and they need to feed and clothe them. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

Second and more fundamentally, no matter how much you lower costs, if you don’t have more customers, you won’t hire more workers. If the demand for goods and services stays where it is today and we only cut industry taxes and regulations, there is absolutely no reason to think that firms would expand employment. Rather, they would continue to produce at the same level and simply earn higher profits. On the other hand, if we leave taxes and regulations untouched but increase demand, entrepreneurs will happily add workers. And that is the root of the problem today. The bottom line, lost on Mr. Romney and many others, is that the real job creators are consumers. The direct route to reducing unemployment is boosting demand, not reducing costs.

And this, it bears repeating, is Forbes.

The flip side of this that I tend to hear from a rich person I know is that less money taxed means more money to be invested back into the company, which can mean expansion and therefor there would be more jobs. I agree with what that article is saying but that is the argument I hear for "there is no reason to think that firms would expand employment."

There is close to 0 incentive for the massively rich to invest in hiring employees and keeping their existing employees at the current tax rate. Long term the difference between investing back in the company and pocketing the money is so miniscule and short term it's so much better to just pocket the money. Look at the banking crisis - a thousand+ investment bankers all making the decision that sinking their businesses is worth it if they can pocket tens of millions of dollars upfront. They'd make more money in the long term if they made better decisions, but why wait for a ten or twenty year payoff to be the next warren buffet if you couldn't spend 200 million dollars if you tried anyway?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on June 19, 2012, 08:39:12 PM
Money IS re-invested into to companies, but that's often in ways that bring down production costs, or improves productivity. The latter (and sometimes the former) of which generally leads to layoffs sooner or later.

True, funding for expansion does result in larger companies, but fast expansion is usually just leveraged (i.e. funded through debt) anyway. And also usually means you're cutting someone else's market share, causing layoffs elsewhere (which is not to say companies shouldn't try to compete).
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 05, 2012, 03:10:02 PM
A really nice editorial on the the way the unemployment debate has been sidelined, with a bit of a take on false centrism and some of the more hidden forms of polarization. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/affluent-moderates-ignoring-the-pain-of-joblessness/article4393071/)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 05, 2012, 04:28:47 PM
So... Specific Social Group statistically more likely to pay attention to issues that affect Specific Social Group.  Am I misreading this?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 05, 2012, 08:02:34 PM
More that he's calling out a specific social group which is not usually recognized as a specific social group for pretending it's not a specific social group.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 05, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
Uh, are you sure?  Pretty much all they're about is being separate and distinct from those other jerkweeds.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 05, 2012, 08:23:44 PM
Uh, are you sure?  Pretty much all they're about is being separate and distinct from those other jerkweeds.

Kind of. The kind who host Ted talks or whatever maybe, but not so much the ones in kitchens or living rooms (though the distinction breaks down the higher up you get in what's left of the upper middle class). 

I think that it's still useful to point it out, because a lot of people are still thinking in terms of rich versus poor and right versus left instead of the balkanized clusterfuck we really have. Most people hear "polarization" and they think of two poles. "Polarization" is correct but the big mistake being made is thinking there are only two.

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on July 05, 2012, 08:28:05 PM
To be fair, you're discussing a group that tends to identify more with people who make 1000 times more than them rather than the people who only make 1/10 of what they do.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 05, 2012, 09:49:19 PM
One of the biggest successes of the current wealthy (maybe not quite the 1%... let's say the 2% or even 3%) is that barring the usual deranged celebrity whores, they don't seem to have lifestyles vastly in excess of the middle class.

They DO have vastly different lifestyles, but you have to get up close to see a lot of the differences. Both groups have houses, cars, vacations, pensions, kids, health care, (probably) no servants, etc. But the quality of those things for the two groups is vastly different. Like say if you compare the furniture owned by a middle manager versus a C[letter]O or a specialist doctor. The kinds of guys with mid-to-high six-figure incomes.

The middle-manager will have used credit to buy a serviceable couch and a glass-topped coffee-table. The executive will have paid cash for a fifteen grand couch that outwardly looks just a little nicer and has done a dozen lines of coke on his coffee table. Both people will be sending their kids to school, but while the middle manager can get his kids into State U by cutting back elsewhere, the rich guy bankrolls his kid to go to Cornell or Princeton wherever. The house of the rich guy will be a fair bit nicer and in a nicer neighbourhood, but not dramatically so. But the richer dude's house will be better-built, better decorated and probably all paid off. He may also own vacation property.

The real difference when you get down to it is that the rich guy is so much more secure than the middle class guy. If the middle class guy is fired, he falls off the debt-payment treadmill and quickly spirals down the crapper. If the rich guy is laid off, he's got reserves, he's got better connections, and his shit's paid off so he's got way fewer fixed costs dragging him down. And the rich guy is way more likely to have an ace pension and a non-zero amount of cash in the bank.

Now the super-super-rich is another story. They clearly live in ludicrous mansions with servants and all the rest. They're smart as well, having purchased the most valuable commodity of all in the modern world: privacy. But that is a small number of people. Though they have a disproportionate impact on the political system through their wealth, it's the "regular" rich guys who are having a larger effect on politics and a way larger social footprint in most communities.

:tldr: Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that what's left of the middle class identifies more with the rich. The poor have sweet fuck all, whereas the middle class manages to use credit, cheap goods, and denial to get about 80% of what the average rich guy has. Superficially anyway.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on July 06, 2012, 06:38:35 AM
I think I read somewhere that most people identify as being better than they are, i.e. the poor see themselves as working-class, the working-class see themselves as middle-class, etc.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: JDigital on July 06, 2012, 03:46:19 PM
America has a class below working-class?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 06, 2012, 04:36:46 PM
Sure. "'Muricans".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Dooly on July 07, 2012, 07:49:31 PM
Morans?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 12, 2012, 09:57:39 AM
Wells Fargo chooses to settle on allegations that it dumped minorities into unnecessary subprime loans. (http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/12/real_estate/wells-fargo-lending-settlement/index.htm)

So, uh... how hard is it to refinance with another lender?


(THAD EDIT: Fixed missing bracket.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on July 12, 2012, 11:23:47 AM
Morans?


:| we are a noble and prestigious family. There is a moran with a car dealership or a weatherman position or night time newscaster position in every city in America.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 12, 2012, 12:58:23 PM
You can't fool us. You're all descended from Colonel Sebastian.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 22, 2012, 10:30:15 AM
So, you know that question everybody asks? "Where did all the money go?"

Well, a new study estimates that the super-rich are hiding as much as $32 Trillion in offshore tax havens (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/super-rich-hiding-up-to-32-trillion-in-offshore-tax-havens-study/article4434057/)

Sweet mother of pearl, they've gone and put a number on it.

-----------

Alllllssooooooo, is anyone else following the LIBOR scandal?  (Here's a recent update, including a hilarious Goldman Sachs quote (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/banking-suffers-another-blow-as-scandals-pile-up/article4431780/))

The substance of the scandal doesn't really matter so much as it's scale and depth. We're talking about one of the fundamental underpinnings of modern global capitalism here. It's bad enough that some international bankers and economists are considering the possibility that they might not actually have any way of fixing the problem.

Both of these stories seem moving towards a place progressives have been hoping to get to, but which they have totally failed to reach on their own: A world where the default assumption is that anybody with any large amount of money is always up to no good.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on July 22, 2012, 10:38:39 AM
Quote
So, you know that question everybody asks? "Where did all the money go?"

Well, a new study estimates that the super-rich are hiding as much as $32 Trillion in offshore tax havens


I'd like to see the right deflect tax haven criticisms now. This is absolutely outrageous.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: NexAdruin on July 22, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
Quote
So, you know that question everybody asks? "Where did all the money go?"

