Remember me
▼ Content

2%



Page 1 of 3123>
2%19-07-2020 03:45
keepit
★★★★☆
(1705)
Is there anyone here that disagrees with the federal reserve's goal of 2% inflation?

Under the current conditions 2% can't be achieved without federal reserve and us treasury intervention. Does anyone disagree with that statement?
19-07-2020 04:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
keepit wrote:
Is there anyone here that disagrees with the federal reserve's goal of 2% inflation?

Under the current conditions 2% can't be achieved without federal reserve and us treasury intervention. Does anyone disagree with that statement?


Your question is silly. Inflation happens. Federal fiscal policy is only one of many factors. The government does not control it and cannot realistically have a certain amount of inflation be a "goal" any more than the government can have a goal to reduce Climate Change.

Sure, some in the government might hope for a specific amount of inflation, but to pretend that they can control it to the point that they have it as a particular "goal" is absurd.

.
Attached image:

19-07-2020 04:17
keepit
★★★★☆
(1705)
Don't worry IBD. Just try to answer the question.
Edited on 19-07-2020 04:45
19-07-2020 04:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
keepit wrote: Don't worry IBD. Just try to answer the question.

Your silly question has been answered. Try to comprehend.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-07-2020 05:17
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2552)
keepit wrote:
Is there anyone here that disagrees with the federal reserve's goal of 2% inflation?

Under the current conditions 2% can't be achieved without federal reserve and us treasury intervention. Does anyone disagree with that statement?


I don't believe it's actually a goal, more of a marker or indicator. How the economy is doing changes often, 2% is just what's considered ideal. A healthy economy is always moving, rising and falling. A stagnant economy is bad, a democrat thing.
19-07-2020 16:16
James___
★★★★★
(3292)
keepit wrote:
Is there anyone here that disagrees with the federal reserve's goal of 2% inflation?

Under the current conditions 2% can't be achieved without federal reserve and us treasury intervention. Does anyone disagree with that statement?



A stagnant economy can have no inflation.
19-07-2020 17:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
Is there anyone here that disagrees with the federal reserve's goal of 2% inflation?

Under the current conditions 2% can't be achieved without federal reserve and us treasury intervention. Does anyone disagree with that statement?

A stagnant economy can have no inflation.

Sure it can. If the government prints more money and nothing else changes, you get inflation as the currency correspondingly decreases in value. If the economy remains stagnant and the government tries to "compensate" by printing more and more money, hyperinflation results.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-07-2020 17:49
James___
★★★★★
(3292)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
Is there anyone here that disagrees with the federal reserve's goal of 2% inflation?

Under the current conditions 2% can't be achieved without federal reserve and us treasury intervention. Does anyone disagree with that statement?

A stagnant economy can have no inflation.

Sure it can. If the government prints more money and nothing else changes, you get inflation as the currency correspondingly decreases in value. If the economy remains stagnant and the government tries to "compensate" by printing more and more money, hyperinflation results.

.



What you're describing is an economy that is contracting. And hyperinflation is caused by price gouging. And all that does is to channel the money in that economy into the hands of fewer people.
19-07-2020 18:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:A stagnant economy can have no inflation.

Sure it can. If the government prints more money and nothing else changes, you get inflation as the currency correspondingly decreases in value. If the economy remains stagnant and the government tries to "compensate" by printing more and more money, hyperinflation results.

What you're describing is an economy that is contracting. And hyperinflation is caused by price gouging. And all that does is to channel the money in that economy into the hands of fewer people.

Nope. If the government prints more money and nothing else changes, you get inflation as the currency correspondingly decreases in value. That is inflation. If the economy remains stagnant and the government tries to "compensate" by printing more and more money, then hyperinflation results.

That's just the way it is. So yes, you can have inflation in a stagnant economy.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-07-2020 19:05
James___
★★★★★
(3292)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:A stagnant economy can have no inflation.

Sure it can. If the government prints more money and nothing else changes, you get inflation as the currency correspondingly decreases in value. If the economy remains stagnant and the government tries to "compensate" by printing more and more money, hyperinflation results.

What you're describing is an economy that is contracting. And hyperinflation is caused by price gouging. And all that does is to channel the money in that economy into the hands of fewer people.

Nope. If the government prints more money and nothing else changes, you get inflation as the currency correspondingly decreases in value. That is inflation. If the economy remains stagnant and the government tries to "compensate" by printing more and more money, then hyperinflation results.

That's just the way it is. So yes, you can have inflation in a stagnant economy.

.



