|
BiggerBoat posted:No, I get all that. How wrapped up in the Florida recount was he? I can't really remember, but wasn't he part of that whole mess?
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
joeburz posted:Welp, polished and eloquent used to describe GWB. I guess I've seen it all. Look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx49KA_IW-Y He doesn't have to be as careful in his word choice as does a sitting president, but yes. He's polished and eloquent and you're living in a bubble if you think otherwise. quote:I think attributing the systematic fleecing of the american public that occurred during his tenure to his own Grand Design is just about on the level of yelling about the president somehow controlling the price of gas via a lever on his desk like the well known political cartoon. Who did that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Look at this: I was agreeing with one of your major bullet points. edit: and going by that video, he just looks like someone who is decent at public speaking rather than the idiot people have perceived from his presidential experiences. Is "polished and eloquent" used to describe anyone who isn't staring at their feet awkwardly as they stutter? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RbAZj9RB94 is a video of him interviewing after his presidency which is less repeating of famous stories and more off-the-cuff(although a lot of interviews prescreen questions anyways). again, nothing special. bush as a bright and eloquent speaker is more contrarian than realistic. esto es malo fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Welp, polished and eloquent used to describe GWB. I guess I've seen it all. quote:I think attributing the systematic fleecing of the american public that occurred during his tenure to his own Grand Design is just about on the level of yelling about the president somehow controlling the price of gas via a lever on his desk like the well known political cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Here's a helpful chart from Fox News about last week's campaign finance decision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Here's a helpful chart from Fox News about last week's campaign finance decision. I think that's my new favorite. The Y axis isn't even labeled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Radish posted:I think that's my new favorite. The Y axis isn't even labeled. You get that's a joke right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Here's a helpful chart from Fox News about last week's campaign finance decision. This has to be an edit
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
So if you haven't read Capital in the 21st Century yet you aren't alone. But here is a good summary of it http://www.vox.com/2014/4/8/5592198/the-short-guide-to-capital-in-the-21st-century
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Go watch the videos of the Texas governor's race debates I know that... SedanChair was taking the position that it was beyond his own control and i was agreeing with it with the addition of what immediately came to mind reading the bullet point. and the cartoon isn't just "mocking a micromanaging president", the idea is that the global economy and gas prices, and we can extend this to most other aspects of which people base presidential opinions, is almost entirely out of their control even with with the most top-heavy hierarchy of power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
zoux posted:You get that's a joke right. No I didn't. Poe's Law fucks me again I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
joeburz posted:again, nothing special. bush as a bright and eloquent speaker is more contrarian than realistic. Well not many people would disagree with characterizing Obama as bright and eloquent, but he doesn't have anything Bush lacks and says "uh" a lot more?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:This has to be an edit Yes, but it's an edit of this real chart they made. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yes, but it's an edit of this real chart they made. They did, unbelievably, correct it after everyone in the world called them out on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
To be fair the ruling seems to be unpopular across party lines. I've seen a lot of news article comments from conservatives unhappy with it. Of course they blame the liberal justices for the ruling, which doesn't make any sense given who was in favor and who was opposed, but at least they recognize it as a bad precedent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well not many people would disagree with characterizing Obama as bright and eloquent, but he doesn't have anything Bush lacks and says "uh" a lot more? Not that I think Obama is the best public speaker, but the pacing of his speech goes a way toward masking his flaws. There's a characteristic style to it that I bet most people could repeat in their head when reading his speech text.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:To be fair the ruling seems to be unpopular across party lines. I've seen a lot of news article comments from conservatives unhappy with it. Of course they blame the liberal justices for the ruling, which doesn't make any sense given who was in favor and who was opposed, but at least they recognize it as a bad precedent. "Those Lieberal judges ruled against it, but they clearly supported it and it's all their fault." 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
