punked Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 I think AGI is enough to remove the republicans hate of nationalization and it will happen now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) And once again (ad nauseum), please define proper regulation.BTW, your suggestion is a simplistic reference to the ongoing debate of smart economists since at least Lucas, Prescott and Tobin. (Krugman is an unoriginal partisan participant.) msj, do you understand that you have touched on a critical issue in modern macroeconomic theory? ---- msj, I'll give you a (micro) idea of how economists since 1975 or so understand this macro problem. The AIG managers signed their contracts (with bonuses) understanding that the US government would bail AIG out. IOW, people figure out what governments do. People aren't fools. August, give it up. You started another thread on regulation and as I have stated there I am unwilling to go into details on regulation with a person like you. The fact is I have absolutely no respect for a sophist like you and see little point wasting my time going into minutia about what regulations I think are good and those that I think aren't so good. I have already put up enough links to enough smart people where one should be able to at least glimpse for themselves some of the regulations that should be changed or implemented. If you're unwilling to read those links then that's your problem. I choose to no longer discuss such issues with, imo, a troll. Edited March 18, 2009 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) And once again (ad nauseum), please define proper regulation. Regulation must simply be related to market competition. If markets allow a firm (which is not taking risk or is not risk-averse) to earn a positive economic profit, then a regulation may be (Pareto) efficient. Edited March 18, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Obama may or may not be destroying the economy, but he sure is destroying his own approval numbers. They've dropped as much as 30 points in 59 days. It's awfully nice to see the MSM giving him a break and basically ignoring this jaw dropper. Also surprising and an apparent conflict of interest, Obama's campaign accepted $100,000 from AIG during the campaign. Since the Dems initially allowed bonuses in the wording of their stimulus bill, management at AIG is reaping huge bonuses, which may be hard to claw back. Also nice of the media to give Obama a break on this story, they are being quite reasonable, I wonder how long it will last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Obama may or may not be destroying the economy, but he sure is destroying his own approval numbers. They've dropped as much as 30 points in 59 days. It's awfully nice to see the MSM giving him a break and basically ignoring this jaw dropper. Maybe they're ignoring it because it's not true. Obama's approval rating is currently 61%, based on actual, citable evidence (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116845/Obama-Approval-Equal-Better-Bush-Clinton.aspx) and not anonymous, partisan bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Okay Bubber. Can you do the math now? From about 88 at election time to 61%. That's, uh, carry the one...geez, this one is a real stinker...about 27 points. I can see why you didn't bother. Lets say a 25 point drop, which is in the neighborhood of 30. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) Okay Bubber. Can you do the math now? From about 88 at election time to 61%. That's, uh, carry the one...geez, this one is a real stinker...about 27 points. I can see why you didn't bother. Lets say a 25 point drop, which is in the neighborhood of 30. Obama never had 88% approval he may have had 88% favourable but his favourable now is still 70% although don't let facts get in your way of lying. There you go I called you a liar prove me wrong. Edited March 20, 2009 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Since the Dems initially allowed bonuses in the wording of their stimulus bill, management at AIG is reaping huge bonuses, which may be hard to claw back. If the Dems had forbidden the bonuses in the wording of their stimulus bill, management at AIG could have reaped their huge bonuses almost as easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Obama may or may not be destroying the economy, but he sure is destroying his own approval numbers. They've dropped as much as 30 points in 59 days. It's awfully nice to see the MSM giving him a break and basically ignoring this jaw dropper. Also surprising and an apparent conflict of interest, Obama's campaign accepted $100,000 from AIG during the campaign. Since the Dems initially allowed bonuses in the wording of their stimulus bill, management at AIG is reaping huge bonuses, which may be hard to claw back. Also nice of the media to give Obama a break on this story, they are being quite reasonable, I wonder how long it will last. Bush accepted 400 000 from AIG who was in their pocket again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I think that for an economy to thrive, the fetishistic aspect of money has to be exposed. Obama is doing just that by creating trillions of dollars out of thin air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I think that for an economy to thrive, the fetishistic aspect of money has to be exposed. Obama is doing just that by creating trillions of dollars out of thin air. We have a very preverse attitude about cash - sometimes if I have a wad stuck in my jeans I like to touch it and enjoy the fact that I am socially economically potent for at least the day - Your identity and self worth should not be place on cash...but we can't help but have a fetish about the stuff - we are submerged in an ocean of material and social dependence, not so much on the cash - but the value or devaluing of the person..You will find you walk with less confidence and you will eventually lower your head because they PERSECUTE AND MARGINALIZE those with out hords of cash...which is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Even Europe recognizes Obama's reckless spending is disastrous economic policy, and is refusing to participate. The European Union resisted pressure to pump more cash into its recession-hit economies just as Washington added $5 billion more to its soaring rescue bill, throwing a lifeline to stricken auto parts maker. Reuters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Bush accepted 400 000 from AIG who was in their pocket again? Perhaps, once in a while punk, you could provide a link to help others see what you are talking about. For instance, we can't tell over how many years this 400,000 was given or if it was one election. Also whether the 400000 is accurate. But that it besides the point. If Bush was in the pocket of AIG back then, that was wrong, just as wrong as Obama being in the wrong now. No one else seems surprised to find that Obama has dropped close to 30 points in 59 days? I guess everyone approves of the Media censoring themselves from reporting on this and the 100,000 Obama took. