|
Mange Mite posted:Also we learn the value of an undergraduate economics minor. Absolutely worthless?
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
It got Ross Perot a vote, at least
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:Y'all know that pensions are invested in equity markets? Like all of them. That's why they usually become underfunded in recessions and then have nice returns following? Check out uaw's pension over the last decade. Anyway, the long term returns on China's pensions won't be "too" damaged as long as they buy in piece wise over the next market cycle. They'll over pay for some periods and get good deals over others. But that's also assuming the CCP follows actuarial practices of risk management and not, CHINA STRONG. Everyone look at this idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Or more than likely a vote buying scheme. I didn't notice this before. The problem isn't this guy's economics minor, it's that he's an ideologue who buys into the radical reactionary narrative that public spending is equivalent to demagogic vote-buying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I didn't notice this before. The problem isn't this guy's economics minor, it's that he's an ideologue who buys into the radical reactionary narrative that public spending is equivalent to demagogic vote-buying. He said he was a Ross Perot voter, what more did you need to read?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Anyway if you want to talk about ROI from a Asian bubble, look at the Nikkei over the past 25 years. It is just under about half it was before the crash of the early 1990s and if anything I think is a more readily useful example compared to US markets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I didn't notice this before. The problem isn't this guy's economics minor, it's that he's an ideologue who buys into the radical reactionary narrative that public spending is equivalent to demagogic vote-buying. I've never understood this even in the more "open" democratic societies. I'm hard-pressed to come up with an argument to explain how public spending in China buys votes unless you're talking in the *very* macro sense of buying yourself out of a revolution. But if that's acceptable argument then we're pretty much at the equivalent point of abstraction as debate teams that end the spread via "...and that leads to nuclear war."
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Well constituencies vote themselves resources and in fact that is a legitimate and critical use of the vote in democratic societies. Government is primarily concerned with distributing resources, be they administrative, peace-keeping, infrastructural, etc. Serious opponents of enfranchisement tend to be economic opponents who prefer resources not be allocated to the disenfranchised group, whether because those resources are currently allocated to the opponents or because there is a power relationship involved. For example, business interests oppose government spending on principle both because resources are allocated away from them via taxes and because a functioning welfare state dilutes their power over labor, and while disenfranchising laborers is not within the realm of American political debate you still hear about it fairly often from the extreme right. Aristocrats opposed the enfranchisement of tenants for exactly the same reasons. The belief that allocation of resources to the poor* is an illegitimate use of the franchise is a radical reactionary position. *always to the poor; the property test franchise has a few intellectual fig leaves but when it comes times to allocate the public resources somehow the aristocrats see directing the flow their way as legitimate and proper.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Well constituencies vote themselves resources and in fact that is a legitimate and critical use of the vote in democratic societies. Government is primarily concerned with distributing resources, be they administrative, peace-keeping, infrastructural, etc. Serious opponents of enfranchisement tend to be economic opponents who prefer resources not be allocated to the disenfranchised group, whether because those resources are currently allocated to the opponents or because there is a power relationship involved. For example, business interests oppose government spending on principle both because resources are allocated away from them via taxes and because a functioning welfare state dilutes their power over labor, and while disenfranchising laborers is not within the realm of American political debate you still hear about it fairly often from the extreme right. Aristocrats opposed the enfranchisement of tenants for exactly the same reasons. I wasn't doubting that allocation to the poor as a illegitimate use of franchise to the poor was a radical position - I was saying I don't see how it applies to the Chinese example. China might have "open" local elections, but the CCP is the only party that truly makes any decisions. Within that framework I'm not sure how one argues that public spending in China buys votes since no vote matters beyond reinforcing support for the CCP. It's not like the Politburo of the CCP gives the slightest gently caress about how their actions play out in any local election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Well the guy was talking about the US budget.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I've never understood this even in the more "open" democratic societies. I'm hard-pressed to come up with an argument to explain how public spending in China buys votes unless you're talking in the *very* macro sense of buying yourself out of a revolution. Because the bedrock of libertarianism as an ideology is the belief in absolute property rights, above even democracy itself. So any process, even a democratic one, that abrogates those rights is illegitimate. That's why you get them supporting people like Pinochet, given a choice between democracy and property rights they'll choose property rights