I've got kind of a random question for the hivemind today. I looked on the first several pages of the Disco, and didn't see a better thread for it, so here you go: I've been reading about macro-economics and thus of course thinking about debt and GDP. I should preface this question by saying that I am DEFINITELY on board with not treating debt as a boogey man in order to institute austerity. Nor do I feel like austerity is good solution to out-of-control debt either. What I wonder is this: Most economists seem to agree that it's reasonable for us to have debt, and plenty of it even, and that debt-to-GDP ratio is the more critical metric than debt itself. But sometimes, reading this forum, I get the impression that many people feel as if it's reasonable to have endless amounts of debt. It seems to me that once the debt-to-GDP ratio gets to a certain level, maybe then it's worth worrying about a little bit. But what IS that level? If we allow the ratio to climb to 200%, 300%, 1000%...at some point, just the interest payments alone will account for such a significant portion of GDP growth that it becomes unsustainable, right? I know this probably doesn't have a satisfactory answer. Actions taken during the Bush presidency increased our debt-to-GDP ratio from around 60% to just over 100%. Back when it was 60%, many people on the left in particular were saying that you don't need to worry about it unless it's over 100%...which it is now! On the other hand, the USD and the American bond market are still trading very strong, as the vast majority of the world still puts a top level of faith in the US' dedication to its fiduciary duties. So clearly, having around 102% debt-to-GDP ratio is not that big a deal for us right now after all, especially when our yearly deficits are lower than our yearly GDP increases which puts debt-to-GDP on a downhill trend. I work with a lot of people who tend to be debt alarmists. They largely don't have a clue when it comes to macro, and some of those concepts are just a little too wonky to be convincing to them. I guess what I'd like is a good simple piece of discussional ammunition to use when talking with these people. I've actually made a surprising amount of headway against the "CHINA'S GONNA CALL THEM CHICKENS HOME TO ROOST  " arguments by simply pointing out figures that China owns less than 10% of our debt, and in fact over half of it is owed to ourselves, especially when I point out that if you think of it like the stock market, that makes us majority shareholders. This question I have is usually the next part of the discussion. Namely, "if debt isn't that big a deal now, Mr. Smartypants, then when IS it?", and I don't feel like I have an answer snappier than "well..uh...not right now because world finance still has faith in our economy...".I know there are some really smart people who post here, especially when it comes to economics. I'm sure I've said some bone-headed things here, so please be gentle on me as I'm just a tech guy trying to understand some of this liberal artsy stuff in my spare time. That being stated, I welcome the opportunity to get set straight too. And although I don't have any particular articles to point to or discuss, I feel like this is somewhat topical since everyone and their mom on Capital Hill are releasing their fantasy budgets right now, every one of which (even the CPC's proposal!) is proposing to cut long-term deficits. edit: i spel gud Justus fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
anonumos posted:"Those Lieberal judges ruled against it, but they clearly supported it and it's all their fault." My best guess is that they know gently caress all about any of the justices other than Roberts who is a dirty liberal because of the ACA ruling and they see how he ruled on this and assume.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
You literally cannot "call chickens home to roost" with public debt, as you can't wave a wand and make treasury bonds suddenly mature. America doesn't borrow money by calling China and asking for a loan. The fact that the American bond market is and has remained completely robust through all this economic turmoil is proof that investors believe that the US is a good place to buy debt. I found this to be a handy primer on why the "debt crisis" is bullshit. http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=faculty_publications zoux fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
For starters, you can point out most major countries are in similar levels of debt-to-gdp ratio, and not all of them have the benefits enjoyed by the US in regards to controlling debt via Fed monetary policies. The dangers of inflation is even an arguable point, since the constricting levels of private household debt would be alleviated by inflationary events.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:-Post-9/11 imperial overreach was systemic, the product of institutional collusion between neocons and their plants in State, Defense, CIA etc. Bush just signed off on it. Gore would have gotten us into Afghanistan and I think it's possible that flagging popularity could have caused him to go into Iraq as well (remember that Clinton did more than anyone else to destroy Iraq pre-Bush) Not really disagreeing with your point, but isn't that basically saying "After HW Bush, Clinton was president more than anyone else before W Bush."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Justus posted:This question I have is usually the next part of the discussion. Namely, "if debt isn't that big a deal now, Mr. Smartypants, then when IS it?", and I don't feel like I have an answer snappier than "well..uh...not right now because world finance still has faith in our economy...". This is the actual answer. The United States has some spectacular advantages with regards to sovereign debt that most other nations do not. In order for DEBT to be a serious problem for the US like it is for the Eurozone periphery countries now there would need to be some spectacular change in global geopolitics that replaces the US Dollar with another option as the basic medium of international trade. Debt payments can never bankrupt the US government, because unlike the Eurozone periphery we can print our own currency, and hyperinflation is nearly