http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110616/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_greece_financial_crisis

Quote :

"Greek Socialists hold emergency talks on austerity ATHENS, Greece – Greece's embattled governing Socialist party says it is convening an emergency meeting of its lawmakers, after a party revolt threatened to derail the government's efforts to pass crucial austerity measures. The meeting Thursday afternoon will likely delay an expected cabinet reshuffling by Prime Minister George Papandreou. Squeezed between international creditors and an angry public, Papandreou announced Wednesday he would reshuffle his cabinet and ask for a confidence vote in parliament after talks to form a coalition government collapsed. Investors are deeply worried that a default in Greece could hurt banks elsewhere and set off a catastrophic financial chain reaction that experts predict would be catastrophic."

[/one data point]

6/16/2011 8:21:28 AM

Quote :

"Which regulations are you talking about? Can I have a few examples of what you're talking about? How is a poor person limited by these regulations rather than being limited by not having money?"

Zoning restrictions restrict the construction of housing, driving up the price of housing and driving out the poor. Another example is unions and occupational licensing which keep the poor from obtaining work in such sectors. For example, to obtain work as a taxi-driver in New York you must first come up with $600k to buy a medallion. If you want to braid hair in many states you first need to pay thousands of dollars to get a license. The minimum wage has rendered workers unable to produce $7.25 an hour into a permanently unemployed underclass incapable of escaping poverty.

Quote :

"being poor severely restricts what housing you can afford. "

Cheaper housing would help.

6/16/2011 10:14:34 AM

Quote :

"You parrot what you call facts based on your preferred theory of economics"

You don't even the theory you claim I parrot. You admitted that on this thread:
message_topic.aspx?topic=613140&page=2

Don't accuse me of parroting or plagurism when you admittedly don't even know what you claim I plagurize.

Quote :

"they haven't fully bought into the Chicago/Keynesian/Big Government school of economics"

You don't even know what that school states.

Quote :

"You could attempt to answer this"

Why? it's a stupid question.

Quote :

"Just another vague statement that doesn't address any particular argument. Again, similar how?"

There is, right before it, you failed to quote it:
In how the officials are elected, in how laws get presented, in how they are passed, in how they are judged, etc. The entire legal process is very similar between the two types of issues.

Why would you ask me the exact same question I just answered?

Quote :

"why isn't the government just as "good"- which means nothing because you've given it no context - at economic issues right now as it is at social issues? "

Social problems are easier and the government has been working on them longer. Economic issues are comparably new, and much more complex.

Quote :

"Here, I'll do it the Kris way. It's a fact that consumption and voting can both be long term and short term. Wanna ask me how I know, I'll just state it differently."

I would be impressed if you could have one argument about actual points rather than some ranting insult about my debate style.

Quote :

"The idea that with enough information and enough modeling of the human psyche you can make an economy do whatever it is you want whenever you want it and have the outcome perfectly predicted."

Haha. I would love to see where Keynes said that. Please, show me anywhere. I dare you, I double dare you. The thing that upsets me is how matter of factly you right anything off that disagrees with you while remaining in complete ignorance about it.

I have said things similar to what you are talking about, but Keynes never has. You can't even find anywhere Marx has said that, although saying it came from him would be far closer than saying it came from Keynes.

By the way, McDanger is probably making fun of how you described the "Chicago" school of economics as Keynesian and Big Government considering they are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum and argue in favor of free markets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics

6/16/2011 10:28:10 AM

Quote :

"Don't accuse me of parroting or plagurism when you admittedly don't even know what you claim I plagurize."

parroting != plagurize [sic]

Quote :

"You don't even know what that school states."

Which one?

Quote :

"Why? it's a stupid question."

Not at all, you just can't answer it in a way that supports any argumentstatement you're making.

Quote :

"There is, right before it, you failed to quote it:"

Wrong.

Quote :

"Social problems are easier and the government has been working on them longer. Economic issues are comparably new, and much more complex."

Again, just more Kris-ism that makes no sense.

Quote :

"one argument about actual points"

Sure Kris, as soon as you attempt to make an actual argument supportable by anything more than your oblique conjectures.

Quote :

"I would love to see where Keynes said that."