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Because the bedrock of libertarianism as an ideology is the belief in absolute property rights, above even democracy itself. So any process, even a democratic one, that abrogates those rights is illegitimate. That's why you get them supporting people like Pinochet, given a choice between democracy and property rights they'll choose property rights Property rights and democratic institutions aren't mutually exclusive. Sticking with Latin America one can easily point to Fujimori with the Law of Promotion of Investment in the Agrarian Sector. I'm not promoting Fujimori as an example of pushing both democratic institutions and property rights necessarily - he was definitely an autocrat - but rather to underscore that you can get democratic support and push strong property rights to the point that elections support such policies. But that aside I'm not sure how you're jumping from public spending to abrogation of private property rights unless your argument is that any tax that affects property is an abrogation of private property rights. if that's the case you're looking at a fringe sector of libertarianism that was pretty much dead in China after the civil war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Everyone look at this idiot. Do go on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
New Times article on Tianjin: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/world/asia/behind-tianjin-tragedy-a-company-that-flouted-regulations-and-reaped-profits.html?_r=0 "“Nobody wanted to stand in their way”
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
quote:
https://twitter.com/george_chen/status/638025097333370880?s=09
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Allegedly four top executives of CITIC Securities have been arrested for insider trading as well. Is this a big deal?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Arrest everyone who tries to sell stock. Crisis averted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I didn't notice this before. The problem isn't this guy's economics minor, it's that he's an ideologue who buys into the radical reactionary narrative that public spending is equivalent to demagogic vote-buying. I live next door to a trillion dollar vote buying scheme in the F-35 fighter. We get billboards during election season to "SAVE THE F-35!". Absolutely a significant portion of the budget is vote buying for both parties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Elected representatives are held accountable by the electorate for delivering government resources to their area?  I'm serious, if you think that's an inherently illegitimate use of the franchise you hold reactionary views. It's fine to be against fighter jets. Would you be this opposed if people were voting themselves schools and hospitals?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I live next door to a trillion dollar vote buying scheme in the F-35 fighter. We get billboards during election season to "SAVE THE F-35!". Absolutely a significant portion of the budget is vote buying for both parties. "Politicians try to get elected by doing things their electorate wants/convincing their electorate that what they're doing is in their best interest" is not "vote buying."
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
No you see in a true democracy no one does anything to help themselves or anyone else. The politicians are elected to sit in chairs and not speak for a given term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Elected representatives are held accountable by the electorate for delivering government resources to their area? Schools and hospitals are usually paid for at the local level where there are more restrictions to deficit spending. I really am an one trick pony politically. You can smoke your legal weed while concealing you Glock with a valid weapons permit all the way to the chapel for your same sex marriage and I don't care. Deficit spending, I care about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Schools and hospitals are usually paid for at the local level where there are more restrictions to deficit spending. I really am an one trick pony politically. You can smoke your legal weed while concealing you Glock with a valid weapons permit all the way to the chapel for your same sex marriage and I don't care. Deficit spending, I care about. Deficit spending is morally and economically justified, sorry that you disagree with reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Schools and hospitals are usually paid for at the local level where there are more restrictions to deficit spending. I really am an one trick pony politically. You can smoke your legal weed while concealing you Glock with a valid weapons permit all the way to the chapel for your same sex marriage and I don't care. Deficit spending, I care about. You don't understand debt, got it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You don't understand debt, got it. Friend, he has a Minor in Economics!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Schools and hospitals are usually paid for at the local level where there are more restrictions to deficit spending. I really am an one trick pony politically. You can smoke your legal weed while concealing you Glock with a valid weapons permit all the way to the chapel for your same sex marriage and I don't care. Deficit spending, I care about. People like you shouldn't be allowed to vote and breed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Deficit spending is morally and economically justified, sorry that you disagree with reality. These please, enlighten me. Deficit spending is justified at certain times - like during the Great Recession. But that's not what the U.S. government practices. We do deficit spending when the economy is good, we do it when the economy is bad, we do it when T-bills are expensive, we do it when T-bills are cheap. We're like a Doctor Who book of loose fiscal policies. Sure, interest rates are cheap right now, so even I can acknowledge fewer downsides to debt that can be paid back with inflationary dollars. Unless we're spending that money on new programs and policies that represent fixed costs going forward that'll only require more borrowing when debt might not be as cheap (10% T-bills in the 1980's anyone?). I'm an ideologue, but I'm surprisingly open to debate. So far no one's said anything but 'mmmm debt good' and personal attacks. Maybe economic theory has updated since the 1990's, but back then permanent deficits were a bad thing and except for that brief glorious period in the late 90's, that's what we've had. EDIT: and thanks for the new avatar, I was looking for an excuse to replace my old one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I live next door to a trillion dollar vote buying scheme in the F-35 fighter. We get billboards during election season to "SAVE THE F-35!". Absolutely a significant portion of the budget is vote buying for both parties. But this doesn't prove that deficit spending is vote buying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:These please, enlighten