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 We have a very preverse attitude about cash - sometimes if I have a wad stuck in my jeans I like to touch it and enjoy the fact that I am socially economically potent for at least the day - Your identity and self worth should not be place on cash...but we can't help but have a fetish about the stuff - we are submerged in an ocean of material and social dependence, not so much on the cash - but the value or devaluing of the person..You will find you walk with less confidence and you will eventually lower your head because they PERSECUTE AND MARGINALIZE those with out hords of cash...which is wrong. Yes, since the invention of the zero, we have become ourselves zeros. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Rich people stick together...If you believe they are attempting lift up the economy for the benefit of all - with stimulus money, you are dreaming - Here is what I see is happening. The sytem peaked and now has fallen - it took about 50 years to go through this cycle...what politicians are doing is making sure that those that they answer to are going to be comfortable - so they are sending out all of these bailout bundles of cash to make sure that THAT privledged class will continue for the next few generations ---- It's a welfare check - the buys nice cars - tropic get aways and children that will be taught that they are the elite - and private school educations abroad are not cheap...That's all this panic is about...the rich are terrified and expect stoolies like Obama to rob the public one more time BIG TIME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 If the Dems had forbidden the bonuses in the wording of their stimulus bill, management at AIG could have reaped their huge bonuses almost as easily. This is a talking point of the Dem camp, given in an attempt to lesson the blow they are receiving for their reckless handling of 780 billion dollars. The wording in the bill does matter except to those who think that conjuring up billions of dollars out of nothing will not cause massive inflation. It's all just paper, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Rich people stick together...If you believe they are attempting lift up the economy for the benefit of all - with stimulus money, you are dreaming - Here is what I see is happening. The sytem peaked and now has fallen - it took about 50 years to go through this cycle...what politicians are doing is making sure that those that they answer to are going to be comfortable - so they are sending out all of these bailout bundles of cash to make sure that THAT privledged class will continue for the next few generations ---- It's a welfare check - the buys nice cars - tropic get aways and children that will be taught that they are the elite - and private school educations abroad are not cheap...That's all this panic is about...the rich are terrified and expect stoolies like Obama to rob the public one more time BIG TIME. Robbing the public that way will become impossible when the value of money is reduced to its production costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 This is a talking point of the Dem camp, given in an attempt to lesson the blow they are receiving for their reckless handling of 780 billion dollars. The wording in the bill does matter except to those who think that conjuring up billions of dollars out of nothing will not cause massive inflation. It's all just paper, right? You need to understand what a contract is. A contract is a device to make social relations predictable. Now, we can apply that conception to your "massive inflation": a steady rate of massive inflation is no motive to sign contract; only price instability and unpredictability is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) Perhaps, once in a while punk, you could provide a link to help others see what you are talking about. For instance, we can't tell over how many years this 400,000 was given or if it was one election. Also whether the 400000 is accurate. But that it besides the point. If Bush was in the pocket of AIG back then, that was wrong, just as wrong as Obama being in the wrong now. No one else seems surprised to find that Obama has dropped close to 30 points in 59 days? I guess everyone approves of the Media censoring themselves from reporting on this and the 100,000 Obama took. No one is reporting it because McCain took 99,000 dollars from AIG. I call you a liar show me the drop????? Where is the citation of his 88% approval rating I searched for it could not find it. Edited March 20, 2009 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 'kay punk, let me explain how to connect the dots. McCain may have taken money from AIG, but he didn't become president. Obama did, and somehow a sentence in the stimulus bill allows AIG execs to reap bonuses from the aid money they got. It's not that complicated. Benny, I truly do not understand what you are talking about. A contract is enforced by law, not good will. You said Obama made a trillion dollars appear, I'm saying that trillion dollars will have a massive impact in the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) One of the dreams of most conservatives is to privatize the money supply. One of the most convenient ways of realizing this dream is by doing what Obama is doing right now. To understand, you have to understand why "euthanasia of the rentier" is behind Keynesianism. Edited March 21, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Remember when they were so concerned over W's $300- $400 billion dollar deficits? Obama budget projected at $9.3 trillion in next 10 years WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama's budget proposals, if carried out, would produce a staggering $9.3 trillion in total deficits over the next decade, much more than the White House has predicted, the Congressional Budget Office said on Friday. Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Hold on I am going to be a right winger for a second here "When Bush doubles our debt it is a good thing and I will not say anything about it, when Obama does it it is a bad thing and I will act high and mighty pretending my president didn't do the same thing." You have no moral authority stop pretending you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 (edited) double post Edited March 22, 2009 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Remember when they were so concerned over W's $300- $400 billion dollar deficits?Obama budget projected at $9.3 trillion in next 10 years WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama's budget proposals, if carried out, would produce a staggering $9.3 trillion in total deficits over the next decade, much more than the White House has predicted, the Congressional Budget Office said on Friday. Link That's just unreal. The way Obama's approval numbers are falling, Americans are finally starting to wake up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.