|
My Imaginary GF posted:Of course its doing something: its being invested and producing economic growth. The Cayman Islands are more safe than America because there it can be hidden and not taxed.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Try me. US savings rates are consistently low so that's an easy one. The rich hoarding money isn't quite as good as if they just burnt it but its still not bad. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jan 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Of course its doing something: its being invested and producing economic growth. The money is in US banks. Just the account holders have foreign addresses so US taxes don't apply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:The money is in US banks. Just the account holders have foreign addresses so US taxes don't apply. It's that kind of thing that makes me wish that Obama was running for president instead of Hillary. The quote about how the money from the 2004 repatriation holiday was just used for executive bonuses is something that he'd be all about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:The money is in US banks. Just the account holders have foreign addresses so US taxes don't apply. Just wait until those foreign nations have their institutions collapse and are forced to go after American capital held there because its easier than raising taxes on their citizens. America is eternal. Luxembourg? One hundred years ago, they didn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:America is eternal. Luxembourg? One hundred years ago, they didn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
rscott posted:The stock market and is basically worthless for determining the health of the economy though. Dow went up 400 points on poo poo gdp growth because that means the feds won't raise rates again and turn off the spigot of free money for them to throw around in the casino This also had a lot to do with Japan NIRPin' it up and kind of dominating the financial news at the same time, but it's still hilarious. It's sort of the opposite of what happens when a good jobs report comes out if everyone is already expecting a rate hike. Long periods of growth (even weak growth) and zero interest rates really gently caress with market expectations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Luxembourg was reestablished two hundred years ago. Hundred years ago, what was the currency they used in Luxembourg?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Like any patriotic American MIGF doesn't slow down even a bit when he's caught spouting blatant falsehoods. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:Austerity is entirely self-defeating and cannot work I'm about 90% sure the guy introducing this guy rolled up to my friends birthday party in full lederhosen and helped us finish a keg while he talked about Google's AI program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
I caught probation in this forum over five years ago for calling for the death of the financial oligarchs as they were strangling the world economy. I see that I continue to be right as the years grind on. If only we had listened to me those years ago we could avoid this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Hundred years ago, what was the currency they used in Luxembourg?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Hundred years ago, what was the currency they used in Luxembourg? Plenty of countries in Europe are older than the United States (most of them are even!). A nation isn't just a party and its government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Plenty of countries in Europe are older than the United States (most of them are even!). A nation isn't just a party and its government. Besides the UK which ones had remotely continuous governance?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Plenty of countries in Europe are older than the United States (most of them are even!). A nation isn't just a party and its government. Constitutionally speaking most of them actually aren't. The UK is probably as old or older depending on when exactly you consider its 'constitution' and the modern system of Westminster parliamentary government established, but not by very much. The institution of Prime Minister only existed since the mid 1700s, and the concepts of a an institutionalized system of government vs opposition in parliament, and the modern electoral system only since the 1830s. As for the rest of Europe, you can sort of identify them in waves. The Scandanavian countries adopted modern constitutions in the early-mid 1800s, then France, Italy and Germany didn't solidify till the 1870s. Everyone else is way later than that icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Jan 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Besides the UK which ones had remotely continuous governance?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Denmark, and Sweden after it threw us out. Sweden and Norway only date to 1810, and Denmark only to 1848
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Sweden and Norway only date to 1810, and Denmark only to 1848
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Okay, what is your definition of continuous governance? Sure, absolutism was abolished in 1848, but it's not like this meant full suffrage or anything like that. It was essentially just an evolution of the fact that no absolute ruler actually ruled absolutely, a formal change which invited further gradual reforms. Like, two decades later you still only had 14% of the population being able to vote. Denmark as a nation state I would place in 1864, as the country was involuntarily divested of any ambiguously-Danish (as many Schleswigers sort of viewed themselves as neither German nor Danish, and at the same time both) peoples that remained and redefined the Danish state as being the state for ethnic Danes. A nation state is not the same as a state though. No revolution has toppled a Danish government, and we've had a continuous succession of kings stretching back to 1340 (The Danish territory having been split in two by two counts between 1332 and 1340), which I would definitely views as continuous. Is it all about the constitution for you? Because clearly then the UK isn't even a state yet. Pretty certain there weren't no government in Germany for a few years during and after the war, chief. There was occupation. While no internal revolt has toppled your little kingdom, the Nazis certainly toppled it quite easily. Unless you don't count a state's obligation to protect all of its citizens as including Jews.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Pretty certain there weren't no government in Germany for a few years during and after the war, chief. There was occupation. My Imaginary GF posted:While no internal revolt has toppled your little kingdom, the Nazis certainly toppled it quite easily. Unless you don't count a state's obligation to protect all of its citizens as including Jews.