Well, a new study estimates that the super-rich are hiding as much as $32 Trillion in offshore tax havens


I'd like to see the right deflect tax haven criticisms now. This is absolutely outrageous.


This will either go ignored or they'll say the integrity of the study was flawed and then it will go ignored. Never underestimate the power of denial.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on July 22, 2012, 12:05:29 PM
The substance of the scandal doesn't really matter so much as it's scale and depth. We're talking about one of the fundamental underpinnings of modern global capitalism here. It's bad enough that some international bankers and economists are considering the possibility that they might not actually have any way of fixing the problem.

I love Stewart's juxtaposition of all the "too many stifling regulations" yammering with the LIBOR story.

I also love Issa grilling Bernanke on why he didn't do more to stop it.

You know, the Federal Reserve Chairman.  The guy in charge of an organization the right believes should not exist.  Is not doing enough to enforce regulations that do not actually exist because the right hates regulations.  For a scandal that is centered in London.

I mean, don't get me wrong.  Bernanke could probably have made more noise about it than he did.  But the Republicans are the last people in the fucking world who have any standing to complain about how he failed to stop the sort of shit that happens when you do what Republicans say you should do.

I'd like to see the right deflect tax haven criticisms now.

"The President wants to punish SUCCESS!"
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on July 24, 2012, 04:02:50 PM
So-called 'Job Bills' don't actually create jobs! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/republican-jobs-bills_n_1687647.html?1343129695)

 :slow:, I know, but this article is backed up by actual factual economists.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: NexAdruin on July 24, 2012, 04:08:54 PM
I'm stuck at the part where somebody said that Obama's policies weren't working and then he said that 30 GOP laws were the answer.

If there are no results, then those 30 jobs bills aren't working. That's isn't Obama that's just those laws failing.

Edit: oh okay the 30 laws haven't passed congress just the house.
Quote
At the heart of the GOP jobs package is a push for rolling back regulations -- and gutting environmental laws that regulate clean air and water -- to spur job growth. The House Republican Conference website makes the argument that deregulation will "remove onerous federal regulations that are redundant, harmful to small businesses, and impede private sector investment and job creation."

But economists told The Huffington Post that regulation has had a minimal impact on the unemployment rate. Their claim is backed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows that just under 16,000 jobs, or 0.4 percent, were lost because of "government regulations/intervention."

"It's just hard to believe that the paperwork requirements to starting a business represent a major impediment to starting businesses right now," Burtless said. "That's not why we had lots more business creation in the late '90s."

This was interesting to me because this is the argument I hear from rich people the most.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 24, 2012, 05:45:17 PM
They don't not work, they just specifically don't work for the next 4 years.  It's telling that the GOP establishment is so sure that this course of action totally won't backfire on them.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on August 05, 2012, 08:13:03 AM
NOW I fucking remember why I stopped reading CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/02/news/economy/romney-jobs/)

CNN's admission in this article that Romney's job plan is details light and unlikely is there, but so slight as to hardly be present. What the fuck is Romney's plan? How is 12 million jobs created a 'conservative' estimate of anything with a tax plan that is literally 'CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND CUT TAXES'? Didn't we have eight years of sagging job growth under Bush to prove that that doesn't fucking work?

 :rage: :rage: :rage: :rage: :rage:

edit: FUCK, HOW IS THIS EVEN NEWS

WHY ISN'T THERE A 'PAID FOR BY THE COMITEE TO ELECT MITT ROMNEY' AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE

WHY

WHY

WHY
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 30, 2012, 09:14:06 AM
Even Forbes thinks we've pretty much learned nothing since 2008 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/08/29/what-have-we-learned-from-lehmans-failure/)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 30, 2012, 12:13:41 PM
Found a great little economics blog offered through the financial times called 'Alphaville'. There are patches of dense economics-ese, but most of it is very easy to follow.

Some great sample entries:

The march towards urbanization in China, or: Why urbanization in China won't necessarily increase Chinese prosperity (http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/08/30/1127791/the-rapid-march-towards-urbanisation/)

Ahhh No Robots! Or, why we may be in for a huge and permanent drop in economic growth rates (http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/08/28/1134571/ahhhh-no-robots/)

The law of unintended consequences; why Quantitative Easing may in fact lead to deflation rather than inflation (http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/08/29/1136621/the-unintended-consequences-of-qe-not-what-you-think/) (this one's a little harder to follow than the rest, but is still quite readable)

The comments aren't terrible either. Now there'a bonus you don't get too often!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on September 21, 2012, 04:24:07 PM
There is a slim possibility that Ukraine will damage or even collapse the current global network of tariff agreements (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/ukraine-trade-demand-shocks-global-partners/article4559774/)

I don't know why they can't just throw Ukraine out of the WTO if they decide to break the rules that hard, but the article doesn't have any comments to that effect, so I dunno!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on September 24, 2012, 07:21:12 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/09/18/new-study-long-term-unemployment-viewed-by-hiring-companies-as-worse-than-a-criminal-record/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/09/18/new-study-long-term-unemployment-viewed-by-hiring-companies-as-worse-than-a-criminal-record/)

Ugh.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on September 24, 2012, 08:17:29 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/09/18/new-study-long-term-unemployment-viewed-by-hiring-companies-as-worse-than-a-criminal-record/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/09/18/new-study-long-term-unemployment-viewed-by-hiring-companies-as-worse-than-a-criminal-record/)

Ugh.

A couple of years ago I applied for a job with Dish network at one of their local call centers. I thought the interview went ok, but never got a call back. Did get a rejection letter, a couple of weeks later. Along with the rejection letter, I also got a notice saying that a credit report had been pulled by Dish.

I got turned down for a job because I had bad credit. ::(:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 07, 2012, 09:40:09 AM
So yeah, if you're living in California right now you're probably extremely aware of how screwed up the entire local economy can get in the blink of an eye when someone trips over a power cable in an oil refinery.

It's pretty nuts to see stuff like this happen and realize how explosively volatile our country's dependency on oil really is.  We're probably one major fire away from a complete crapper drop.  And of course meanwhile, our leaders seem more opposed than ever to the idea of just moving the fuck off the stuff.  That's not going to be missed if a crapper drop really does happen.  You keep asking what the trigger for an uprising would look like, but just think: what has driven every OTHER conflict in this country since the Berlin Wall came down?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 07, 2012, 10:42:52 AM
So yeah, if you're living in California right now you're probably extremely aware of how screwed up the entire local economy can get in the blink of an eye when someone trips over a power cable in an oil refinery.

Yeah, it's even a nickel up over here.

It's pretty nuts to see stuff like this happen and realize how explosively volatile our country's dependency on oil really is.  We're probably one major fire away from a complete crapper drop.  And of course meanwhile, our leaders seem more opposed than ever to the idea of just moving the fuck off the stuff.  That's not going to be missed if a crapper drop really does happen.  You keep asking what the trigger for an uprising would look like, but just think: what has driven every OTHER conflict in this country since the Berlin Wall came down?

Guess we'll see.  The Gulf spill seemed pretty fucking catastrophic to me, but the Republicans were back to screaming about offshore drilling within the year.  People have short memories and politicians are pretty damn good at finding something else to blame when a catastrophe DOES happen.

Put it this way: Bush got a second term based largely on his "tough on terror" reputation.  After 9/11 happened on his watch.  And running against a recipient of three Purple Hearts.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 07, 2012, 11:01:29 AM
Yeah, it's even a nickel up over here.

...
:fuckyou:

Quote
Guess we'll see.  The Gulf spill seemed pretty fucking catastrophic to me, but the Republicans were back to screaming about offshore drilling within the year.

Outside of the local fishing industry it didn't seem to hit people in the pocketbook very much on a national level.  People were outraged but it was a sort of slacktivist outrage.