Something is always changing.
What caused the Great Depression is when stocks were bought on margin. And when those margins were called in, the stockholders didn't have the money to cover the margins. Then many people and businesses lost everything.
I mean if you could keep the birth rate a constant match for the mortality rate, then an economic stasis could exist. I think with the US, the way the GDP has been manipulated by the government is dangerous. This basically means that increasing housing prices to create economic growth is not sustainable.
If you look at the Great Recession of 2008, when crude oil rices rose because American businesses decided to create a crude oil shortage to generate more profits, many Americans could no longer afford their mortgage payments.

At the same time an $800 Billion trade deficit is not sustainable. And as you know, my opinion is that when other countries start selling the US dollars that they are holding because of our national debt to GDP ratio becomes too high, then we'll start seeing inflation and high unemployment as a result.
What many Americans overlook is that a highly prized US dollar makes it more difficult for the US to exports it's goods which in reality hurts the US and it's economy.

ie., it's when debt has to be repaid or is no longer tolerated by other countries/entities (banks/lenders) that inflation and unemployment will result.
19-07-2020 19:06
keepit
★★★★☆
(1705)
You can call it a goal or call it an ideal. No sense babbling about semantics. The fact is, inflation hasn't been much of an issue for a long time. No sense fear mongering about it in this economic climate. I went through the inflation of the late seventies and early eighties. Wow.
Anyhow we are in desperate times and some problems are here. The best the fed and treasury can do is mitigate them. They're trying to mitigate bankruptcies, foreclosures and personal and business economic damage the best they can. They're doing it by printing money. It's the least of possible evils.
Fact: there are more dollars out in the rest of the world than there are in the us. Sending more dollars out there in a growing world economy won't make that much difference and would help the us. The us has helped the world economically for a long time, which is not to say we did it unselfishly. But we did help the world economically. It's time to help the us. The world needs the us to be a strong dollar supplier.
Treasuries are dollars in sort of a reserve status, and are a fact of economic life. No sense denying it. We all know that military reserve serves a purpose even if they don't go into combat. For example, a fighter pilot that never gets into a dogfight still serves because noone will challenge the air force in the skies. It's the same with dollars in the form of treasuries.
If we pay off treasuries with printed dollars the interest on those treasuries ceases to be a liability. Sure there's one more dollar but there one less dollar of debt and less money wasted on interest.
No 6th gerade arithmetic lessons please.
Edited on 19-07-2020 19:11
19-07-2020 21:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13502)
keepit wrote:
You can call it a goal or call it an ideal. No sense babbling about semantics.

Then you have no sense. You are constantly babbling semantics.
keepit wrote:
The fact is, inflation hasn't been much of an issue for a long time.

Yes it has. It still is.
keepit wrote:
No sense fear mongering about it in this economic climate. I went through the inflation of the late seventies and early eighties. Wow.

No fear mongering. Inflation is still here.
keepit wrote:
Anyhow we are in desperate times and some problems are here. The best the fed and treasury can do is mitigate them. They're trying to mitigate bankruptcies, foreclosures and personal and business economic damage the best they can. They're doing it by printing money. It's the least of possible evils.

So you choose a cash crash over a debt crash.
keepit wrote:
Fact: there are more dollars out in the rest of the world than there are in the us.

No, there isn't. BTW, the United States is a proper noun. It is capitalized. So is U.S.
keepit wrote:
Sending more dollars out there in a growing world economy won't make that much difference and would help the us. The us has helped the world economically for a long time, which is not to say we did it unselfishly. But we did help the world economically. It's time to help the us. The world needs the us to be a strong dollar supplier.

Dollars can only be spent here. Any dollar in international trade comes back here, either by buying U.S. products or through the currency markets.
keepit wrote:
Treasuries are dollars in sort of a reserve status, and are a fact of economic life.

WRONG. Treasuries are bonds. Government debt. They are NOT cash in any form.
keepit wrote:
No sense denying it.

Denied. Semantics fallacy. You are making no sense again.
keepit wrote:
We all know that military reserve serves a purpose even if they don't go into combat. For example, a fighter pilot that never gets into a dogfight still serves because noone will challenge the air force in the skies.

Irrelevant.
keepit wrote:
It's the same with dollars in the form of treasuries.

False equivalence. Treasuries are not the military, dumbass.
keepit wrote:
If we pay off treasuries with printed dollars the interest on those treasuries ceases to be a liability.

What about the people that bought the treasury? They are paid off with dollars that are now worth less than when the bond was issued.
keepit wrote:
Sure there's one more dollar but there one less dollar of debt and less money wasted on interest.

WRONG. Printing money means there are now more dollars. Period. Dollars are created out of nothing when M1 is raised. Paying bonds with nothing dollars means those that took the risk when they bought the bond are paid with nothing.