me. Deficit spending is justified at certain times - like during the Great Recession. But that's not what the U.S. government practices. We do deficit spending when the economy is good, we do it when the economy is bad, we do it when T-bills are expensive, we do it when T-bills are cheap. We're like a Doctor Who book of loose fiscal policies. Sure, interest rates are cheap right now, so even I can acknowledge fewer downsides to debt that can be paid back with inflationary dollars. Unless we're spending that money on new programs and policies that represent fixed costs going forward that'll only require more borrowing when debt might not be as cheap (10% T-bills in the 1980's anyone?). Well it's not exactly like you've said why borrowing is bad, just that you're morally opposed to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:These please, enlighten me. Go do an economics major instead of half-assing an economics minor, your professors will teach you. Krispy Kareem posted:I'm an ideologue, but I'm surprisingly open to debate. So far no one's said anything but 'mmmm debt good' and personal attacks. Maybe economic theory has updated since the 1990's, but back then permanent deficits were a bad thing and except for that brief glorious period in the late 90's, that's what we've had. You're not open to debate. There is absolutely no reason to avoid deficit spending when the world's beating a path to your door to buy your debt at interest rates that practically reach 0% when inflation is factored. You take all you can get and use it do things with. If all of a sudden treasuries start needing to have a 15% rate to get people to buy 'em, then ewe can stop doing it, maybe. The entire world, including China, relies heavily on US treasury securities, which gives enormous power to rack up as much debt as we can at bargain basement rates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Well it's not exactly like you've said why borrowing is bad, just that you're morally opposed to it. I agree, usury is a sin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:These please, enlighten me. Deficit spending is justified at certain times - like during the Great Recession. But that's not what the U.S. government practices. We do deficit spending when the economy is good, we do it when the economy is bad, we do it when T-bills are expensive, we do it when T-bills are cheap. We're like a Doctor Who book of loose fiscal policies. Sure, interest rates are cheap right now, so even I can acknowledge fewer downsides to debt that can be paid back with inflationary dollars. Unless we're spending that money on new programs and policies that represent fixed costs going forward that'll only require more borrowing when debt might not be as cheap (10% T-bills in the 1980's anyone?). No one is claiming that debt is good, but your argument is that debt should always be eliminated at the earliest opportunity - circumstances be damned. Right now US T-Bill debt interest servicing is at stupendously low levels meaning the cost of new debt is insanely cheap.  We're living in a time where Switzerland's rates went below zero simply because capital was desperately seeking any kind of save investment. US Treasury Bonds are pretty much the de facto safe investment. China was approaching the ability to actively combat the power of the US dollar and is actively wanting to get the reminbi added to the SDR system...this recent fiasco doesn't really bode well for market-based price discovery of the Chinese currency - and that hurts their chances of being added to the SDR, which is still primarily determined by the value of the US dollar. At the end of the day you're looking at fiscal policy purely from an ideological perspective. From an international relations perspective the amount of power the US dollar has in terms of economic pressure is simply insane - the Triffin Paradox alone proves this - and it'd be nuts for the US to not press this advantage at the same time that their all of the other major currency competitors - the Euro, Yen, and Pound - are struggling while the newcomer reminbi just tripped and fell. You're asking the United States to ignore all the potential power they could gain in that interim period through deficit spending just to make an ideological point...and that's just never going to happen. And, I should note, that the world doesn't seem to have a problem with it either. People are buying US T bonds with basically the lowest rate of return in 35 years simply because they want a safe investment. It's a great time to run deficits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Go do an economics major instead of half-assing an economics minor, your professors will teach you. Not to mention big institutional money such as Social Security invests in US treasury bills since they are a safer investment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
ITT goons think deficit spending is a panacea when productivity is receding
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:ITT goons think deficit spending is a panacea when productivity is receding  Care to expand on that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:These please, enlighten me. Deficit spending is justified at certain times - like during the Great Recession. Since 1950, we've had 12 annual budget surpluses. I'm sure the reckoning will come aaany day now though. Cultural Imperial posted:ITT goons think deficit spending is a panacea when productivity is receding There's a long way between "this thing will fix everything" and "this thing is okay" smh jenny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Since 1950, we've had 12 annual budget surpluses. I'm sure the reckoning will come aaany day now though. And each surplus was heralded as "HOLY gently caress WE HAVE EXTRA MONEY!" Most people try to equate national debt to personal debt and smugly ask why can't they just increase their own debt like the evil liebral gubmint. They are also probably in a shitload of debt from bad life decisions as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
You all laugh about the national debt now, but wait til the Chinese call it in 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:You all laugh about the national debt now, but wait til the Chinese call it in Good think despite the GOP talking point about being in debt to the chinese other countries like Japan hold more treasuries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
I was joking. So who hanging out for the Shanghai stock exchange opening today?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:43
|
|