If you want people to get off their asses about something, you have to convince them that it's costing them money somehow.  That's just how it's always been throughout history.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on October 07, 2012, 11:10:47 AM
But the biggest jump in oil prices happened when Libya erupted into civil war (despite the fact that Libya only controls 2% of the world's oil supply), and that didn't make people give a fuck about Libya.

Pretty sure everybody's basically forgotten about what happened there just a few weeks ago, at this point.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ted Belmont on October 07, 2012, 11:32:12 AM
Everybody except for right-wing columnists looking for a way to demonize Sesame Street (http://gawker.com/5949663/national-review-column-links-sesame-street-to-benghazi), anyway.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: NexAdruin on October 07, 2012, 11:55:37 AM
If gas prices go up during Obama's term it's because Obama hates you and your car and waved his magic wand to make the oil prices go up. What the fuck is a libya?

Edit: I just looked up the word libya and you guys are sick also it's spelled labia and I'd appreciate it if you didn't say this stuff around my children.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on October 07, 2012, 12:04:42 PM
Clearly you've forgotten what happened in your libya just a few weeks ago.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on October 07, 2012, 07:43:57 PM
There's already too much sand there.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 15, 2012, 08:40:12 AM
Excellent NYT article on the tendency of the 1% to cannibalism of their own kind (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/the-self-destruction-of-the-1-percent.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=general&src=me), with reference to an upcoming book on the subject that sounds worth the read.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Caithness on October 16, 2012, 11:47:01 AM
The article is titled "The Self-Destruction of The 1%", but it's really not just themselves that they're destroying. It's everyone.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on November 16, 2012, 10:20:37 AM
Hostess is going out of business. (http://www.wishtv.com/dpps/entertainment/dining/hostess-is-going-out-of-business-nd12-jgr_4984147)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on November 16, 2012, 10:39:09 AM
Huh, I was waiting for the owners to pussy out on their liquidation threat.  Good on both sides for sticking to their guns.

This may look like a strike failure at first blush, but it sends a message out to the corporations that really needed to be said for a long time: We're not all so desperate to do your work for you that we'll do it for less than a fair compensation.

Of course this also means we're pretty much fucked the next time Dr. Doom gets his hands on the Cosmic Cube.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on November 16, 2012, 10:51:53 AM
Just bought a Hostess cinammon roll from the vending machine.

It's like eating a fresh corpse.  :want:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on November 16, 2012, 11:17:33 AM
I'm honestly a little miffed at the Baker's union for creating a new weapon to use against labor unions in the future. This isn't going to make unions any more favorable in the eyes of the public, which is going to enable legislators to erode more and more of the rights that employees have to form them and leverage their control.

They also managed to effectively screw the other 70% of the company that was dependent on Hostess for employment, not to mention that the pensions - the entire reason they went on strike in the first place - are now gone for everybody. It's just not a winning equation. It sends a message to businesses that unions have the power to drive them out of business, but in the capitalist friendly government of today and the easily manipulated voting public, I don't see this doing any good for the average union member. Instead, it's going to intensify lobbying by businesses who are trying to outlaw the union once and for all.

If anything, it's just going to encourage people to not sign on with the unions in R2W states, further defanging union workforces. This is a loss across the board for workers, and the executives at Hostess are going to get to just pocket everything. don't have to pay out pensions, don't have to worry about sagging profits, but they sure as fuck are going to make a fortune out of selling off their brands.

And now, the next plant that makes Twinkies is probably going to be doing it at a minimum wage factory in the right to work heartland. ::(:

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on November 16, 2012, 09:32:51 PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/snack-giant-hostess-shuttering-us-business-but-canada-unaffected/article5365001/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/snack-giant-hostess-shuttering-us-business-but-canada-unaffected/article5365001/)

HA
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Niku on November 17, 2012, 04:47:04 AM
Well yeah, we've always known that Twinkies would survive in an apocalyptic wasteland.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: DestyNova on November 17, 2012, 07:44:59 PM
Just bought a Hostess cinammon roll from the vending machine.

It's like eating a fresh corpse.  :want:

Shit son, don't you know you have to hang them out in the air for proper curing? *thumps cane*
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Shinra on November 19, 2012, 11:34:55 PM
In predictable news, even as the SS Hostess Snackcakes sinks below the cold november waves, they are asking their bankruptcy court judge to approve paying out bonuses to their executives.

You know, the executives that presided over the company going bankrupt and being forced to liquidate. Because they couldn't afford to pay their workers a fair wage.

:whoops:

Hurray for our corporate culture.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on November 20, 2012, 11:43:22 AM
Hopefully people can stay on THAT as the narrative -- I don't think the public at large has forgotten about the huge bank bonuses after the financial meltdown.

Salon (http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/vulture_capitalism_not_unions_killed_twinkies/) has more -- CEO bonuses are part of it, and so is the simple fact that people don't want to eat WonderBread anymore.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on November 20, 2012, 12:49:03 PM
It's also important to emphasize the reason the Hostess bakers didn't want to accept management's deal is because these were people making $50k a year in 2000, and the court-approved offer they were given would have stripped them of all benefits and reduced their pay to $11.25 an hour by 2017.

Management was saying "Give us riches while sliding into poverty"


Also, I think the fact that Salon labels it "Vulture Capitalism" is a bit misleading. The "Shareholders and Management take all the profits while depressing wages" is pretty much how EVERY company works. The same story played out in Circuit City, GM, and really about any company that has "Grow the capital of investors at all other expense happy" as it's main driving line. Which is really every company, just in a competitive environment someone has to end up on top.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on November 20, 2012, 01:50:03 PM
I think the term refers specifically to the "swoop in on a struggling entity, pick off the valuable bits, and let the rest die" behavior, not general day-to-day Pullmanship.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cait on November 21, 2012, 02:25:13 AM
Right. 'Vulture capitalism' is a term meant to resound and contrast with 'venture capitalism' and generally specifically refers to the acquisition of a company purely to gut it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Catloaf on December 05, 2012, 10:50:23 AM
I was listening to the Diane Rehm show on NPR this morning and I couldn't help but get seriously pissed off at one of the guests, I can't remember the dumbfuck's name but he's an economist (and I really want to put quotation marks around that word) for the WSJ.

Note: the remainder of this post was written with the voice of my internal monologue as Lewis Black's.

He was arguing against food stamps and saying that ideally they should be eliminated, and that they should at least have a work requirement tied to them.  Again, that's a work requirement to receive aid in buying food that one can't afford otherwise. But then he goes on to say outright that he didn't understand, and even attempted to implicitly deny the fact the food stamps are good for the economy with a $1.7 return for every $1 spent.

It's simple; if you give someone without money for food money for food that can only be spent on food with a time limit on it, they will buy food with it.  Which means it's stimulating the economy!  Money is being spent that otherwise wouldn't be!

If you clearly don't know what an economy even fucking is, you don't have a fucking right to preach about what to do about it!
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on December 17, 2012, 08:52:46 AM
Quote from: http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_wally_government/
I'm impressed by the trigger that Congress included in the Budget Control Act in 2011. The idea is that if Congress can't agree on a better way to balance the budget by year end, automatic and painful spending cuts and tax increases will go into effect. The hope was that members of Congress would act responsibly if there was a gun to the head of total strangers that they don't give a shit about.

[...]

There's a Wally-esque genius to this budget trigger concept. It actually solves Congress' biggest problem, namely that doing anything that is balanced and appropriate for the country renders a politician unelectable. Republicans can't vote for tax increases and get reelected while Democrats can't cut social services and keep their jobs. But don't cry for Congress because this isn't the sort of problem that can thwart a building full of lawyers. They put their snouts together and cleverly invented a concept - called a trigger - to take the blame for them. This way, both sides can screw their supporters while still blaming the other side. No one has to take responsibility for anything.