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Sorry if this is off topic. Since large parts of the world is still employing stimulus measures from the GFC (zero or negative interest rates, QE and/or infrastructure spending), if the wheels come off again this year, what tools do the various central bankers still have left to use? Do they have anything? Is there any economists talking about what comes next?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Sorry if this is off topic. The big change that needs to happen is that central banks need to quit handing free money to the rich like it will help. The tiny/non-existent interest rates haven't done much other than hand free money to people who already don't need it. The big issue is where the money is being sent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Constitutionally speaking most of them actually aren't. The UK is probably as old or older depending on when exactly you consider its 'constitution' and the modern system of Westminster parliamentary government established, but not by very much. The institution of Prime Minister only existed since the mid 1700s, and the concepts of a an institutionalized system of government vs opposition in parliament, and the modern electoral system only since the 1830s. Firstly, I'm not sure why you think the Great Reform Act established a 'modern electoral system' and the one before it was somehow wildly different. It's not nearly as Great as you think. Secondly, this is a bit of a slippery slope. Does the US lose constitutional continuity every time it passes an Amendment? Immediately-post-establishment US had a pretty different electoral system to now (only rich white men get to vote, the Senate was not directly elected), but despite the system being different we don't claim it's a different government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Sorry if this is off topic. Just to be clear, while much of the western world is still at, near, or below zero percent interest rates, QE is mixed (the US Federal Reserve stopped months ago and is letting its QE portfolio roll off), and so far as I know, no major economy with the possible exception of China is doing major infrastructure spending. quote:if the wheels come off again this year, what tools do the various central bankers still have left to use? Do they have anything? Is there any economists talking about what comes next? I don't think the wheels will come off, but the central bankers don't have many tools left in their box. And, really, that's okay because the solutions should be coming from the political process (Congress, parliaments, etc.) anyway. The best tool will still be increased government spending, although it is for some reason anathema to large segments of the population. If there's a true deflation scare, I'm curious if we'd see the really heterodox policies come out--for instance, direct monetization of government spending by newly printed money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Just to be clear, while much of the western world is still at, near, or below zero percent interest rates, QE is mixed (the US Federal Reserve stopped months ago and is letting its QE portfolio roll off), and so far as I know, no major economy with the possible exception of China is doing major infrastructure spending. I assume a return to QE and negative interest rates are possible (if not likely) the question if it will make much of a difference, and to be honest it probably won't. It may help stabilize a downturn to some extent but you need fiscal stimulus. quote:I don't think the wheels will come off, but the central bankers don't have many tools left in their box. And, really, that's okay because the solutions should be coming from the political process (Congress, parliaments, etc.) anyway. The best tool will still be increased government spending, although it is for some reason anathema to large segments of the population. Let's be honest, the core of issue is that so much of the business and political elite in the first world are deeply against increased government spending. If anything we are in a complete ideological deadlock where many who hold power would rather jump off a building than issue stimulus measures. I think we are going to be stuck quite a while once growth finally slowly down, there just isn't enough ideological flexibility in the system left to address the issue. Once one side completely wins an ideological battle, the hardliners only become more hardline. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jan 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Just to be clear, while much of the western world is still at, near, or below zero percent interest rates, QE is mixed (the US Federal Reserve stopped months ago and is letting its QE portfolio roll off), and so far as I know, no major economy with the possible exception of China is doing major infrastructure spending. Canada is starting some infrastructure spending as well. While most (all?) of Europe is still busy making things worse via austerity. I listed it more as an orthodox reaction to an economic downturn, less of what is currently happening. I agree that the challenges coming need to be tackled by our duly elected officials, but those policies are unlikely to be formulated by those bodies for technical proficiency and ideological reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I assume a return to QE and negative interest rates are possible (if not likely) the question if it will make much of a difference, and to be honest it probably won't. It may help stabilize a downturn to some extent but you need fiscal stimulus. Agree that fiscal policies should do the heavy lifting. I also think--though I have little to back this up with other than intuition--that while skidding around at nearly zero percent is okay, actually going negative is going to be, on the net, ineffective or even counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:You've come quite close to describing the Victorian era, which we rapidly seem to be regressing to. Regression to the mean, middle class economics and representative democracy are high energy states. Think a pyramid if champagne glasses on the hood of a speeding sports car, destined to collapse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Agree that fiscal policies should do the heavy lifting. I also think--though I have little to back this up with other than intuition--that while skidding around at nearly zero percent is okay, actually going negative is going to be, on the net, ineffective or even counterproductive. It probably won't make that much of a difference, you could say QE already is an effective alternative to negative interest rates but there almost certainly a declining return on expansionary monetary policy of any form. Abe is trying to pump as much money as he can into the system, but ultimately it is a more of a question of where it is going than the amounts he is pumping to the system. If (or when) there is another crisis or another recession in the US, expansionary monetary policy has to be part of the reaction but if that is about it then we are going to be quite stuck for years in a deflationary/near deflationary environment. At best we might get some type of "Bush bucks" hand out but that is about it. