|
etalian posted:Good think despite the GOP talking point about being in debt to the chinese other countries like Japan hold more treasuries. The Chinese are the boogeymen of this decade, which is why you have statements like "California using 75% of its water for agriculture is bad because we're selling the crops to the Chinese".
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
Almonds! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
I'm glad that my GED in economics has enlightened me enough to understand that debt is the worst possible thing and panic stopping the world economy is absolutely worth balancing the books in the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:I was joking. Probably not gonna see any fireworks until after the parade, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
More importantly a deficit should be measured versus growth, and in the case of the US, the difference is minimal enough at this point not to be an issue, if anything the US should be spending more to stabilize growth, and reduce under employment. Ironically enough, the US if anything was one of the few countries to even have anything close to a working strategy to re balance itself after 08-09.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
etalian posted:Good think despite the GOP talking point about being in debt to the chinese other countries like Japan hold more treasuries. Especially so since China reportedly had to sell off a bunch as part of propping up the stock market. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Probably not gonna see any fireworks until after the parade, unfortunately. Indeed, face might be lost, and preventing that is more important than having an actual stable economy. The Yuan -> Face exchange rate seems pretty bad all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Need to start a face Index.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
I give all my face directly to my bookie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:
From a 65 year perspective it looks great, narrow the chart to the last 5 years, eh. http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-productivity-increases-at-1-3-pace-in-second-quarter-1439296327 The WSJ posted:The productivity of nonfarm business workers, or the output of goods and services per hour worked, increased at a 1.3% seasonally adjusted annual rate in the second quarter, the Labor Department said Tuesday. That gain followed two consecutive quarterly declines. From a year earlier, productivity was up just 0.3%. So yeah, productivity has been kind of struggling. For awhile now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
FT reporting that the Chinese Government will stop buying up shares 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:From a 65 year perspective it looks great, narrow the chart to the last 5 years, eh. Yeah, it's not like there was a major crisis about 5-6 years ago or anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Crashrat posted: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. While I hold this as true, I do suspect there's a limit to how much you can run a deficit here. While it's a great time to take out now, unless you plan on outgrowing the debt incurred or paying it back in full, it seems like it would come back to bite you when you have to start servicing that deficit financing by taking out an equivalent amount at a higher rate in the future. And given how MUCH deficit financing we do already, and how little surplus we've run historically, it seems like a bad idea to use low rates as a justification to blow past normal debt-to-GDP ratios. In short, it seems to me that it's okay to run deficits, but favorable debt terms don't justify irrational spending with debt financing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:So yeah, productivity has been kind of struggling. For awhile now. Sorry, were you going to respond about the US having run deficits forever without ever having the reckoning deficit hawks warn about, or were you just going to trip on to the next scary thing that you'll twist into a reason why the world is scary and we need to balance the budget RIGHT NOW?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:While I hold this as true, I do suspect there's a limit to how much you can run a deficit here. While it's a great time to take out now, unless you plan on outgrowing the debt incurred or paying it back in full, it seems like it would come back to bite you when you have to start servicing that deficit financing by taking out an equivalent amount at a higher rate in the future. Well yeah duh, obviously there's a point at which the debt is too much. But the US has been running a permanent deficit literally for 70 years. The Krispy Kream dude came into the thread doing the idiotic libertarian doomsaying thing about how any long term deficit is evil and it's going to come home to roost ANY DAY NOW, with a side of far-right anti-democratic sentiment about how democracies shouldn't be allowed to levy taxes or allocate that money according to the wishes of the voters or whatever icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Sorry, were you going to respond about the US having run deficits forever without ever having the reckoning deficit hawks warn about, or were you just going to trip on to the next scary thing that you'll twist into a reason why the world is scary and we need to balance the budget RIGHT NOW? I don't have a dog in the productivity fight. Someone said 'productivity low' and someone else posted a chart that actually kind of proved that productivity has been meh while simultaneously implying the opposite. I remember hearing multiple stories over the last year about productivity so I was all like, "I got this one!". I mean if you want the deficit hawk opinion - lower productivity requires more workers to produce the same output which could lower unemployment. The more people working, the less dependence on social services and the more payroll taxes collected. When unemployment was at 3% in the late 1990's we had glorious budget surpluses. So...employment good?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Well this could be worth watching: Administration developing sanctions against China over cyberespionagequote:The Obama administration is developing a package of unprecedented economic sanctions against Chinese companies and individuals who have benefited from their government’s cyber theft of valuable U.S. trade secrets. Woo hoo trade war here we come 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Well this could be worth watching: Administration developing sanctions against China over cyberespionage Man it's a really really bad time to be the CCP right now. Remember that one of the things that they've staked their reputation on in addition to things like the economy is making other countries, particularly the United States, respect them. And now they might have sanctions slapped on them like some petrostate while their economy melts down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Could China go crying to the WTO about it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Could China go crying to the WTO about it? Ehh, I'm not sure. This is framed as a response to national security and intellectual property threats rather than trade practices, and I'm pretty sure the WTO has no influence there. Honestly the WTO would probably support the US for the IP theft alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
The comment section for that article is already flooded with a mix of "Obama is weak for using sanctions instead of...something else..?" and "Poor China being bullied by Western powers/NSA are spying on Negroes" comments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Man it's a really really bad time to be the CCP right now. Remember that one of the things that they've staked their reputation on in addition to things like the economy is making other countries, particularly the United States, respect them. And now they might have sanctions slapped on them like some petrostate while their economy melts down. Well this could also be a bit of a deus ex machina for the CCP. If sanctions go into effect everything becomes blamable on the US. McDowell posted:Could China go crying to the WTO about it? There are national security exemptions in WTO agreements. Because the US is framing the cyberespionage is a national security issue (which is entirely justifiable considering the targeted hacking of military contractors) the US doesn't have to abide by WTO rules or legal processes. Unilateral sanctions would be entirely legal in such a setting and there would be jack poo poo China could do at the WTO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Well this could also be a bit of a deus ex machina for the CCP. If sanctions go into effect everything becomes blamable on the US. I don't think sanctions or lack of sanctions would really change anything; when things get bad enough foreign devils are always to blame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:FT reporting that the Chinese Government will stop buying up shares OK im going to make some warrant put calls in the h-index