I find this whole fiscal cliff slash budget trigger idea to be much easier to wrap my brain around when it is put in context as the logical consequence of actions taken by lazy cowards.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 17, 2012, 10:54:21 AM
Yep -- score one for Scott Adams, who as it turns out is still fairly insightful as long as he sticks to the subject of organizational incompetence.

It gets easier when you realize you can frame every single thing the US government does as "the logical consequence of actions taken by lazy cowards".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 17, 2012, 09:24:45 PM
Except it didn't work right and one party is going to get pretty much all the blame for it.  Oops.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on December 17, 2012, 09:32:43 PM
"Pretty much all the blame" is a bit of an exaggeration.  A clear majority of the blame, but not all of it by any measure.

If the election had gone the other way then public opinion would be going the other way.  (Or vice-versa.)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on January 01, 2013, 01:50:44 PM
Ezra Klein (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/01/wonkbook-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fiscal-cliff-deal/) has a bulleted list of the deal.  As you might expect, it's mixed, but the worst stuff has been...well, delayed.

Taxes on single earners above $400K and couples over $450K are back to Clinton levels; earners under $400K are permanently at Bush levels.  Capital gains is fixed permanently at sub-Clinton levels.  Payroll tax holiday expires.

Sequestration is pushed back two fucking months, so we get to go through this same damn song and dance then.  And then again the next time the debt ceiling comes up.

Assuming this even passes the House, which obviously is not guaranteed.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 01, 2013, 04:06:27 PM
Annnnnd.... looks like the House Repiblicans are chucking it. Hoo boy, here we go.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 01, 2013, 08:16:43 PM
Oh hey, the Republicans blinked after all, passing the bill as it came down from the Senate. That was a quick 180.

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 04, 2013, 11:45:46 AM
It's an incredibly crude oversimplification, but even so, I think this is a useful diagram for sharing:

(http://alphahunt.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/main-stages-in-a-bubble-e1347816014954.png?w=630)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 10, 2013, 04:03:45 PM
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd the Debt Ceiling comedy show is already rolling again!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/opinion/an-escape-hatch-for-the-debt-ceiling.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=2& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/opinion/an-escape-hatch-for-the-debt-ceiling.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=2&)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/lawyers-coins-and-money/ (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/lawyers-coins-and-money/)

(http://i25.tinypic.com/20p5oo.gif)

(http://i.imgur.com/b3Vyi.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/itU7i.jpg)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: R^2 on January 10, 2013, 04:08:46 PM
I can't tell if that's stupid support (look how much it would take to pay off all our debt!) or a stupid counterargument (actually minting that hypothetical coin is implausible, because the value of a coin is exactly that of its component minerals!).
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on January 10, 2013, 04:27:34 PM
The fiction of money is just too much for some people.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Friday on January 10, 2013, 04:39:55 PM
wait are you telling me that all this money I've been hoarding for the apocalypse is actually just paper
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on January 10, 2013, 05:33:55 PM
Technically cotton. But it makes good kindling.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: R^2 on January 10, 2013, 07:00:11 PM
Don't worry, Friday. Those $20 bills are printed on $20 worth of paper proprietary US Mint 3:1 cotton/linen blend.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on January 10, 2013, 07:10:35 PM
I can't tell if that's stupid support (look how much it would take to pay off all our debt!) or a stupid counterargument (actually minting that hypothetical coin is implausible, because the value of a coin is exactly that of its component minerals!).

I think it's just people trying to make sure proponents of a trillion-dollar coin aren't the stupidest human beings in the discussion.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on January 10, 2013, 08:33:46 PM
Basically it's been 153 years and the Democrats still haven't learned to watch what they say around literalists.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on January 10, 2013, 09:47:27 PM
...actually I'm reading on Popehat (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Popehat/~3/lU_43zR0kq4/) that there is in fact a legal argument behind those silly-ass images:

Quote from: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2013/01/and-yet-laurence-tribe-is-wrong-on-the-trillion-dollar-coin.html
Kevin Drum, a lonely lefty on this topic, pointed the way (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/can-treasury-department-create-platinum-t-bill) to the answer yesterday - the key is the meaning of "bullion coin" in the controversial language (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title31/html/USCODE-2011-title31-subtitleIV-chap51-subchapII-sec5112.htm) of the law:

Quote
(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

People like Prof. Tribe are focusing on the Treasury Secretary's discretion in setting denominations without worrying that the phrase "bullion coin" might actually have meaning. Here we go, from the US Mint (http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/american_eagles/index.cfm?action=american_eagle_bullion):

Quote
A bullion coin is a coin that is valued by its weight in a specific precious metal. Unlike commemorative or numismatic coins valued by limited mintage, rarity, condition and age, bullion coins are purchased by investors seeking a simple and tangible means to own and invest in the gold, silver, and platinum markets.

[...]

And lest anyone hope to hang their Trillion Dollar hat on the phrase "proof coin", that won't work either - a 'proof coin' in this context is an enhanced version of the bullion coin. From the Mint glossary (http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/collectors_corner/index.cfm?action=glossary):

Quote
Proof: a specially produced coin made from highly polished planchets and dies and often struck more than once to accent the design.  Proof coins receive the highest quality strike possible and can be distinguished by their sharpness of detail and brilliant, mirror-like surface.

I'm not quite sure I follow that last part -- why "proof platinum coin" is not distinct from "platinum bullion coin", especially given the use of the word "or" in the law.  But the bullion argument at least raises a legal technicality in an issue that is entirely BASED on legal technicalities.

I'm trying to reconcile the point that economists I generally respect, like Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/barbarous-relics/), actually think this is a good idea, with the notion that "Let's just authorize the one-time creation of a trillion-dollar denomination" not only sounds fantastically goddamn silly, it's also the plot of a Simpsons episode from 1998.

Now, Krugman at least acknowledges that it will make the Treasury Department "look silly", and seems to think that's preferable to failing to raise the debt ceiling.  I guess I can see that, as far is it goes -- this is just one more political maneuver based on a technicality to do an end-run around a Congress that wants to drive the world economy into the ditch because Ayn Rand.

But I still can't goddamn believe this is a conversation people are actually having with a straight face.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 11, 2013, 09:38:54 AM
So apparently one of the most fundamental underpinnings of the European austerity program is based on an "error" in math (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-04/imf-officials-we-were-wrong-about-austerity.html) (the economic multiplier for funds spent by governments was halved in the projections).
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mazian on January 11, 2013, 10:33:32 AM
So apparently one of the most fundamental underpinnings of the European austerity program is based on an "error" in math (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-04/imf-officials-we-were-wrong-about-austerity.html) (the economic multiplier for funds spent by governments was halved in the projections).

Even better, changing that multiplier flips the net outcome from positive to negative.  The, um, money quote:

Quote
They estimate that for European austerity measures started in 2010, the multiplier was significantly greater than one, meaning economic output shrank by more than one euro for each euro in deficit reduction.

"Hey, our entire program has had the exact opposite effect from what we wanted.  Oops."
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on January 11, 2013, 10:34:39 AM
Oh really, austerity is destructive? What's amazing is not this conclusion, but that the IMF is admitting it.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on January 11, 2013, 10:40:37 AM
Granted that they're not exactly looking any of the people they've "accidentally" destroyed right in the eye and apologizing, but it's still a relief to see a glimmering spotlight of rationality there.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 17, 2013, 01:39:28 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. OH WSJ. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689604578220132665726040.html#project=WEALTH0105&articleTabs=article)

Hands up, who here can spot the problem(s) with this infographic?