Keynes didn't believe in modeling? The fuck?

And I wasn't describing the Chicago school of economics. I'm talking about the slaves to any economic ideology that believes if we just have enough data we can set policy and then with certainty know the effect on the aggregate such that the "best" (your undefined term) policy can be chosen.

6/16/2011 5:29:28 PM

Quote :

"Which one?"

You've made it pretty clear you don't know what any of them actually state, Chicago, Stockholm, Keynesian, etc.

Quote :

"Wrong."

No, I gave you specific examples and then you asked for them again.

Quote :

"Again, just more Kris-ism that makes no sense."

Really? You don't understand how economic issues are more complex for a government to solve than social issues?

Quote :

"Keynes didn't believe in modeling?"

Keynes didn't believe in "The idea that with enough information and enough modeling of the human psyche you can make an economy do whatever it is you want whenever you want it and have the outcome perfectly predicted.", well I don't know whether or not he believes in it, he's dead, I just know he never wrote about it. It's clear you don't know where the idea you accuse me of "parroting" comes from, I'd encourage you to try to find out, hell then you could at least make your accusations of "parroting" accurately.

Quote :

"And I wasn't describing the Chicago school of economics."

You could understand how I thought you were describing it when, you know, you wrote it.

Quote :

"I'm talking about the slaves to any economic ideology that believes if we just have enough data we can set policy and then with certainty know the effect on the aggregate such that the "best" (your undefined term) policy can be chosen."

You seem to be threatened anytime anyone brings up actual economic terminology or theory, so you immediately write them off as "parroting" or whatever. Rather than be threatened by your ignorance, why don't you solve it and do a small bit of research. I'm not a slave to any economic theory, but that doesn't mean I don't know what they are.

6/16/2011 5:41:51 PM

I'll take that as an admission that you didn't and apparently won't make an actual debatable argument.

You are absolutely a slave to the idea that humans and their economic interactions can be modeled away given enough information. You believe that you can absolutely control an economy such that there is no waste or imperfections of any sort.

I believe that this is impossible.

[Edited on June 16, 2011 at 5:48 PM. Reason : .]

6/16/2011 5:46:48 PM

Nice strawman, where did I say that? Better yet, where did that theory that I'm "parroting" come from?

6/16/2011 6:05:14 PM

Quote :

"You are absolutely a slave to the idea that humans and their economic interactions can be modeled away given enough information. You believe that you can absolutely control an economy such that there is no waste or imperfections of any sort. I believe that this is impossible."

Sigh. You think Keynes believes modeling will perfectly predict anything? Keynes stated that there are some cases of genuine economic uncertainty (where no probability is calculable for a particular event). In other words, no knowledge is available (perhaps even in principle). I don't have the quote handy at the moment but I saw this seriously this morning.

It's clear you've never engaged Keynes. Why do you speak about his ideas with such authority when you haven't a clue?

[Edited on June 16, 2011 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

6/16/2011 6:05:28 PM

He did the whole umbrella/rain thing in the Treatise if that's what you're talking about.

6/16/2011 6:10:09 PM

I saw it quoted through Davidson in explicating the new Keynesian position. Not really important; only will need to dig it back out if he calls my bluff.

6/16/2011 6:15:20 PM

Oh fucking come on Kris, it's the very cornerstone of what you are arguing, that a command economy will work better than capitalism given enough information. Don't try to play "I didn't state that argument in those exact words down to the comma and period" again like you always do when you don't make arguments or when they fail or you get owned again.

Quote :

"You think Keynes believes"

Kris is Keynes? Fuck. I couldn't tell.

Quote :

"Why do you speak about his ideas with such authority when you haven't a clue?"

I don't.


I'm wondering, how have we gotten so far away from where you guys aren't defending any arguments you are making with any sort of substance?



[Edited on June 16, 2011 at 6:42 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on June 16, 2011 at 6:43 PM. Reason : .]

6/16/2011 6:41:39 PM

Look at the level of pathetic dribble you've reduced yourself to. Why are you always such a fucking waste of time, Chance? Are you really this incapable?