Printing money faster than wealth creation is inflation.

keepit wrote:
No 6th gerade arithmetic lessons please.

Why? Can't handle that high a grade of math yet?

It would seem so.

No argument presented. Semantics fallacies. Denial of mathematics. Argument by repetition.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-07-2020 22:14
keepit
★★★★☆
(1705)
Trash talk ITN,
You miss every legitimate point.
The fed and the treasury are navigating a path between deflation and inflation and doing a good job of it.
For someone like you to criticize their work is ridiculous.

News flash. There are no worthless dollars. You're trying to make an argument out of a delusion.

According to the federal reserve, of all the dollar currency in the world, somewhere between 40% and 72% is located outside the us.

BTW, you said, "can't handle a higher grade of math yet?" Making snot a-s punk comments isn't a substitute for making a sensible post.
Edited on 19-07-2020 22:27
19-07-2020 23:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
keepit wrote:You can call it a goal or call it an ideal.

No, you really can't. That was the point of my post. Your assertion is still silly.

keepit wrote: No sense babbling about semantics.

Does this mean you'll stop posting?

keepit wrote: Anyhow we are in desperate times

Is this yet another undefined "threat" and "danger"? Do you really expect to have better luck with this one?

keepit wrote: The best the fed and treasury can do is mitigate them.

Right after they stop Global Warming, right?


keepit wrote: They're trying to mitigate bankruptcies, foreclosures and personal and business economic damage the best they can. They're doing it by printing money. It's the least of possible evils.

Oh yeah, doing what destroys entire national economies is the "least" of possible evils. Sure.

keepit wrote: Fact: there are more dollars out in the rest of the world than there are in the us.

Have you added them up? Do dollars transmit their GPS coordinates to you?

keepit wrote: Sending more dollars out there in a growing world economy won't make that much difference and would help the us.

You sound like someone who is very comfortable not knowing what he is talking about. You've had a lot of practice, I can tell.

keepit wrote: The us has helped the world economically for a long time, which is not to say we did it unselfishly.

You can say it, i.e. we did it very nobly.

keepit wrote: But we did help the world economically. It's time to help the us. The world needs the us to be a strong dollar supplier.

Are you saying that the US needs to start giving away dollars to the rest of the world? Are you trying to say that printing dollars, creating inflation and giving those dollars away to other countries will help the US mitigate its undefined problem?

How about "No"?

keepit wrote: Treasuries are dollars in sort of a reserve status,

We have already established that you haven't the foggiest notion of what bonds are.

keepit wrote: Sure there's one more dollar but there one less dollar of debt and less money wasted on interest.

That's not the right equation to apply when determining the better ROI.

keepit wrote:No 6th gerade arithmetic lessons please.

I assure you, you need to complete 4th grade math before I will waste time trying to teach you 6th grade concepts.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-07-2020 23:18
keepit
★★★★☆
(1705)
IBD,
You're living in a fantasy world.
Edited on 19-07-2020 23:24
19-07-2020 23:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
keepit wrote: IBD, You're living in a fantasy world. No, wait, a delusional world.

keepit, you are projecting. Get back to your 4th grade math.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-07-2020 23:36
James___
★★★★★
(3292)
If we were to say x = $1,000 and we have a population of 100,000 people, then that is 100,000x which = an annual GDP of $100 Million.
Then if new loans equal to 10% of the GDP is taken out each year, then after 10 years the new GDP will be 259,734,000.
If the loans amount decreases each year by 1/2, then the economy will contract.
If the total amount borrowed does not decrease and no money is saved or exported, then the economy will stay the same. This is based on prices staying the same but new jobs being created because of the money being borrowed.
pending, it is consumer debt that fuels the economy. When businesses borrow money, consumer spending will pay off those debts.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-consumer-debt-is-now-breaching-levels-last-reached-during-the-2008-financial-crisis-2019-06-19

p.s., before this pandemic, consumer debit was about 2/3rds of the money in circulation in the US. And then if you consider a trade deficit of about $800 Billion and a budget deficit a little more than that, it's what the US economy is based on.
Attached image:


Edited on 19-07-2020 23:42
19-07-2020 23:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
keepit wrote: News flash. There are no worthless dollars.

Newsflash, printing dollars increases the number of dollars without increasing the underlying wealth and therefore decreases the value of the dollar, and every person has an opinion of the point at which the dollar becomes worthless to him/her.

In Venezuela, artisans make crafts out of their currency ... currency which the world views as worthless.





All it takes for a currency to become worthless is for it to not be accepted. You're trying to make an argument out of a delusion.

keepit wrote:According to the federal reserve, of all the dollar currency in the world, somewhere between 40% and 72% is located outside the us.