(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BF-AE118B_05WIc_G_20130104192101.jpg)

:8V:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on January 17, 2013, 01:46:00 PM
 :profit: :richiam:

I haven't the foggiest.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 17, 2013, 01:52:04 PM
I'd also like to add that I find the outfit on the retired guy to be especially hilarious.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on January 17, 2013, 02:53:46 PM
Is it how infographic is making it look like old Baron Rupert cares about the interests of women and non-white people?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ted Belmont on January 17, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
I think it may have something to do with how the lowest income on that chart is $180,000/yr, and that's the retired couple.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Ocksi on January 17, 2013, 03:50:26 PM
Also, it's still the black family.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on January 17, 2013, 03:59:18 PM
I know what's wrong. If you look at the Married Couple, the father has black hair and the mother is a brunette yet all four of their children have blonde hair. The single mother is quite vividly blonde, yet somehow manages to make $260,000.  Someone has been selling her kids.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on January 17, 2013, 04:05:11 PM
They all seem to be very upset about their lot in life.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on January 17, 2013, 04:09:19 PM
You'd be looking so down, too, if Obama was punishing your success with a marginal tax increase! I mean, hell, that married rich couple is seeing their actual tax burden go up by 3%.  3%! With that money, they could have created one whole, slightly better than poverty job. Or a yacht. Probably a yacht, actually.


Man, reading that infographic is just making me angrier. To all of those people these tax increases constitute anywhere from 25%-110% of my yearly annual income.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 17, 2013, 04:11:30 PM
The scariest comment I saw was "Those numbers are per-decade, right?"
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: François on January 17, 2013, 04:11:58 PM
any one of these families could afford my entire yearly livelihood on their investment income alone, two of them twice over or more

hahahahahaaaaaa~
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on January 17, 2013, 04:13:01 PM
The scariest comment I saw was "Those numbers are per-decade, right?"

Even the retired couple is making more than me per decade...
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Classic on January 17, 2013, 04:21:56 PM
The scariest comment I saw was "Those numbers are per-decade, right?"

Scary in that they were trying to rationalize those crazy numbers? Or that people might be rationalizing this infographic as a sign of an across-the-board tax increase?

Seriously, if I actually read that article any more than I already have, or worse, read the comments I might literally angry myself to death or injury.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: TA on January 17, 2013, 05:33:23 PM
Ooh, is it that the only family not to see a tax increase is the black couple?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on January 18, 2013, 04:07:42 PM
Should be noted that my take-home pay has actually increased slightly, and I'm still in the 5-digit range.  So unless there have been massive cuts to education and homeowner deductions (like the ones in the Ryan Plan), my tax burden is a couple hundred dollars less.  I'll probably use that on windows or a patio garden or, you know, something that increases the neighborhood property value.

Feel free to explain to me why you're more deserving of this than I am, Pictures of Sad Rich People.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on January 18, 2013, 05:24:30 PM
What really gets me is, you could keep jacking up the taxes on the family making $680k a year and it'd be awhile before they could no longer sustain 6 people.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 21, 2013, 09:08:14 AM
The Swiss turn on the super-rich (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/the-swiss-turn-on-the-superrich/article7572419/?page=1)

Not a bad little piece.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Disposable Ninja on January 21, 2013, 11:15:23 AM
The Debt Limit Explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE#ws)

This... really does actually do a pretty good job of explaining the debt ceiling, and why the Republicans are vile shit mongers. Well, in regards to economics, not just in general.

I mean, they're vile shit mongers in general, too.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 22, 2013, 01:31:51 PM
Some of you may have heard the hilarous saga of Gerard Depardieu fleeing to Russia to avoid French taxes. Well, the latest silly rumours (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266331/Nicolas-Sarkozy-Carla-Bruni-dodge-new-French-tax-hike-moving-London-setting-1billion-fund.html#ixzz2IjiTPTV7) have tagged no less of a person than former President Sarkoczy as running away to England to avoid French taxes.

The Sarko story is hilarious. If the rich want to make themselves into absurd laughingstocks who constantly flee like deadbeats pulling a midnight move, never to return to their land of birth, I am pretty okay with this whole "Make the Rich go elsewhere" thing.

In fact, watching the rich constantly scurry like cockroaches seeking the darkest corners might do more to discredit Ayn Rand than any reasoned argument or economic fact ever could.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: NexAdruin on January 22, 2013, 01:55:27 PM
Wasn't Ayn Rand's works all about rich people fleeing? What discredits Rand isn't that rich people move, it's that life goes on without them.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 22, 2013, 02:17:24 PM
Yes, but Rand's rich people always "flee" in a bold, triumphant way. The reality is so ignominious as to be laughable.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 22, 2013, 02:18:48 PM
"Hurry up and die!" says Japan's new finance minister. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/22/elderly-hurry-up-die-japanese?CMP=twt_gu)

PR! 
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on January 22, 2013, 03:28:42 PM
Oh, to the Japanese, not to the tax evaders.  Pity.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 23, 2013, 11:47:17 AM
Australia's proven oil reserves may have just doubled in size with a single find (http://www.news.com.au/business/companies/trillion-shale-oil-find-surrounding-coober-pedy-can-fuel-australia/story-fnda1bsz-1226560401043)

(Existing Aussie reserves are about 4 billion barrels, so not quite, but close). 

To put this in perspective, Venezuela (the country with the world's largest proven reserves) has over 200 billion barrels of proven reserves, with Saudi Arabia very close behind. So this is not some some kind of polar axis inversion for oil production or geopolitics. But it's interesting all the same, potentially moving yet another Western nation from the "importer" category to the "supplier" category.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on January 29, 2013, 02:34:45 PM
A proposal to bring back perpetual bonds (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/01/perpetual_bonds_a_clever_way_to_manage_the_national_debt_in_a_time_of_low.html)

I like that the argument isn't so much an economic one, as it is an argument on how to get Congress to outthink itself.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on February 07, 2013, 11:17:17 AM
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on February 13, 2013, 09:29:29 PM
Edmund Saez (http://www.scribd.com/doc/125269359/Getting-Richer-Edmund-Saez#) via Doctorow (http://boingboing.net/2013/02/13/economic-recovery-in-the-us-ac.html): top 1% has gotten 121% of the gains in the "economic recovery"; the remaining 99% is actually poorer than before 2009.

Quote
In short form, income to the top 1% is significantly influenced by capital gains. Remember, the tax reporting is not clean here: rising equity and bond markets help all those private equity and hedge fund professionals, who are able to get capital gains treatment for what ought to be labor income. But the paper also stresses that the lower orders were hit hard in the aftermath of the global financial crisis than in the dot-bomb era, which also saw a big drop in capital gains. That isn’t as hard to understand. The collapse of the dot-com mania didn’t impair the real economy overmuch because it was not fueled in a meaningful way by borrowings. By contrast, the housing bubble, and more important (in terms of damage to the financial system) the much housing exposure created synthetically by CDOs that consisted entirely or mainly of credit default swaps was highly geared, hence when it collapsed, it took credit providers down with it.

This will probably not come as a surprise to most of you.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 01, 2013, 12:48:23 PM
SCOTUS just gave white collar fraudsters a damn good escape hatch (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investor-community/trading-shots/the-end-of-fraud-top-us-court-limits-sec-investigations/article9146235/)

I know that's not the intention of the ruling, but damned if that won't be the effect.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on March 01, 2013, 03:22:56 PM
Well, from the SEC only.  I think the reasoning, which is sound enough, is that if regulators aren't moving on something until 5 years after the fact, they're either not doing their jobs or in on it themselves somehow.