6/16/2011 6:42:49 PM

Let's see. You accuse Kris of being slavishly devoted to the "Chicago/Keynesian/Big Government school" (still lolling about that). Then I say "lol what?" surprised that you clumped together Keynesians and Chicago school economists. You reply, saying:

Quote :

"Come on, really? The idea that with enough information and enough modeling of the human psyche you can make an economy do whatever it is you want whenever you want it and have the outcome perfectly predicted."

It's clear as hell you're attributing such a view to Keynes here. He doesn't hold it. I don't believe the Chicago school guys do either. What the fuck ARE you talking about?

6/16/2011 6:45:13 PM

Look, you've made arguments that rely on a completely different value system so it's simply impossible to have a discussion. These type of arguments:

Quote :

"When you stop private ownership (or ownership divorced from labor in any way) and end exploitative labor relations, you end the accumulation of surplus-value to those who didn't earn it. "

And this

Quote :

"Convincing you that your great life style is dependent on mega-profits flowing into the hands of the elite who don't work (to the detriment of nearly everybody) is how they get their hooks in you"

We can't even have a discussion about the system when these are the terms. But the bulk of what you post in this thread rests on this foundation. I've looked past this tripe to try and get to the point where even a rube like me can see the virtues of this system and you simply haven't convinced me...not because I'm unconvince-able, but because you don't seem to be ready to handle skeptics. You have no ready answers.

Quote :

"What the fuck ARE you talking about?"

It's all posted in the thread. You can't be this stupid can you?

[Edited on June 16, 2011 at 6:52 PM. Reason : .]

6/16/2011 6:50:48 PM

Quote :

"that a command economy will work better than capitalism given enough information"

I've made very clear arguments, that was not one of them. Argue against the things I say, not the arguments you assign to me.

Quote :

"I'm wondering, how have we gotten so far away from where you guys aren't defending any arguments you are making with any sort of substance?"

I'd blame that on you. You tend to get very defensive when I bring up economic thought, and respond by talking about the "classic Kris argument" (which seems to change every time), and dismissing everything I say by claiming I am "parroting" Keynes.

I'll be honest, we started this thread very reasonably, but it seemed every time I posted something you claimed I was not making arguments or not answering the exact questions I had just answered. This is where the argument began to fall apart.

6/16/2011 7:05:45 PM

Quote :

"I've made very clear arguments"

Dude, I bet you chuckled to yourself even as you posted that didnt you?

Quote :

" You tend to get very defensive when I bring up economic thought"

Wrong again.

Quote :

""classic Kris argument" (which seems to change every time"

No, it doesn't Kris. You have a very clear and repeatable pattern of not actually making arguments and complaining that people are assigning you statements you don't specifically post (while apparently oblivious to the fact that you are doing the very same thing yourself).

Quote :

" I was not making arguments or not answering the exact questions I had just answered"

It's...because...you...didn't.

Quote :

"This is where the argument began to fall apart."

I'd say it fell apart when the socialists couldn't do anything more than talk of conspiracy by capitalists (those evil fucks for giving me such a great life) and talk about how great socialism is if you just think theoretically about it.

[Edited on June 16, 2011 at 7:18 PM. Reason : .]

6/16/2011 7:17:12 PM

Are you done?

6/16/2011 7:33:37 PM

Haha man. It's hilarious to see how immature a man in his thirties can act

6/16/2011 7:45:58 PM

For fucks sake dude, you're trying to tell me my fantastic life is a mirage by capitalist conspirators? Well I applaud them for fooling me this hard.

I can't help it if you don't choose to deal with a skeptic. I'd urge you to go back to the drawing board and try again.

6/16/2011 7:53:09 PM

Quote :

"For fucks sake dude, you're trying to tell me my fantastic life is a mirage by capitalist conspirators?"

I never claimed such a thing, how do you imagine this is what I meant?

I'm not dealing with a skeptic, I'm dealing with about the most petulant little moron I've had the discomfort to meet on the internet. You're about the most moronic personality on here I've had the displeasure of attaching a name to, just a notch above aaronburro.

Again, I can't "go back to the drawing board" because you have no interest in learning. This is just you trolling and pretending to be honest.

[Edited on June 16, 2011 at 9:10 PM. Reason : .]