1. Obviously that is their guesstimate
2. Obviously they really don't know.
3. Why are you trying to pull a tmiddles and declare it to be "what we know"?

Making snot a-s punk comments isn't a substitute for making a sensible post.

.
Attached image:

19-07-2020 23:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13502)
keepit wrote:
Trash talk ITN,
You miss every legitimate point.

You aren't making any legitimate points. Fallacies are not legitimate arguments.
keepit wrote:
The fed and the treasury are navigating a path between deflation and inflation and doing a good job of it.

No. The dollar has only worth 1/65th of the value it was when the Fed was formed. The Treasury doesn't set the value of the dollar.
keepit wrote:
For someone like you to criticize their work is ridiculous.

Argument of the stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
keepit wrote:
News flash. There are no worthless dollars.

Lie. The dollar today is only worth 1/65th of the value it was when the Fed was formed.
keepit wrote:
You're trying to make an argument out of a delusion.

Fallacy fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Mantras 10j...13...
keepit wrote:
According to the federal reserve, of all the dollar currency in the world, somewhere between 40% and 72% is located outside the us.

Which means they don't know and are making numbers up. Dollars are no good anywhere in the world but for purchasing U.S. products and services. Each nation has it's own currency.
keepit wrote:
BTW, you said, "can't handle a higher grade of math yet?"

Very good. You can read my post. That's exactly what I asked you.
keepit wrote:
Making snot a-s punk comments isn't a substitute for making a sensible post.

I made a sensible post. Argument of the stone fallacy. You are just denying mathematics and history again.

No argument presented. Semantics fallacies. Denial of mathematics. Denial of history. Inversions.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 19-07-2020 23:44
19-07-2020 23:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13502)
keepit wrote:
IBD,
You're living in a fantasy world.

Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-07-2020 23:46
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2552)
Suppose you sit down at a poker game, and white chips are a dollar each. You play a while, win quite a few white chips, couple players drop out. Two new players sit down, but the dealer is selling them white chip, 2 for a dollar. When you cash out, are each white chip going to be still worth the dollar you had to pay to get in the game, or 50 cents, like some of the other players paid, that came to the table after you?

Printing more dollars, makes the value of all the dollars go down. Most people don't realize it, because prices at the stores, don't closely follow that new value. It's a different aspect of the economy. The value of a product or service, is only what a consumer is willing to spend. The Federal estimate of what value, a dollar represents, doesn't really mean a whole lot.
19-07-2020 23:58
James___
★★★★★
(3292)
keepit wrote:
Trash talk ITN,
You miss every legitimate point.
The fed and the treasury are navigating a path between deflation and inflation and doing a good job of it.
For someone like you to criticize their work is ridiculous.

News flash. There are no worthless dollars. You're trying to make an argument out of a delusion.

According to the federal reserve, of all the dollar currency in the world, somewhere between 40% and 72% is located outside the us.

BTW, you said, "can't handle a higher grade of math yet?" Making snot a-s punk comments isn't a substitute for making a sensible post.



When they lowered interest rates back around 2000 to fuel a jobless recovery from a recession, increasing housing prices wasn't the answer. Real estate is speculative and is not real money.
It's like when futures traders in crude oil kept tankers at sea to decrease supply while increasing demand, the answer was found in government spending. And during this time our trade deficit kept increasing.
Between Clinton and G.W. Bush, they hurt our country. But everything is too political to see the missteps that each party made.
And any more, people don't want to pay taxes and they don't want to pay more for consumer goods which helps to stabilize their economy. If that happened then people would have fewer toys to play with and 5G might be seen as just enabling people who need a "fix".
20-07-2020 00:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
Into the Night wrote: No. The dollar has only worth 1/65th of the value it was when the Fed was formed.

Imagine your dollar being worth 65 times its current value.

Imagine being able to buy a well-equipped 2021 Ford Explorer for around $420.00



Imagine being able to buy the entire GEARWRENCH Master Mechanic tool set for $35.00



Imagine going to the store, loading up the cart, going through the checkout and paying $1.12.



I mention this because this was precisely King Ferdinand's motivation to bankroll Columbus' venture to China (West Indies).

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-07-2020 00:30
keepit
★★★★☆
(1705)
I admit economic times could get bad in the future. Until covid came around things were ok though.
Also, I don't quite understand why there isn't more inflation. It's probably because automation keeps it down.
Covid could be the straw that breaks the camel's back though, but maybe we can keep on trucking. No one really knows for sure. Thank goodness for the fed.
No need to keep reciting the definition of inflation. I think everyone understands that.