impossible because there is a nearly unlimited demand for US dollars. It's important to remember when the lunatics are baying about DEBT that currencies are another market, and markets change in relation to demand as well as supply. Hyperinflation occurs when demand for the currency falls faster than the supply increases. The other point it is important to remember is the US Dollar and DEBT are the exact same thing. There is an enormous amount of unmet demand for US Dollars right now and for the foreseeable future, so DEBT is outright not an issue. edit: None of this is to say that DEBT can never be an issue, but that the only way it every becomes an issue is if something happen outside the question of DEBT that destroys global confidence in the US Government. We'll have much bigger things than DEBT to worry about when that occurs. atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Also ask your coworkers what their ratio of debt to annual income is, and when that will be a problem for them. I know it's stupid to conflate personal and public debt, but I find it amusing that all these people screaming about out of control debt probably have several years of annual income's worth of debt in mortgage, credit card and car notes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Justus posted:I've got kind of a random question for the hivemind today. I looked on the first several pages of the Disco, and didn't see a better thread for it, so here you go:
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
zoux posted:Ughhhh We are so going to have open carry in this state soon. I watched a bit of this hearing, these people are loving nuts. I don't get how goddamn gunrights are peoples' #1 political issue, and they are completely ignorant of economic, education and other huge issues that affect their day to day lives more than the fantasy that some dude is going to kick down their suburban door in the middle of the night to murder their families for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:This has to be an edit C'mon, it's Fox News. You know better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:C'mon, it's Fox News. You know better. No, it's cool. It's a 3d graph and we just can't see the Z axis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Justus posted:I've got kind of a random question for the hivemind today. I looked on the first several pages of the Disco, and didn't see a better thread for it, so here you go: Right now the debt doesn't necessarily matter since we're the biggest game in town and very likely to pay it off long term due to restructuring our loans and poo poo. Really though when you have debt 100% of GDP that says you owe the equivalent of every good and service in your entire economy. Really its the interest that kills you because that's the bare minimum that needs to be paid and every time you do you're taking poo poo out of the local economy so its good to keep the payments low. If it were any other economy people in finance would start to get worried about their investments in bonds and treasuries being paid back. Luckily we can always print away the debt but these investors would take a hit through inflation and be less likely to loan but its better than no return.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Right now the debt doesn't necessarily matter since we're the biggest game in town and very likely to pay it off long term due to restructuring our loans and poo poo. Really though when you have debt 100% of GDP that says you owe the equivalent of every good and service in your entire economy. Really its the interest that kills you because that's the bare minimum that needs to be paid and every time you do you're taking poo poo out of the local economy so its good to keep the payments low. And right now debt service is about 7% of federal spending.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
UberJew posted:The other point it is important to remember is the US Dollar and DEBT are the exact same thing. To add to this, basically a dollar is a -1 note because living in the United States you're always going to be required to pay taxes. This basically also enforces the value of the dollar under the terms that every good and service in the United States pays some tax value and is payable in Federal Reserve notes, what this basically accomplishes is backing the value of these notes with all the goods and services in the United States. Remember, its always easier to print money to pay for services than it is for resources. This is because the value of services is more abstract and easily negotiated in terms of dollars between two parties. Hard resources on the other hand (lets pretend gold) will always try to set their value relative to the scarcity of dollars as some sort of ratio, though this price is still set by supply and demand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Basically a dollar is just a "1" and it only acquires its value whenever its traded for a good or service.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Another thing that is important is that the Federal Reserve System is basically an accounting trick. It is basically a central bank that is not directly controlled by the government. It will look at the recommendations of the President and Congress but does not ultimately answer to either of them. This was done to break the conflict of interest between the government and currency, since the government can't just directly issue new currency it gives more faith and confidence against large inflation rates and helps protect people who would invest in U.S. or trade in U.S. dollars by keeping its value relatively stable. Congress is technically the only way the Fed can issue new additional currency by passing bills that have the clause of funding things they want. This is different than directly issuing currency because it makes the value harder to change since these funds have to be voted on by the majority, and typically since these bills are passed to do social improvements for the country the new currency's value will be propped up again by the benefit created from the public works. And again since this currency is backed by all the goods and services in the country the country and its people will also receives the additional value from these improvements distributed evenly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Basically we all vote on a bill to print new money to build a bridge. We pay the people to build it and there's new money in the economy and it's even more valuable now because we can all use that bridge to do our existing business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