6/16/2011 9:10:05 PM

Quote :

"This is just you trolling and pretending to be honest."

I've never been a troll. An irascible hate to lose an argument on the internet asshole for sure. But I'll assure you, I'm disgusted with myself for even bothering to care about this tripe...if I were actually purposefully trolling I probably would have tied a cement block to my ankle and went for a long walk off a short pier a long time ago.

You simply can't handle someone who isn't interested in engaging you on the scholarly level you as an academic think you command.

I posted comments above about how you are trying to set up your entire commentary here and how our value systems aren't the same. You can talk to that.

6/16/2011 9:44:06 PM

Your comments have been riddled with factual inaccuracies, sheer historical ignorance, and on top of it, a complete unwillingness to listen or learn. You cleave to old misconceptions and even though you know you don't know you spend hours on here arguing and wasting everybody's time. I could probably train a chimpanzee to do your job

6/16/2011 10:00:50 PM

Quote :

"a complete unwillingness to listen or learn. "

I don't think we have even arrived at that point. If we allow this:

Quote :

"factual inaccuracies, sheer historical ignorance "

You're replies were "I simply don't have the time or the inclination to correct these problems...go read a book". I'd fathom that should be where your replies to me stopped...but they somehow didn't.

Regardless, "sheer historical ignorance" was already shown in Chit Chat of all places (by saps) to not really be ignorance at all. So I can only wonder if your insisting on maintaining this dialog about my not having the same level of knowledge about this subject really isn't just cover for not being able to formulate your thoughts in a way that someone like me can digest. If your only reply is "go read everything I read and you'll understand what I am saying" then thats fine, say that.

Quote :

"You cleave to old misconceptions "

I live by an "if it intuitively makes sense then maybe it does" type of code. Capitalism for all its ails has made America a god damn powerhouse. A fucking Goliath. So a socialism salesman has a really high bar to clear before I'm going to go loading up the kindle to read more of the glories of what it is he has to sale.

Quote :

"you spend hours on here arguing and wasting everybody's time"

Weird...if you don't respond....your time isn't wasted.

6/16/2011 10:14:41 PM

Quote :

"Capitalism for all its ails has made America a god damn powerhouse. A fucking Goliath. So a socialism salesman has a really high bar to clear before I'm going to go loading up the kindle to read more of the glories of what it is he has to sale. "

lol. Jesus fucking Christ ugh ahahahaha. Forget it, stick to simple shit I guess and have fun

6/16/2011 10:16:52 PM

Do you like proving my points?

6/16/2011 10:32:21 PM

I gave you a very well written explanation and you simply insulted my ability to argue and generally got into a meaningless squabble.

6/16/2011 10:42:24 PM

Whoa whoa whoa...well written? Kris, it's a fact you're a terrible communicator so you should know better than that.

6/17/2011 6:29:24 AM

I've never had trouble understanding Kris; he always provides more detail when pressed. I'm not clear on the level of hand-holding you're demanding here, but it's clear you're not trying to understand. Oh well.

6/17/2011 6:32:46 AM

Kris I asked you what causes governments to get better at solving economic issues...your answer

"the legislative process between the two is similar".


that isn't disputable

but you'll do just that.

6/17/2011 4:27:47 PM

Quote :

"Kris I asked you what causes governments to get better at solving economic issues...your answer "the legislative process between the two is similar"."

You're leaving a bit out, but let me walk you through it.

Governments have, without doubt, gotten better at addressing social issues like equality, preventing crime, maintaining military, etc. By what process did this come about?

6/17/2011 6:49:59 PM

Quote :

"Governments have, without doubt, gotten better at addressing social issues like equality, preventing crime, maintaining military, etc."

Facts not in evidence.

6/17/2011 7:13:51 PM

Quote :

"For fucks sake dude, you're trying to tell me my fantastic life is a mirage by capitalist conspirators? Well I applaud them for fooling me this hard."

Your "fantastic life" mostly is. Everything you see that's made in another country is made there because people are poorer and labor is cheaper. The Capitalist class takes advantage of that, ships the items to the US at a markup, then when you're surrounded by these cheap goods they say "Look at this prosperity, see how America enjoys such a high standard of living, see the luxuries that Capitalism have given you!"