Maybe the relative value of a dollar in 1914 is meaningless. I mean, who cares. It is houses that have gotten out of hand relative to other things. Cars and gas and electronic and clothes have actually gotten cheaper relative to houses.
If there wasn't so much income disparity, there wouldn't be so much crime and then there wouldn't be such a premium on real estate location.
Edited on 20-07-2020 00:43
20-07-2020 05:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
keepit wrote:If there wasn't so much income disparity, there wouldn't be so much crime and then there wouldn't be such a premium on real estate location.

So now we can see why you and economics don't mix and why you stand in unrelenting solidarity with warmizombies. You are a Marxist. It's not possible for you to grasp solid economics fundamentals.

You see ... I knew you weren't a Christian. You aren't allowed to be.

So tell how you would redistribute the wealth and what your plan would be to nationalize the means of production.

.
Attached image:

20-07-2020 06:37
James___
★★★★★
(3292)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:If there wasn't so much income disparity, there wouldn't be so much crime and then there wouldn't be such a premium on real estate location.

So now we can see why you and economics don't mix and why you stand in unrelenting solidarity with warmizombies. You are a Marxist. It's not possible for you to grasp solid economics fundamentals.

You see ... I knew you weren't a Christian. You aren't allowed to be.

So tell how you would redistribute the wealth and what your plan would be to nationalize the means of production.

.



Son, many economists have already said that we are outproducing demand. With communism, people suffered the inverse effects. Technological advancement was limited to the government. So how would you suggest that we balance capitalism vs Marxism?
Isn't it strange in a way? Communism lags behind a free economy yet a free economy cannot sustain itself. And yet socialism is such a dirty word.
And IBDM, thanks for helping to highlight this scenario.
Edited on 20-07-2020 06:40
20-07-2020 07:27
keepit
★★★★☆
(1705)
IBD,
You're in a fantasy world. Stick to reality.
20-07-2020 07:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
James___ wrote: Son, many economists have already said that we are outproducing demand.

I agree with you. Those economists sound like losers.

James___ wrote: So how would you suggest that we balance capitalism vs Marxism?

Answer: by completely eliminating all Marxism (bogus economics) and enabling free markets (sound economics).

Technically speaking, the optimum is achieved when all markets are able to realize prices via a Supply/Demand curve that is not artificially modified in any way. Marx, on the other hand, viewed sound economics as exploitation worse that slavery.

He had these things to say about human liberty/freedom and free markets:

"[Capitalism] has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless and indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."
- Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto


James___ wrote: Isn't it strange in a way? Communism lags behind a free economy yet a free economy cannot sustain itself.

The only self-sustaining economy is a free one. Under Marxist suffocation of the economy, e.g. Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc.. free black markets instantly begin to emerge and replace the economy that was killed.

James___ wrote: And yet socialism is such a dirty word.

Yep.

.
Attached image:

20-07-2020 08:24
James___
★★★★★
(3292)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Son, many economists have already said that we are outproducing demand.

I agree with you. Those economists sound like losers.

James___ wrote: So how would you suggest that we balance capitalism vs Marxism?

Answer: by completely eliminating all Marxism (bogus economics) and enabling free markets (sound economics).

Technically speaking, the optimum is achieved when all markets are able to realize prices via a Supply/Demand curve that is not artificially modified in any way. Marx, on the other hand, viewed sound economics as exploitation worse that slavery.

He had these things to say about human liberty/freedom and free markets:

"[Capitalism] has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless and indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."
- Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto


James___ wrote: Isn't it strange in a way? Communism lags behind a free economy yet a free economy cannot sustain itself.

The only self-sustaining economy is a free one. Under Marxist suffocation of the economy, e.g. Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc.. free black markets instantly begin to emerge and replace the economy that was killed.

James___ wrote: And yet socialism is such a dirty word.

Yep.

.



If we consider history, the Bolshevik Revolution ended the reign of the Tzars and led to what some say were the deaths of over 40 million Russians. North Korea and China both support Marxism.
A technologically advanced society needs to allow people to take risks. Capitalism in a sense is willing to risk the entire economy. The stock market is a good idea up to a point. It should be about investing in a business and not betting on one. 2 different things.
This is where the question that matters comes into play. What allows an economy to grow? With China, it's cheap labor for Democratic countries. And at the end of the day, technology requires some form of both economic freedom and thought.
20-07-2020 17:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
James___ wrote: If we consider history, the Bolshevik Revolution ended the reign of the Tzars and led to what some say were the deaths of over 40 million Russians.

Marxism results in paranoid leadership who are drunk with power, and many, many, many otherwise faithful people are executed out of overpowering, irrational fear of perceived "threats."