UberJew posted:There is an enormous amount of unmet demand for US Dollars right now and for the foreseeable future, so DEBT is outright not an issue. I think this is basically the sound byte I was looking for. Not that it won't warrant further discussion and explanation, but that's the SOP when discussing macro with people who don't get macro anyways, right? But I think this one line might be a pretty good starting point for getting people to shift their paradigm. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
UberJew posted:This is the actual answer. The United States has some spectacular advantages with regards to sovereign debt that most other nations do not. Yeah, I've used this argument as a way to segue into how grotesquely irresponsible the Republican party is right now, citing the near default and shutdown as examples.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Justus posted:I think this is basically the sound byte I was looking for. Not that it won't warrant further discussion and explanation, but that's the SOP when discussing macro with people who don't get macro anyways, right? But I think this one line might be a pretty good starting point for getting people to shift their paradigm. Thank you. It might also be instructive to point out that the number one single holder of US debt is...the US government   The SSA holds its surplus in the form of treasury bonds, which are as good as cash and probably the safest place to keep liquid assets to protect long term value.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
A lot of libertarians and republicans want to go back to the gold standard under the misguided conception that it would stop inflation and lower speculation. Basically they believe that because of the scarcity of gold its better to back each dollar bill with specific amount gold so each dollar will always have a value equal to the amount of gold. They believe that since inflation eats away at savings that backing currency with gold would prevent the government from trying to issue new currency. The reason we initially did this is because as a new country its pretty hard to back the value of your currency with "faith" and if you wanted anyone to actually use it you'd have to back it up with something a little harder. Unfortunately you still have bank and market crashes due to over speculation or devaluation of assets. Banks would issue their bonds backed with a gold value and then use the cash to make loans. If they ran into deficits then they'd try to issue more bonds to try and raise more money, except now these bonds were worth even less in terms of gold because there's more shares trying to divide up the same amount of gold. A lot of banks would wind up in the same vicious cycle of trying to make more loans to bring in more cash to try to bring up the value of their shares before going bankrupt. They'd also get hosed if the government inflated the currency by doing the same thing of issuing more bills for the same amount of gold and destroy the bank's deposits. This would just lead to a lot of gold switching hands as banks sold off their gold assets for pennies on the dollar which would also hurt the value of the currency. It got to the point where you're basically trying to buy gold to buy whatever else you want. In terms of international trade it was good for large gold holders because regardless of the quality of their goods they had much stronger buying power. This would eventually lead to massive uneven balances of trade due to imports, with all that unemployment if they dared tried to inflate their currency they would risk losing much of their gold due to the economy balancing the trade again. This lead to constant stagflation as the only way to grow the economy in this model is to try to acquire more gold so people would be investment risk adverse and not put any more money into the economy. What finally killed off this model was the developed countries trying to do international trade with currencies that were disproportionately valued against each other due to gold holdings. England wanted to get their employment up and had shitloads of wheat but couldn't actually sell it to anyone because buyers would have to the buy gold before they could buy the wheat. Eventually the countries realized they didn't need this gold middleman to try to dictate prices and could just price the trades in relative values of currency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
More on the gold standard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO21gmoEVpk
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:A lot of libertarians and republicans want to go back to the gold standard under the misguided conception that it would stop inflation and lower speculation. Basically they believe that because of the scarcity of gold its better to back each dollar bill with specific amount gold so each dollar will always have a value equal to the amount of gold. They believe that since inflation eats away at savings that backing currency with gold would prevent the government from trying to issue new currency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:28
|
|