Truth is that you can only afford those things because of international wealth disparity, so yes, the high standard of living in America *is* mostly a mirage. If your iPhone and all its components were made in America, you'd be paying a few grand for it. Same with automobiles (even those assembled in the US use many parts from China, Indonesia, etc) and construction materials and just about everything else. The only reason we appear so rich in America is because there are pockets of extreme poverty elsewhere that we feed off the desperation of.

Don't get me wrong, indeed Capitalism has given you your fantastic life, but the mirage is that the real human costs are out of sight, out of mind.


Also governments can get better at solving economic issues because they operate with policies that can be changed. When a market failure occurs a memo doesn't go out to every person telling them to have different desires next time, by it's very nature it's doomed to repeat large-scale failures again and again because individuals aren't going to think "Hmmm what if me taking this loan leads to another collapse like in 2007" when they negotiate with a banker over a mortgage. The entire premise of free markets is based on the idea that equilibrium is achieved by letting individuals be motivated strictly by self-interest.

Government, on the other hand, can make a policy, watch it fail or succeed, study how it failed or succeeded, then make a new policy, just like businesses do. Government policy can be improved iteratively, markets cannot be because their core decision engine is by necessity an individual making decisions based on their more or less immediate, personal self interest.


[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2011 10:42:25 AM

Quote :

"Same with automobiles (even those assembled in the US use many parts from China, Indonesia, etc) and construction materials and just about everything else. The only reason we appear so rich in America is because there are pockets of extreme poverty elsewhere that we feed off the desperation of."

Don't tell Kris that, he believes China to be a rich successful country. More to the point, while there is certainly some truth to this, it is temporary. Wages in china are currently rising at nearly 20% per year, so even though China is poor today, they won't be forever, yet Americans will still have a "fantastic life" as you call it. It is the deployment of automation which has made us Americans rich, not some balance of trade abuse. Poor countries invariably engage in very little trade. As a poor country trades more with the west, they get richer, as Mexico and China have done in the past few decades.

Quote :

"Also governments can get better at solving economic issues because they operate with policies that can be changed. When a market failure occurs a memo doesn't go out to every person telling them to have different desires next time, by it's very nature it's doomed to repeat large-scale failures again and again because individuals aren't going to think "Hmmm what if me taking this loan leads to another collapse like in 2007" when they negotiate with a banker over a mortgage. "

But the banker, having seen others lose their money by making unwise loans, would probably think twice before risking his own money in a similar fashion. Meanwhile, what has the government done? It took over fannie and freddie and have made the very loans that lead to the collapse the official policy of the united states government. Look into it. The private sector after the crash stopped making such subprime loans, as such loans turned out to be risky, so the government has stepped in to restore credit to subprime borrowers by assuming all the risk of such loans with taxpayer dollars.

6/22/2011 11:23:20 AM

Quote :

"Don't tell Kris that, he believes China to be a rich successful country. More to the point, while there is certainly some truth to this, it is temporary. Wages in china are currently rising at nearly 20% per year, so even though China is poor today, they won't be forever, yet Americans will still have a "fantastic life" as you call it. It is the deployment of automation which has made us Americans rich, not some balance of trade abuse. Poor countries invariably engage in very little trade. As a poor country trades more with the west, they get richer, as Mexico and China have done in the past few decades. "

There's dozens of countries in line after China to pick up the slack once their standard of living starts to approach America's; it's not about China but wealth disparity. Also, what are these automation-produced products that say "Made in America " on the back, because I'm still not seeing them. I'm pretty sure it's still cheaper to open a sweatshop in Indonesia than an automated factory in America. Our wealth is very much an illusion created by balance of trade abuses. And even if it was just a result of automation: that's not Capitalism's credit at all then, but technology, which can be developed in any ideological environment.

Quote :

" But the banker, having seen others lose their money by making unwise loans, would probably think twice before risking his own money in a similar fashion.Meanwhile, what has the government done? It took over fannie and freddie and have made the very loans that lead to the collapse the official policy of the united states government. Look into it. The private sector after the crash stopped making such subprime loans, as such loans turned out to be risky, so the government has stepped in to restore credit to subprime borrowers by assuming all the risk of such loans with taxpayer dollars."