I think the reasoning is to hold the SEC more accountable for its recent pattern of total fuckups than to protect criminals.  What actually will happen in practice is... well, whatever looks best on the bottom line of Mitt Romney's balance sheet, I imagine.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on March 05, 2013, 10:37:47 AM
So hey I guess stocks are at an all-time high, one day after the sequester goes into effect.  Good to know we're all sharing the burden here.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 05, 2013, 01:09:45 PM
well, whatever looks best on the bottom line of Mitt Romney's balance sheet, I imagine.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 16, 2013, 10:15:40 AM
Over in cyprus, an otherwise unnoticed bank bailout may herald the return of runs on banks. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/10-billion-cyprus-bailout-breaks-taboo-of-hitting-bank-depositors-with-losses/article9853130/)

Welp. Maybe this won't go any further than Cypriots getting bumfucked. But if this kind of stuff spreads, we're going to learn remember the hard way why governments started insuring bank deposits.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on March 25, 2013, 07:58:08 AM
Krugman obliquely argues for the idea of Search Engines as a public utility (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/23/the-economics-of-evil-google/)

He's just musing though and not actively pushing anything, but it's one of his more interesting columns.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on March 25, 2013, 11:46:25 AM
Krugman obliquely argues for the idea of Search Engines as a public utility (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/23/the-economics-of-evil-google/)

He does mention search in the closing paragraph but it's kind of a weird segue from Google Reader, which is the thing he's actually talking about.

The problem is that we depend on Google too much for shit that Google can easily yank out from under us.  On the one hand, I suppose the logical conclusion of this discussion is "Google could take away search and Gmail and then where would we be?", but that's a pretty unproductive avenue to go down inasmuch as search and Gmail are the two things Google is absolutely least likely to cancel.  The very proposition is that Google's not going to yank services that everyone uses, it's going to yank ones that not enough people use to justify the expense.  Today it's Reader, a year from now it could be Google Docs or Google+ -- probably not, but those are more plausible examples than search.

Long-term, I think this moment could prove to be a major misstep for Google -- because they saw "expense" only in terms of the direct monetary cost of keeping Reader up and did not consider the potential negative impact on their reputation from taking it down.  This, perhaps more than anything Google has ever done, is a reminder that relying on them for anything mission-critical is a bad fucking idea, and that Google users are not customers but products.  Google underestimated the backlash here -- they figured they were canceling an unpopular program (how many people even know what RSS is?) and didn't think the nerdrage echo chamber would be this loud or that people in mainstream outlets like the New York Times would actually take notice.

There's every possibility that Google will fold RSS sync functionality into Google+.  That could go a couple of ways -- it could mean this whole thing blows over and people decide to trust Google again, or it could lead to increased resentment that Google continues to try to cram Google+ down everybody's fucking throats whether we want it or not.  I had to sign up for the fucking thing just to post videos on YouTube.  I don't use it, I don't want it, and I resent it.

As for the "public utility" argument, that's an economist's way of looking at what an engineer would probably see as the open-source argument.  It's not that we need government funds or regulation to protect us from software monopolies (though I'm not denying that we do, either); what we need is the opportunity to say "Fork you" when a software company does something that is not in its users' interests.  (Major examples include the mass exodus from XFree86 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFree86) when its publishers changed the license to something nobody wanted, the more recent forking of OpenOffice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice) to LibreOffice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice) when Oracle decided the best way to treat its developers was with open hostility and contempt, and of course the proliferation of BSD and GNU/Linux OS's all but replacing UNIX System V.)

It is, of course, instructive to look at Google's record as an open-source donor.  It's historically been the biggest financial supporter of Firefox, and it's made major open-source contributions in Android, Chrome the browser, and ChromeOS, not to mention its major sponsorship of legions of projects in Summer of Code and its free hosting on Google Code.  All that's for the good.  But it's also telling that its biggest services -- search, Analytics, Docs, etc. -- are all closed and proprietary.  (And while Android is free, its branding is not -- anyone can use Android, but vendors can't use the Android brand or bundle the standard suite of Google apps without licensing and approval from Google.)  I think it's fair to say that Google's support of open-source software is a razors-and-blades model -- it's happy to deploy its software far and wide, and even support imitators and competitors -- so long as it knows the vast majority of those users will continue to use Google for search, mail, comment section logins, and everything else on the Web.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on March 25, 2013, 12:26:25 PM
The GReader outrage is nonsensical to me.  I use it, yeah, but I probably shouldn't and it's trivial to move that function clientside with the added benefit of Google not watching you shit for once.  What are we losing except for a minor convenience?

I understand the reaction in terms of "waah I just realized that Google can inconvenience me at any time", but even then it seems a little overreliant.  Google enjoys a monopoly on their services via general good reputation, not because they actually provide an indispensable product.  If they closed their search or mail functions then it would stop people for maybe the half hour it would take for them to shuffle over to Yahoo or HotbingliveXboxforWindowswhatever.  Hell, Google search and Gmail aren't even all that good.  One interface is overbloated and the other is hilariously awkward and behind the times.

Google's main problem with this decision isn't that people will trust them less, it's that people are going to get used to the idea that the internet can get along just fine without Google.  Can they actually survive in a world where their service isn't considered the de facto backbone of the global information superstructure?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on March 25, 2013, 04:00:54 PM
The GReader outrage is nonsensical to me.  I use it, yeah, but I probably shouldn't and it's trivial to move that function clientside with the added benefit of Google not watching you shit for once.  What are we losing except for a minor convenience?

I don't know how trivial it is.  There are other web-based RSS services but I don't know of any that can (1) sync your feeds across devices and (2) is actually supported by major clients.  There are clients that'll sync to Tiny Tiny RSS (http://tt-rss.org/redmine/projects/tt-rss/wiki) but not very many, and it still requires you to set it up on a server yourself, which might be trivial for you and me but is quite a bit less trivial than the Google Reader method.

I think OwnCloud might be able to do it too; I'll have to look into that.

I understand the reaction in terms of "waah I just realized that Google can inconvenience me at any time", but even then it seems a little overreliant.  Google enjoys a monopoly on their services via general good reputation, not because they actually provide an indispensable product.  If they closed their search or mail functions then it would stop people for maybe the half hour it would take for them to shuffle over to Yahoo or HotbingliveXboxforWindowswhatever.

Even assuming they backed up their contacts, how many have their entire history of Gmail communication backed up?  That's probably something they're going to want.  That's without getting into services like Google Drive and Google Docs that are designed to store your files for you.  And THAT'S without getting into stuff like Android and ChromeOS, which are largely designed to have users give an increasing amount of control over to Google for every task they do on a day-to-day basis.

Then there's Youtube.  And the myriad sites that use a Google account for a login.

None of which, sure, is really indispensable.  But it's irritating that Google can disrupt services that users rely on, and I don't think most people have thought about that much.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on April 18, 2013, 09:21:35 AM
Finally found a link that uses enough plain language to share this: Lynchpin study underpinning austerity programs has been all but demolished by a lone student (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/sharp-eyed-student-takes-on-famed-economists-over-basic-errors---and-wins/article11366264/).

Basically the data that claims high debt slows economic growth is completely false.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on April 18, 2013, 10:12:08 AM
Well that should stop the global calls for austerity.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: McDohl on April 18, 2013, 10:18:19 AM
 :richiam:
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on April 18, 2013, 12:42:08 PM
Ha ha ha, "errors".
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on April 22, 2013, 01:45:54 PM
Speaking of errors...

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/how-much-unemployment-was-caused-by-reinhart-and-rogoffs-arithmetic-mistake (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/how-much-unemployment-was-caused-by-reinhart-and-rogoffs-arithmetic-mistake)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on April 22, 2013, 02:21:23 PM
All of these corrected reports seem to be implying that when money and wealth stops becoming easily available to large chunks of the population, economies stall. Weird.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on April 29, 2013, 03:44:34 AM
What if we never run out of oil? (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/)

A good piece from the Atlantic, that manages to be both thorough and pretty balanced.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 01, 2013, 05:35:48 AM
This may wind up being spun into it's own thread, but I'll stick it here for now.