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jan 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Sorry if this is off topic. At this point there's basically nothing more, what they've been doing since the gfc has itself been unprecedented by the standards of most of history Basically governments need to implement fiscal policy to fix it, stuff like stimulus and actual laws. But that's not gonna happen, at least in the US, so well feedmegin posted:Firstly, I'm not sure why you think the Great Reform Act established a 'modern electoral system' and the one before it was somehow wildly different. It's not nearly as Great as you think. Secondly, this is a bit of a slippery slope. Does the US lose constitutional continuity every time it passes an Amendment? Immediately-post-establishment US had a pretty different electoral system to now (only rich white men get to vote, the Senate was not directly elected), but despite the system being different we don't claim it's a different government. If you take the establishment of the office of prime minister the UK is older, but only by a few decades. Every other major European country is younger icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jan 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Constitutionally speaking most of them actually aren't. The UK is probably as old or older depending on when exactly you consider its 'constitution' and the modern system of Westminster parliamentary government established, but not by very much. The institution of Prime Minister only existed since the mid 1700s, and the concepts of a an institutionalized system of government vs opposition in parliament, and the modern electoral system only since the 1830s. Universal white male suffrage didn't occur in the US until around the 1820s. And really based on the way people here are defining constitutional orders it's not altogether clear to me that you could date the modern United States government as existing prior to the 1860s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:If you take the establishment of the office of prime minister the UK is older, but only by a few decades. Every other major European country is younger Why would you go with the office of prime minister? That's a really, really weird thing to look at and say 'oh hey the UK is modern now', it wasn't even an official post for decades, and early on the King had way more input into his government's policy prime minister or not. The Glorious Revolution would be a much better point since it pinned down the whole 'constitutional monarchy' thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Who is talking about Germany???? "Our nation only had our minority population sent to concentration camps, it's not like they were sent to extermination camps" is such a meaningful difference for establishing the continuity of the Danish state 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Goddamn it can we have one current events econ thread, I beg you
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Basically governments need to implement fiscal policy to fix it, stuff like stimulus and actual laws. But that's not gonna happen, at least in the US, so well Agronox posted:Goddamn it can we have one current events econ thread, I beg you
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Look dude, if this is you attitude about the US, what does that means for its retarded brother the EU?? So, my wider point is that Germany dominates European economic policy, and does so out of the legacies of the anti-state policies enacted during the nazi administration. Why are the Baltics, Poland, Greece, and Balkans economically underdeveloped and growing at a slower rate than Germany had post-war? Simple: Because the Nazis destroyed the state apparatuses within these territories, and state institutional destruction has economic impact that can only be measured over a generational timescale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Besides the UK which ones had remotely continuous governance? I'm arguing that most identify as being French, not citizens of the Third Republic or some poo poo. People don't view their nationalities by whatever their current government is. That's a uniquely American thing going.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Look dude, if this is you attitude about the US, what does that means for its retarded brother the EU?? It is hard to see the EU doing better at this point, even without the ideological restrictions that are there at the national level, since there is the reoccurring issue of the Euro. Even if governments change or at least become less hardliner, there isn't going to be much of them to do at this point. For example, Spanish public debt is over 100% at this point (was almost 30% before the crisis), and it doesn't control its own currency and if anything is even more reliant on the ECB and the EU if another crisis happens. Unfortunately, I don't see either institution changing their course, and if anything the situation is even more politically unpredictable with the resurgence of populism and radicalism. Left wing governments are going to be relatively screwed because they won't be able to changing budgets much, but in many ways can't play the blatant xenophobia card like far-right parties can. The far-right parties don't have an economic solution either, but they very well may distract the populace enough so they can generally keep a grip on power. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jan 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It probably won't make that much of a difference, you could say QE already is an effective alternative to negative interest rates but there almost certainly a declining return on expansionary monetary policy of any form. Abe is trying to pump as much money as he can into the system, but ultimately it is a more of a question of where it is going than the amounts he is pumping to the system. I'm having a hard time envisioning how a just-slightly-deflationary environment would affect the median US family. Jus tot start with personal debt would become an even worse idea, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I'm having a hard time envisioning how a just-slightly-deflationary environment would affect the median US family. Jus tot start with personal debt would become an even worse idea, correct? Deflation is a redistribution of income from debtors to creditors. Inflation is a redistribution from creditors to debtors. Deflation is quite, quite horrid for income inequality issues. The only fiscal policy with a proven trackrecord of reducing income inequality is a currency having a moderate, yet manageable, rate of inflation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:58
|
|