This is a pretty broken understanding of what occurred. Many, many bankers got incredibly rich off those loans. That's the whole reason the collapse happened, is we had unregulated securities bundling that removed the incentive to make good loans. Bankers, operating in their own interests, could make all the bad loans they wanted, or trick people into impossible loans, then just bundle them with a few good loans and sell them. It was only the ones dumb enough to be holding on to those securities who really got burned by the collapse, then the effect cascaded through the entire housing market. It will happen again without more regulation, there's no doubt of that, because anybody can still get rich if they play their cards right the second time around. The reason the private sector isn't making that many loans is because we're looking at a potential double-dip and all investments are risky right now. Nobody's lending to anybody, risky or not.


[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2011 11:36:45 AM

There was undoubtedly fraud that went on at the highest levels of banking and rating agencies, but it's undisputed at this point that the Federal Reserve played a major role in fueling the bubble. The government literally invented the process of "packaging the good with the bad," and private banks (especially with the repeal of Glass-Steagall) wanted to get in on it too.

Where did the private banks get all this cash to gamble with, though? The Fed discount window...and they're still fucking doing it. Nothing has changed. Zero percent interest rates mean primary dealers can call up the Fed, borrow money for free, and go play craps with it. The bailouts only empowered the banks, it did nothing for the average person. Now JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of the primary dealers understand that they are above the law. There is no limit to what they are allowed to do. The is no limit to what the Fed can do. The banking elite has run amuck and there's about 5 politicians in Washington that are even willing to talk about it.

When the government causes these problems through the creation of an unaccountable central bank, the FDIC, the fractional reserve system, etc, there are two camps: the endless regulation camp, and the camp that actually wants to deal with (and eliminate) the evil institutions that are the foundation for the whole system.

Bernanke should be in jail. The CEOs of these banks should be in jail. They know exactly what they're doing, and they don't give a shit. Of course, this is the United States, so we'll be imprisoning the people that tell the truth and giving record bonuses to the people fleecing the public.

[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 11:56 AM. Reason : ]

6/22/2011 11:44:17 AM

I've asked this of others on here before and been told some pretty unfeaseble stuff, but I'm curious:

So what's the alternative to Federal Deposit Insurance? I know you think you're going to stop all banks from making foolish choices, but humans are foolish and are going to fuck up. Absent of perfect information in a market, a lay customer of a bank can't be expected to choose the safest bank (that's like asking fast food customers to be able to say whether or not there's rat shit in the kitchen when the kitchen can't be seen). So...if a bank goes belly-up, what happens to the average joe, $25-30,000 a year schlubs that had their money in there? "Sucks to be you, have fun in bankruptcy court"? "Should have insured your deposits yourself with all that money you don't have"?

I'm sure there's some utopian perfect market rational self interest answer I'm forgetting and the real problem is that whenever things go wrong it is UNIVERSALLY TRUE that it's the fault of things not being anarchistic enough.

[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 5:38 PM. Reason : x]

6/22/2011 5:37:13 PM

The alternative is a full reserve banking system where banks can't create money and charge you a fee to use it. I guess your point is that people are too dumb to shop around or diversify, and that's probably true right now. I don't think people have to be that dumb, and if there were more of an incentive to shop around and make sure that your bank was secure and well managed (and not just a function of whatever bank is closest or provides the highest rate of interest on savings), people would be more likely to do that.

The broader point is that people are more likely to be lazy and stupid under a system that rewards laziness and stupidity. Right now, all the banks are practically the same. Some might offer a slightly better percent return here or there, but keeping more than a 6 months worth of living expenses in the bank is an all around losing proposition in an inflationary environment like this. You'd be better off buying bags of sugar with your savings than letting it sit there.

6/22/2011 6:20:00 PM

Quote :

"he believes China to be a rich successful country"

If you check the thread, I said they were successful, and they are, they have experienced rapid growth and increase in standard of living.

Quote :

"But the banker, having seen others lose their money by making unwise loans, would probably think twice before risking his own money in a similar fashion."