New study suggests that not only can money buy happiness, but that there is no satiation point and the relationship is direct and linear (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/money-buys-happiness-and-you-can-never-have-too-much-new-research-says/275380/)

I always thought that the money can't buy happiness studies were a bit off, but I don't think I fully buy into this one either. On the other hand I'm okay with this adding to the calls for greater income equality filthy socialism.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 01, 2013, 08:33:09 AM
Studies on happiness itself suggest that it doesn't even quantify the same way for different people.  In particular there are major disparities between people who take pleasure in receiving and people who take pleasure in comparing, and you can probably guess which type is really driving capitalism.  If income distributions were more equal you'd probably see those nice spiky higher ends start to flatline or even dip as the Joneses start to catch up to them.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 01, 2013, 09:54:28 AM
Yeah, relativity is huge, but so is variance. I understand that the study is looking at things in aggregate, but happiness is among our more subjective measures.

Still, I do think most people dislike having some terrible winner trying lording it over them in an obnoxious way, whether those winnings are a horse, a sword, and few silver plates, or a platinum-plated custom SUV the price of the Venus.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Rico on May 01, 2013, 11:49:44 AM
disparities between people who take pleasure in receiving and people who take pleasure in comparing
There's a low-hanging joke in there somewhere.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on May 01, 2013, 12:01:12 PM
If it's as low-hanging as I think it is, there's no need to compare.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Zaratustra on May 01, 2013, 01:06:49 PM
Brazil, as usual, does not give a fuck.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 14, 2013, 10:11:05 AM
DHS is trying to shut down BitCoins (http://betabeat.com/2013/05/department-of-homeland-security-shuts-down-dwolla-payments-to-and-from-mt-gox/)

This strikes me as among the dumbest, if not the dumbest, thing you could do to discredit or shut down these e-commodity thingies.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Cait on May 14, 2013, 12:49:51 PM
What, trying to hold them to the same standards as any other currency site that does business with United States citizens?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 15, 2013, 01:52:59 AM
Thing is, these aren't really a currency. Somewhere in between a currency and a commodity. No one really knows what they are yet, other than a way for idiots to lose money.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: on May 15, 2013, 03:26:19 AM
Well, there are people who want them to become the currency of the US, and are shocked, SHOCKED, that this suddenly means the US Government would like them to conform to the standards of regular currency.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 15, 2013, 03:49:33 AM
Oh, don't get me wrong. Anything with this much money in it will and should attract regulator attention.

The issue is that Bitcoins are most attractive to fringe speculators and criminals. Giving them attention like this is only going to help "legitimize" them in the eyes of people who might otherwise have stood on the fence.

Of course regulator attention will also scare some folks off too, so who knows. 
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on May 15, 2013, 05:47:50 AM
I was just thinking the other day that BitCoins are probably the official currency of child pornographers.  Guess I wasn't alone on that one.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: TA on May 15, 2013, 06:18:34 AM
I was just thinking the other day that BitCoins are probably the official currency of child pornographers.  Guess I wasn't alone on that one.

They are, yes.  Silk Road stuff, too.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on May 15, 2013, 07:22:53 AM
Oh hell yeah.

The funny thing is that I'd bet a bitcoin that Organized Crime has (for the most part) been smart enough to stay away from the things for now.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on May 15, 2013, 07:57:30 AM
Well, there are people who want them to become the currency of the US, and are shocked, SHOCKED, that this suddenly means the US Government would like them to conform to the standards of regular currency.

Didn't they go through this same song and dance five years ago for Second Life's currency? What's it called, yiffbux or something?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Thad on May 15, 2013, 12:47:41 PM
There's a perfectly legitimate appeal to the principle of Bitcoin, if not its actual use in practice.

First of all, there's the pure fucking math of it.  The problem of creating a secure, finite, anonymous, uncounterfeitable form of currency is fascinating as hell, and the cryptographic underpinnings are not only elegant, they've also got implications far broader than just currency.  (For example, I think secure, anonymous, unfalsifiable online voting is an insoluble problem -- but I'd love to be proven wrong.)

And second, there are the privacy implications.  I think it's troubling that we start talking about privacy and the conversation goes straight to pedophiles -- even if yes in fact pedophiles ARE often on the bleeding edge of privacy technologies.

Some people would like to be able to buy things without being tracked on principle.  I can certainly see the appeal -- though there are a slew of problems with Bitcoin, not the least its lack of regulation and its wildly fluctuating value.

Dan Kaminsky (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/05/lets-cut-through-the-bitcoin-hype/) wrote a pretty great article about it a couple weeks ago -- I admit I only skimmed it; I really do need to get around to reading the whole thing.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Büge on June 02, 2013, 06:39:55 AM
Bitcoins: Are Your Children Safe? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTPMwqtDHw0#ws)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on July 18, 2013, 09:13:45 AM
Detroit has filed for bankruptcy. (http://m.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2013/07/18/a8db3f0e-efe6-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html)

That's one more step toward Delta City.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on July 18, 2013, 09:28:03 AM
That's been coming for a loooooonnnnnnng time.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Smiler on July 18, 2013, 10:08:11 AM
One step closer to Robocop eating dinner at a nice restaurant.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 09, 2013, 04:26:28 PM
The Phony Fear Factor (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/09/opinion/krugman-phony-fear-factor.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&)

A shout-out from Krugman to a very old essay with some very current relevance.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 15, 2013, 02:24:09 AM
CEPR offers a brief, but salty, editorial on the euro zone recovery (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/doctors-report-assualt-victim-feeling-better-attribute-improvement-to-vicious-beating)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on August 23, 2013, 08:22:44 AM
I guess class-war stuff can go here?

Stay classy Columbia, SC (http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/08/22/kicking-out-the-homeless-in-downtown-columbia-south-carolina/)

(Columbia institutes something not far off concentration camps for the homeless)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Smiler on August 23, 2013, 08:29:17 AM
Oh hey I'm glad that DS9 episode is relevant again.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 08, 2013, 12:49:11 PM
This video will not come as a surprise to any of us, but it's a very clean, well done, infographic if you need something shareable.

Wealth Inequality in America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM#ws)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 09, 2013, 07:21:06 AM
Yellen's potential appointment potential good news?: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100025713/rejoice-the-yellen-fed-will-print-money-forever-to-create-jobs/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100025713/rejoice-the-yellen-fed-will-print-money-forever-to-create-jobs/)
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on October 14, 2013, 02:39:04 AM
Once again, hard numbers show the GOP to be a pack of liars. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/shutdown-republicans-government-spending-delusions) No one notices, news sports at 11.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on November 19, 2013, 01:45:46 PM
http://www.epi.org/publication/technology-inequality-dont-blame-the-robots/ (http://www.epi.org/publication/technology-inequality-dont-blame-the-robots/)

Okay, so this is really interesting. It's basically a comprehensive rebuttal to about 30 years of economic papers which have posited that increasing automation directly correlates with a rise in wage inequality. More robots, fewer monotonous middle-class jobs.

It's long and heavily academic (though still perfectly readable) with many references, so I figured I'd offer a tl;dr version.