Marxism kills compassion and philanthropy and replaces it with HATRED for humanity, childish virtue-signalling, unparalleled GREED and thirst for more power.

James___ wrote: North Korea and China both support Marxism.

Correct. They both have express conveyor belts to the execution squad. Their Head of State rules by fiat and is a lifelong appointment. They are completely unsatisfied with anything less than full control over the personal lives of the people they govern and who they will gladly execute without a second thought.

James___ wrote: A technologically advanced society needs to allow people to take risks.

That is how free markets work. The driver for any economy is financial investment which involves heavy risk.

James___ wrote: Capitalism in a sense is willing to risk the entire economy.

Not possible. No investor can risk any more than his own investment. The thing about Captialism is that it is not a religion like Marxism; it is not a centrally planned system. Capitalism is really just free market economics, comprised of many individuals and no central planning force. Ergo, you are free to bet your farm on an investment but I cannot risk your farm on any investment.

James___ wrote: The stock market is a good idea up to a point.

It's silly to refer to a market as being a good idea "up to a point." Try that with another market and see how it sounds: "The shoe market is a good idea up to a point" or "The tools market is a good idea up to a point."

It doesn't make any sense. If there is a market for something then by definition it is a good idea.

James___ wrote: It should be about investing in a business and not betting on one. 2 different things.

You are talking about speculation. You are talking about futures. You are essentially denigrating the human pursuit of a better future.

Let's take a look at an example. Let's say you wish to buy a house and you are choosing between two houses. House A is nice but resides on a flood plane and House B is nice too but is not on a flood plane. You choose house B and sit down at closing to sign papers when someone from the government appears and shuts it down. You are told that you were looking at House A first and you need to buy that one. You clarify that you don't really want a house on a major flood plane but you are informed that it should be about investing in a house, not betting on it.

That would be silly.

Do you realize that all futures contracts are bets on the future, as a means to reduce uncertainty and risk? Do you realize that all futures contracts themselves become commodities? How are you going to tell someone that he can buy and sell some commodities but not others?

James___ wrote: This is where the question that matters comes into play. What allows an economy to grow?

Capital investment.

James___ wrote: With China, it's cheap labor for Democratic countries.

It's true that slave labor improves the economy for most people except for the slaves.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 20-07-2020 17:49
20-07-2020 18:06
James___
★★★★★
(3292)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: If we consider history, the Bolshevik Revolution ended the reign of the Tzars and led to what some say were the deaths of over 40 million Russians.

Marxism results in paranoid leadership who are drunk with power, and many, many, many otherwise faithful people are executed out of overpowering, irrational fear of perceived "threats."

Marxism kills compassion and philanthropy and replaces it with HATRED for humanity, childish virtue-signalling, unparalleled GREED and thirst for more power.

James___ wrote: North Korea and China both support Marxism.

Correct. They both have express conveyor belts to the execution squad. Their Head of State rules by fiat and is a lifelong appointment. They are completely unsatisfied with anything less than full control over the personal lives of the people they govern and who they will gladly execute without a second thought.

James___ wrote: A technologically advanced society needs to allow people to take risks.

That is how free markets work. The driver for any economy is financial investment which involves heavy risk.

James___ wrote: Capitalism in a sense is willing to risk the entire economy.

Not possible. No investor can risk any more than his own investment. The thing about Captialism is that it is not a religion like Marxism; it is not a centrally planned system. Capitalism is really just free market economics, comprised of many individuals and no central planning force. Ergo, you are free to bet your farm on an investment but I cannot risk your farm on any investment.

James___ wrote: The stock market is a good idea up to a point.

It's silly to refer to a market as being a good idea "up to a point." Try that with another market and see how it sounds: "The shoe market is a good idea up to a point" or "The tools market is a good idea up to a point."

It doesn't make any sense. If there is a market for something then by definition it is a good idea.

James___ wrote: It should be about investing in a business and not betting on one. 2 different things.

You are talking about speculation. You are talking about futures. You are essentially denigrating the human pursuit of a better future.

Let's take a look at an example. Let's say you wish to buy a house and you are choosing between two houses. House A is nice but resides on a flood plane and House B is nice too but is not on a flood plane. You choose house B and sit down at closing to sign papers when someone from the government appears and shuts it down. You are told that you were looking at House A first and you need to buy that one. You clarify that you don't really want a house on a major flood plane but you are informed that it should be about investing in a house, not betting on it.

That would be silly.

Do you realize that all futures contracts are bets on the future, as a means to reduce uncertainty and risk? Do you realize that all futures contracts themselves become commodities? How are you going to tell someone that he can buy and sell some commodities but not others?