Those memories will fade after he sees others making their money from unwise loans. The market doesn't learn, there's simply no mechanism for it.

Quote :

"Bernanke should be in jail."

For not breaking the law?

Quote :

"The alternative is a full reserve banking system where banks can't create money and charge you a fee to use it."

How are you going to stop them? More regulation? I'm willing to bet that if you let the market decide, it will choose fractional reserve.

I also find it funny that you literally want to destroy wealth. You would rather have money just sitting under a bed.

Quote :

"Right now, all the banks are practically the same. Some might offer a slightly better percent return here or there"

Well that's not true. I remember back when interest rates were closer to 5% or so percent, brick and mortar banks offered interest rates at least 4% lower than internet only banks.

Quote :

"You'd be better off buying bags of sugar with your savings than letting it sit there."

Because sugar is a very liquid investment right?

6/22/2011 7:55:14 PM

Quote :

"so yes, the high standard of living in America *is* mostly a mirage"

No, it's very much the real deal.

Quote :

"The only reason we appear so rich in America is because there are pockets of extreme poverty elsewhere that we feed off the desperation of."

So what would you have had us do? Pay a Chinese farmer the same wage as an American but then have to eat all the other costs of having your product made there and shipped here? Well, no business person would do that because it is stupid as fuck. I suppose we could just not do business in China and all those people who gladly dropped their shovels and came to the cities of their own accord seeking a better life would just never have that opportunity.

Quote :

" because individuals aren't going to think "Hmmm what if me taking this loan leads to another collapse like in 2007" when they negotiate with a banker over a mortgage."

So you're saying a person in a government entity can think back about what worked and didn't but a person of his own enterprise wouldn't have the same thought process?

Quote :

" Government, on the other hand, can make a policy, watch it fail or succeed, study how it failed or succeeded, then make a new policy, just like businesses do. "

You just said the market doesn't learn but businesses do? Wtf?

6/22/2011 8:36:31 PM

Quote :

" I suppose we could just not do business in China and all those people who gladly dropped their shovels and came to the cities of their own accord seeking a better life would just never have that opportunity."

Rofl yeah that's what happened, they gladly went to the cities

Chance, playing the moron as usual

6/22/2011 9:48:09 PM

Quote :

"Also, what are these automation-produced products that say "Made in America " on the back, because I'm still not seeing them."

All my friends from college work at factories here in North Carolina shipping product all over the world. Our biggest trading partner is Canada.

Quote :

"And even if it was just a result of automation: that's not Capitalism's credit at all then, but technology, which can be developed in any ideological environment."

Such an assertion is up for debate. The Soviet Union certainly found the electronics revolution unmanageable, and they didn't need to develop the technology, merely deploy what was developed in the west.

Quote :

"It was only the ones dumb enough to be holding on to those securities who really got burned by the collapse, then the effect cascaded through the entire housing market."

All you did was walk back begging the question. If investors see other investors getting burned by bankers selling subprime securities, then investors will stop buying them, as they would have done, except the federal government is making the taxpayer liable for all losses in the market, as the government has decided to make it illegal for investors to suffer losses in this market. Yet another example of the government learning lessons in how to socialize losses and privatize profits.

Quote :

"So...if a bank goes belly-up, what happens to the average joe, $25-30,000 a year schlubs that had their money in there? "Sucks to be you, have fun in bankruptcy court"? "Should have insured your deposits yourself with all that money you don't have"?"

PinkandBlack, usually when a bank went under it was bought out with the depositors losing nothing, not even temporary access to their money, all the losses fell upon unsecured creditors. However, during abnormal times such as the depression, banks lost enough money to wipe out their unsecured creditors and eat into deposits, so yes, it could take up to a year and you only recouped 60 to 80 cents on the dollar of your savings.

Quote :

"Those memories will fade after he sees others making their money from unwise loans. The market doesn't learn, there's simply no mechanism for it."

The memories of regulators and law makers will fade as well, as they did here, which is why so many rules restricting fannie and freddie were lifted over the years, driving a bubble which blew up and cost taxpayers a trillion dollars. Clearly the government learns nothing, as the rules restricting fannie and freddie have only gotten worse as they have drained the treasury.