First off, here's their section titles, which actually serve as a good summary of the points:

Quote
1. Technological and skill deficiency explanations of wage inequality have failed to explain key wage
patterns over the last three decades, including the 2000s.
2. History shows that middle-wage occupations have shrunk and higher-wage occupations have expanded
since the 1950s. This has not driven any changed pattern of wage trends.
3. Evidence for job polarization is weak.
4. There was no occupational job polarization in the 2000s.
5. Occupational employment trends do not drive wage patterns or wage inequality.
6. Occupations have become less, not more, important determinants of wage patterns.
7. An expanded demand for low-wage service occupations is not a key driver of wage trends.
8. Occupational employment trends provide only limited insights into the main dynamics of the labor
market, particularly wage trends.

The key point they're making is that apparently there's little link between JOB polarization (demands for higher-skilled and lower skilled work at the expense of middling skill but easily automated work) and WAGE polarization (income inequality).

Job polarization is apparently a longstanding issue, going back as far as they have data and is something that makes sense in terms of technology gradually changing the nature work over time, but it's a slow phenomenon and has actually been dropping - there was little job polarization in the 2000's. Interestingly, they also posit that yes, educational requirements for the workforce as a whole have risen, but that increased education has largely kept pace with technological demands for higher skilled workers.

For instance, they quoted figures that the service industry is only 13% of the current workforce and this is growth of only 2% since the mid-late 70's. The growth in skilled high-tech demand is also less than expected. An example is given of retail publishing moving to e-books and internet sales. You might add a few techs, but mostly you just go from low-skill bookstore workers to low-skill warehouse workers and truck drivers (I think that IRL, you would still lose some overall employement in that scenario but it was something of a throwaway example).

They also talk about "occupational" job polarization. This is job polarization that specifically relates to people being in the "wrong field" (due to industries becoming obsolete or highly automated) and claim that this has much less correlation and impact than is supposed.

Wage polarization on the other hand, has only been seriously happening in the past three decades. Even when both types of polarization have been happening, the measureable trend curves of the two phenomenon do not synch well at all, which seriously undermines any claims of direct correlation.

Essentially, correlation is not causation.

The one thing I found partially lacking was an overall picture of automation on the labour market as a whole. Going back to the idea of the bookstore being automated, in that scenario you may lose a small number of jobs. A small erosion across ALL sectors may result in an overall surplus of labour, which exerts downward pressure on most, if not all wages.

They even reference "High unemployment" as one cause of wage polarization without going into alternative explanations for why there's an ever-growing surfeit of labour in all fields. All you need is a few super-rich guys to get big bonuses for layoffs and then it looks like you have U-shaped polarization, when in fact the link is indirect rather than direct and deals with a very small sample size (and high-end wage growth is certainly heavily affected by other factors, such as globalization).

They do sort of address that when they show that the kind of occupation you're in has had a declining relevance to wages over time, albeit that's in a roundabout way. So maybe it's a non-issue after all. But I would have liked a bit more clarity there, I think.

Some other numbers on inequality would have also been good. It has after all been commented on that even even most of the supposed 1% aren't actually SUPER CRAZY rich. It's that .01% or even that .001% that are really off the chart. Could it be that wages for just about everyone are falling and that the super-rich are accruing such disproportionate wealth as to make the income distribution curve look U-shaped when really it's more like a backwards L?

Other than that, their criticisms of previous studies DO seem valid and are quite well-researched, but what I can't say is whether their opponents are right but just did sloppy, superficial research to prove their argument, or are significantly wrong. Or we may be dealing with a messay array of hybrid reasons. I.E. That increasing automation IS still responsible for income inequality, but only in an indirect way, and only in combination with several other large factors.

They don't really suggest an alternative explanation for the rise in inequality, but I think that's normal for this sort of pure academic study - they're focusing exclusively on debunking a long-held correlation and no more than that.

They don't try to advance a competing claim and are only "fact-checking" actually makes me trust their findings more (if perhaps leaving me a bit unsatisfied). They do state that in future they're going to look at trade gaps and globalization and their effect on wages as a possible alternate explanation. I'd really like to see that when it's published.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 05, 2013, 04:05:23 AM
Quote from: Grakthis
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/corp-tax-rate-debate

In case there is a single human being alive who didn't obviously and completely understand this already.

Quote
Our examination of the evidence found no relationship between cutting tax rates on corporate profits and job growth.

We examined the job creation track record of 60 large, profitable U.S. corporations (from a list of 280 Fortune 500 companies) with the highest and lowest effective tax rates between 2008 and 2010 and found:

22 of the 30 corporations that paid the highest tax rates (30 percent or more) on their reported profits created almost 200,000 jobs between 2008 and 2012. Only eight of the 30 firms paying high tax rates reported reducing the number of employees between 2008 and 2012.

The 30 profitable corporations that paid little or no taxes over three years collectively shed 51,289 jobs; half of these low-tax firms created some jobs, and half shed jobs between 2008 and 2012.

Lowe’s, the nation’s second-largest home improvement store, paid over 36 percent in taxes on reported profits of $9 billion between 2008 and 2010, and hired an additional 28,820 employees between 2008 and 2012.

Verizon, the nation’s largest wireless provider, reported $32 billion in U.S. profits between 2008 and 2010, yet received tax refunds totaling $951 million and reduced the number of employees by almost 56,000 between 2008 and 2012.

IT'S AMAZING.  IT'S ALMOST LIKE GIVING MONEY TO THE ALREADY RICH DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO HELP THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR?!?!? WHO WOULD HAVE EVER THOUGHT OF SUCH A THING?!?!?
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Royal☭ on December 05, 2013, 04:11:56 AM
Was reading the first chapter on a comic about economics history, and it was discussing Adam Smith. Specifically, the parts of Adam Smith where he talks about things other than the markets. Interestingly, Smith comes to the conclusions that having high profits (for individuals or corporations) is incompatible with high wages for workers. He actually recommended government intervention to keep profits low and wages high. He also recommended that we not trust capitalists, since they'd probably recommend government policies and laws that only benefited wealthy capitalists.

This part of the Wealth of Nations seems to go ignored whenever people invoke Smith to talk about the free market and regulations.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: McDohl on December 07, 2013, 08:31:56 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/politics/obama-economy/index.html?hpt=po_c1 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/politics/obama-economy/index.html?hpt=po_c1)

Just saw the headline for this.  No context or anything like it, other than the headline.

"Is it always the economy, stupid?"

I chuckled.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mongrel on December 27, 2013, 06:10:05 AM
Krugman finally straight-up puts out the argument that it's possible Corporations actually prefer a mild depression (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/25/why-corporations-might-not-mind-moderate-depression/?_r=2)

The preceding column on fear (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/opinion/krugman-the-fear-economy.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) is part of the same argument.

Good. I want to see people talk and argue over this point. The undying myth of "What's good for Corporations is good for the country" will never be broken until every argument in favour of it is demolished one by one.

EDIT: OMG this comment:

Quote
So, under the right circumstances, it is possible to make more money with a flop than a hit.

Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Friday on December 27, 2013, 06:32:22 AM
Uhhh yeah I would think that this information would be self-evident

I mean how many fictions have been written about the future where everyone lives in the fucking slums underneath the towering mega-buildings of the megacorps?

A trillion? Ten hundred trillion million billion trillion? Per second? I myself wrote one on these very boards?

Or, if you need a real world example, you can look at the following countries:

1. America
2. China
3. Any-fucking-where

Corps don't mind booms. They don't mind depressions as long as the depressions don't crash the stock market.

tl;dr: Corps don't care about anything other than the stock market
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Brentai on December 27, 2013, 06:45:15 AM
Nobody ever thinks they're living in a dystopia but at any point in history if you showed a person who lived 20 years prior what was going on and then let them write a book about it, it'd look like a dystopia novel.
Title: Re: It's the economy, stupid!
Post by: Mothra on January 10, 2014, 07:50:30 AM
Every job in America, in one graph (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/01/09/261053608/every-job-in-america-in-1-graph)

(http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2014/01/alljobs.gif)