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
caberham posted:OK im going to make some warrant put calls in the h-index Hey Mr Moneybags can you post the full article?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Hey Mr Moneybags can you post the full article? Too late I dumped all my year's annual play money based on some forum post. I'm like the reverse banana cart guy
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
caberham posted:Too late I dumped all my year's annual play money based on some forum post. I was wondering what a put call was. Hahah
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
-3% start to the day
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
caberham posted:Too late I dumped all my year's annual play money based on some forum post. Who is the banana cart guy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Who is the banana cart guy? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-24/when-your-banana-guy-starts-trading-stocks-you-know-its-over
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Don't know if it's in the papers yet. I'm hearing: No more inbound or outbound hazardous containers allowed in/out of Tianjin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Don't know if it's in the papers yet. I'm hearing: No more inbound or outbound hazardous containers allowed in/out of Tianjin. Barn door status: closed
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I don't have a dog in the productivity fight. Someone said 'productivity low' and someone else posted a chart that actually kind of proved that productivity has been meh while simultaneously implying the opposite. I remember hearing multiple stories over the last year about productivity so I was all like, "I got this one!". The WSJ article you quoted is utter crap, but that's what I'd expect from the WSJ. The article focuses on how they just need current workers to eek out more finished goods. There are endless studies that show once you meet a certain number of hours worked - usually around 50 per week - your productivity drops. The problem here is that a lot of companies would rather just use salaried workers as disposable cogs. They bring them on salaried & FLSA exempt and then demand they basically bust rear end at 80-100 hours a week. The workers do their best till they burn out and are quickly replaced. The recent big expose on Amazon is a great example of how this works in corporate America. Thus the lack of productivity gain isn't because of lazy workers - it's because of greedy company leadership that doesn't want to maintain a proper level of workers at reasonable pay. Workers haven't had a fair share of productivity gain in America since the early 70s when wage growth fell flat and productivity continued to climb. Now wage increases, when inflation adjusted, basically turn out either flat or negative So for over 40 years productivity has continually climbed while workers haven't shared in any of it. Now the productivity growth is still occurring, albeit not at the same *very* high pace it once was and despite the highest level of productivity ever measured - and its still growing - workers are being asked to work even *more* hours all while watching the amount of money they take home stay the same or go down. It's almost as if workers aren't lazy...they're just working hard enough to not get fired because if they bust rear end they don't see any difference in their paycheck. Academic economists have been pointing this out for an extremely long time while corporate management teams just ignored it. That chicken comes home to roost at some point. Crashrat fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
A container port that doesn't handle IMDG cargo is, in a way, the most Chinese thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Hey guys, don't worry, the people who were spreading all those vile un patriotic rumors about China's Economy and stock market have been punished! http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34104114 quote:China punishes 197 over stock market and Tianjin 'rumours'
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:The WSJ article you quoted is utter crap, but that's what I'd expect from the WSJ.  So no, workers aren't working more and getting the same pay, they are working more and getting paid more. Also productivity gains are almost entirely due to automation- for an example just look at something like Accountants, computer programs do things that would have taken hours or days in seconds. Or how one farmer can produce what took 100s-1000s of farmers to do in the past. There's no obvious reason why productivity and pay should have a direct relationship because of this- in fact you would expect a negative relationship since automation reduces the need for labor and makes the labor that needs to be done easier. e: Another example- things like self-checkouts have reduced the need for the number of cashiers. Thus the remaining cashiers have become "more productive" since the same amount of people are being served with less workers. But it's not like the remaining cashiers jobs have changed at all, nor did they contribute any of the money required to create the increase in productivity in the first place- so of course they aren't going to see a wage increase due to something that basically had nothing to do with them at all. tsa fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:The paper, quoting an account of a meeting of senior regulatory officials on Thursday, said the government had decided to abandon attempts to boost the stock market and instead step up efforts to punish people suspected of "destabilising the market". Sounds like a great way to make China a global hub for capital; arrest capitalists for selling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
tsa posted:
Since you didn't bother to quote your own source The Hamilton Project posted:
So the increase in income has everything to do with workers working more not because they're sharing in the benefits of increased productivity. If workers were sharing in the productivity gains their incomes would increase despite working the same number of hours, which isn't happening. Your point about automation - the Humans Need Not Apply thesis - is completely true. You can do a lot more with a lot fewer people. You assume as axiomatic that the workers shouldn't gain any better pay out of this arrangement, but that conclusion is not axiomatic. There's nothing self evident about a more productive worker not being compensated for their increased productivity. I mean your basic argument is "gently caress anyone that doesn't automagically get a great paying job because if their job is relatively simple thanks to computers then they should eat cake."
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:Since you didn't bother to quote your own source Yeah, and the next logical question is, "What is everyone doing now that we've automated everything that used to occupy all their time?" That gets uncomfortable quick since I don't think too many Very Serious Policy People are looking at this hard (yet?). To bring this back to China, a lot of the safety videos I've seen that (appear to be) from China seem like they are still in the "throw more people at it" stage of industrialization. Is this true, or is automation catching on very heavily there as well?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
Crashrat posted:Since you didn't bother to quote your own source hahaha tsa got loving owned
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:53
|
|