6/22/2011 10:54:10 PM

Quote :

"The Soviet Union certainly found the electronics revolution unmanageable"

I would blame that on how their greatest scientists were wasted on the front line of the arms race. It certainly wasn't due to a lack of great scientists.

Quote :

"The memories of regulators and law makers will fade as well, as they did here, which is why so many rules restricting fannie and freddie were lifted over the years, driving a bubble which blew up and cost taxpayers a trillion dollars. Clearly the government learns nothing, as the rules restricting fannie and freddie have only gotten worse as they have drained the treasury."

The market has no mechanism to learn, it's simply not possible, the boom and bust will happen due to the inevitable return of these mistakes. I know you don't agree with it, but I believe that a central body at least has a chance of taking advantage of man's greatest strength, learning.

6/22/2011 11:29:08 PM

I know you don't agree with it, but I believe that a distributed body at least has a chance of taking advantage of man's greatest strength, learning.

People will learn what behavior tends to loose them money. It is far harder for a politician to figure out exactly which ones of their several hundred votes in Congress lost them the election.

6/23/2011 2:37:09 AM

Quote :

"Rofl yeah that's what happened, they gladly went to the cities Chance, playing the moron as usual"

Feel free to post a shred of...fucking anything...to support your ridiculous assertions. I never once remember reading

"Chinese citizens were marched at gunpoint from farms to factories where they were enslaved for 5c a day"

Not to say it didn't happen or doesn't happen. Just saying it must be in one-off situations.

6/23/2011 6:45:57 AM

Quote :

"People will learn what behavior tends to loose them money. "

But on the aggregate, in economic models, they do not. There's simply no mechanism to allow for this.

6/23/2011 10:02:45 AM

There is. It is called learning, either through ourselves (I lost money that way) or through others (I know or heard about someone that lost money that way).

6/23/2011 10:48:10 AM

Quote :

"Feel free to post a shred of...fucking anything...to support your ridiculous assertions. I never once remember reading "Chinese citizens were marched at gunpoint from farms to factories where they were enslaved for 5c a day" Not to say it didn't happen or doesn't happen. Just saying it must be in one-off situations."

Clearly anything short of being marched at gunpoint is "gladly"

Rural Chinese have seen their wages drop drastically since "free" enterprise and trade has pushed them out of their old livelihoods, and further as governmental regulations (formerly supported and enforced by SEOs) protecting their rights as workers disappeared. I doubt they are "glad" as they have gone from 80% coverage in health care to around 20%, and their wages have steadily declined. Yes, China's developing and progressing but at the cost of this extreme lower class. I'm sure when the price of their crops crashed 30% due to an influx of western agribusiness crops they were "glad" to move to the cities and live a life of 18th century toil.

Rather than attempting to reform the institutions that both failed and worked for China (producing great steps forward in development but at the cost of some pretty bad mismanagement), aggressive deregulation and privatization has been pursued which has pushed a considerable portion of their population into extreme, miserable, grinding poverty where they work for next to nothing at utterly insane hours.

6/23/2011 12:45:50 PM

It's not just that their wages declined, it's that they've had major inflation, which is the same as having your wages diminished. This is what I mean when I say we export inflation. China is the manufacturing powerhouse of the world - the value of their money should be going up. Instead, U.S. and Chinese leaders are intent on maintaining a certain level of trade, so rather than allow true floating exchange rates, we have a currency peg. It's great for us. It's terrible for China.

6/23/2011 1:04:58 PM

Quote :

"It's not just that their wages declined, it's that they've had major inflation, which is the same as having your wages diminished."

But before this it was a sudden drop in agricultural prices that forced most sugar farmers, say, out of the industry.

Quote :

"It's great for us. It's terrible for China."

This is true of many aspects of their labor market, which is where it is now thanks to deregulation and the loss of workers' right to strike

6/23/2011 1:38:44 PM

I disagree with both of you. I think China has been amazingly successful how to invest in thier own economy over the past decades and it will continue to pay dividends. I think they have done a great job at leveraging aspects of privatization and socialization to meet thier place in the developmental process.

6/23/2011 1:47:28 PM