James___ wrote: This is where the question that matters comes into play. What allows an economy to grow?

Capital investment.

James___ wrote: With China, it's cheap labor for Democratic countries.

It's true that slave labor improves the economy for most people except for the slaves.


.



When Trump reduced taxes for corporations, their stock became worth more and that was the only benefit. The stock market crash of 1929 caused the Great Depression because it was all about raising the value of stocks.
20-07-2020 19:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
James___ wrote: When Trump reduced taxes for corporations, their stock became worth more and that was the only benefit.

That's a silly statement.

The stock values increased because each company therefore had a brighter future in some way pertaining to that particular company. Stock value changes simply reflect the change in desirability of owning shares of that company. One company might benefit from the tax cuts by being able to pay higher dividends, which would cause the stock value to increase. Another company might be able to offer higher salaries due to the tax cuts, thus being able to attract higher-priced talent which will secure more and bigger contracts which will bring in greater revenue which will cause the stock value to increase. Yet another company might benefit from the tax cuts by being able to get out from under debt, avoid default and definitely result in higher stock prices than if they were to file Chapter 11.

So yes, the entire spectrum of potential corporate benefits from tax cuts are cause for resulting stock price increases ... but stock prices cannot increase without there being some other benefit of substance to the company that drives the increase in stock values.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-07-2020 21:57
keepit
★★★★☆
(1705)
ITN and IBD,
Based on my reading of your countless posts, i would say you don't know what to believe and what not to believe. JMHO.
20-07-2020 22:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
keepit wrote:ITN and IBD,
Based on my reading of your countless posts, i would say you don't know what to believe and what not to believe. JMHO.

keepit , no billboard for your projection is required.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-07-2020 03:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13502)
keepit wrote:
I admit economic times could get bad in the future. Until covid came around things were ok though.

Thanks to Trump for removing regulations and taxes, and for renegotiating a variety of treaties to better favor the United States.
keepit wrote:
Also, I don't quite understand why there isn't more inflation. It's probably because automation keeps it down.

That's part of capitalism. Producing the same thing for cheaper, producing it more efficiently, or producing something that's never existed before.
keepit wrote:
Covid could be the straw that breaks the camel's back though, but maybe we can keep on trucking.

Not a straw. Economic activity is still occurring, even with Covid19.
keepit wrote:
No one really knows for sure. Thank goodness for the fed.

The Fed has done NOTHING but inflate money.
keepit wrote:
No need to keep reciting the definition of inflation. I think everyone understands that.

You don't.
keepit wrote:
Maybe the relative value of a dollar in 1914 is meaningless. I mean, who cares.

Which is why I say you don't understand inflation.
keepit wrote:
It is houses that have gotten out of hand relative to other things.

Nope. Just bought one.
keepit wrote:
Cars and gas and electronic and clothes have actually gotten cheaper relative to houses.

Cars are more expensive. Gas is more expensive. Electronics is cheaper because of new technologies (there's that capitalism again!).
keepit wrote:
If there wasn't so much income disparity, there wouldn't be so much crime and then there wouldn't be such a premium on real estate location.

Right out of Marx. No, transferring wealth from those that produce to those that don't by force is NOT a solution. That in and of itself is theft. Theft is a crime.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 21-07-2020 03:20
21-07-2020 05:51
James___
★★★★★
(3292)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: When Trump reduced taxes for corporations, their stock became worth more and that was the only benefit.

That's a silly statement.

The stock values increased because each company therefore had a brighter future in some way pertaining to that particular company. Stock value changes simply reflect the change in desirability of owning shares of that company. One company might benefit from the tax cuts by being able to pay higher dividends, which would cause the stock value to increase. Another company might be able to offer higher salaries due to the tax cuts, thus being able to attract higher-priced talent which will secure more and bigger contracts which will bring in greater revenue which will cause the stock value to increase. Yet another company might benefit from the tax cuts by being able to get out from under debt, avoid default and definitely result in higher stock prices than if they were to file Chapter 11.

So yes, the entire spectrum of potential corporate benefits from tax cuts are cause for resulting stock price increases ... but stock prices cannot increase without there being some other benefit of substance to the company that drives the increase in stock values.

.



Stock prices are usually based on the P/E (price to earnings) ratio. Corporate tax rates being dropped increased their P/E and there stock price as well.
With Amazon.com, they only make about a 1.7% profit to avoid paying federal taxes. That means as they invest more money in their company, tax payers are paying for it.
21-07-2020 05:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
James___ wrote:Stock prices are usually based on the P/E (price to earnings) ratio.

Nope. P/E is strictly an analyst tool. Share price is determined exclusively by how much someone will pay for it. You can easily see that different stocks with the same P/E have wildly different share prices and different stocks with the same share price have wildly differing P/E ratios.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-07-2020 18:50
James___
★★★★★
(3292)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Stock prices are usually based on the P/E (price to earnings) ratio.

Nope. P/E is strictly an analyst tool. Share price is determined exclusively by how much someone will pay for it. You can easily see that different stocks with the same P/E have wildly different share prices and different stocks with the same share price have wildly differing P/E ratios.

.



This shows why the "up to a point". When the Blackberry's IPO was released, it was one of the richest companies in the US. And when the stock market is encouraged, we are placing faith that the value of stocks will have a favourable impact on the life of the average American.
The stock market is like real estate, it's speculative and should not be the basis of our economy. Instead, their values should be derived from a healthy, sustainable economy.
An example is if the US Dollar becomes devalued because countries holding US currency want the US to pay down it's $26.5 Trillion debt while having a GDP of
$20.5 Trillion. The national debt is 130% of the GDP. That is the upper limit when other countries had to take austerity measures.
And if the US Dollar is devalued, then stock as well as real estate will be devalued as well. And this is because imported goods would cost more while your wages stay the same.
Edited on 21-07-2020 18:52
21-07-2020 22:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13502)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Stock prices are usually based on the P/E (price to earnings) ratio.

Nope. P/E is strictly an analyst tool. Share price is determined exclusively by how much someone will pay for it. You can easily see that different stocks with the same P/E have wildly different share prices and different stocks with the same share price have wildly differing P/E ratios.

.



This shows why the "up to a point". When the Blackberry's IPO was released, it was one of the richest companies in the US. And when the stock market is encouraged, we are placing faith that the value of stocks will have a favourable impact on the life of the average American.
The stock market is like real estate, it's speculative and should not be the basis of our economy. Instead, their values should be derived from a healthy, sustainable economy.
An example is if the US Dollar becomes devalued because countries holding US currency want the US to pay down it's $26.5 Trillion debt while having a GDP of
$20.5 Trillion. The national debt is 130% of the GDP. That is the upper limit when other countries had to take austerity measures.
And if the US Dollar is devalued, then stock as well as real estate will be devalued as well. And this is because imported goods would cost more while your wages stay the same.


The stock market is not the economy.

The nearby grocery store is the economy. The nearby hardware store is the economy. The gas station where you buy your fuel is the economy. The Amazon order you made is the economy. The computer you bought that you are using right now is the economy.

The dollar has already been devalued. It is currently worth only 1/65th of the value of a dollar at the time the Fed was created.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-07-2020 02:13
James___
★★★★★
(3292)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Stock prices are usually based on the P/E (price to earnings) ratio.

Nope. P/E is strictly an analyst tool. Share price is determined exclusively by how much someone will pay for it. You can easily see that different stocks with the same P/E have wildly different share prices and different stocks with the same share price have wildly differing P/E ratios.

.



This shows why the "up to a point". When the Blackberry's IPO was released, it was one of the richest companies in the US. And when the stock market is encouraged, we are placing faith that the value of stocks will have a favourable impact on the life of the average American.
The stock market is like real estate, it's speculative and should not be the basis of our economy. Instead, their values should be derived from a healthy, sustainable economy.
An example is if the US Dollar becomes devalued because countries holding US currency want the US to pay down it's $26.5 Trillion debt while having a GDP of
$20.5 Trillion. The national debt is 130% of the GDP. That is the upper limit when other countries had to take austerity measures.
And if the US Dollar is devalued, then stock as well as real estate will be devalued as well. And this is because imported goods would cost more while your wages stay the same.


The stock market is not the economy.

The nearby grocery store is the economy. The nearby hardware store is the economy. The gas station where you buy your fuel is the economy. The Amazon order you made is the economy. The computer you bought that you are using right now is the economy.

The dollar has already been devalued. It is currently worth only 1/65th of the value of a dollar at the time the Fed was created.



I'm going to learn Mandarin so I can seek gainful employment in the future.


A report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's (ASPI) International Cyber Policy Centre, titled Uyghurs for Sale, claims that since 2017, more than a million Uighur and members of other Turkic Muslim groups have been sent to "reeducation camps" in Xinjiang, China, where they are reportedly subjected to political indoctrination and coerced to give up their religion and culture. The ASPI is a think tank that was was founded by the Australian government and partly funded by the Australian Department of Defence.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/apple-amazon-sony-samsung-uighur-forced-labor-china/

Edited on 22-07-2020 02:14
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate 2%:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact