|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 24 2013 12:00 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 11:50 zlefin wrote:
getting rid of the fed seems silly; how would that work? It seems if you try to back your currency with something, then if whatever the backing is changes in value, that would cause large economic swings; there's also a shortage of things that would actually work as backing, there's just not enough gold in the world to back a modern economy with it.
At any rate, i'm against getting rid of the fed when it seems to be one of the most responsible and competent parts of government (current situation).
As to military; certainly USA could survive just fine with almost no military, not sure how the rest of the world would take that; that'd be quite a bit of chaos I'd imagine, hehe. Because large economic swings are non-existent since the Fed. Lol. I would address this argument, but I'm laughing too much. ( If you read any Economic History you would know prior to the Fed US recessions often lasted a few months due to market corrections taking place much quicker thanks to a lot less intervention - never mind that competition was at an all-time high before the Progressive Era)
You should provide sources to an extreme claim.
Edit: zlefin already posted wiki link
I am not sure if competition was at a high, how would you measure? Also the US was heavily funded with tariffs and labor mobility was much lower. In those aspects the "free market" has improved.
|
On October 24 2013 12:00 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 11:50 zlefin wrote:
getting rid of the fed seems silly; how would that work? It seems if you try to back your currency with something, then if whatever the backing is changes in value, that would cause large economic swings; there's also a shortage of things that would actually work as backing, there's just not enough gold in the world to back a modern economy with it.
At any rate, i'm against getting rid of the fed when it seems to be one of the most responsible and competent parts of government (current situation).
As to military; certainly USA could survive just fine with almost no military, not sure how the rest of the world would take that; that'd be quite a bit of chaos I'd imagine, hehe. Because large economic swings are non-existent since the Fed. Lol. I would address this argument, but I'm laughing too much. (If you read any Economic History you would know prior to the Fed US recessions often lasted a few months due to market corrections taking place much quicker thanks to a lot less intervention - never mind that competition was at an all-time high before the Progressive Era)
Oh yea, those monopolies of the Gilded Age had to compete with a lot of other monopolies! And depressions were great under the gold standard!
Gold standard is silly. Why would inflation be tied to gold-mining efforts? It's not like you don't have inflation/deflation under the gold standard. You just don't have any control over it, so if you start to get deflation (like from a recession), you're fucked.
Edit: Hyperinflation will occur any day now! I SWEAR!!!
|
I literally think number 4 was the dumbest thing to change out of all of the options listed.
|
On October 24 2013 07:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Apparently the Obama administration now has the opportunity to change the rules / taxes on carried interest without Congressional approval.
That's no surprise, he's an evil villain! Show nested quote +
Reuters) - The German government has obtained information that the United States may have monitored the mobile phone of Chancellor Angela Merkel and she called President Barack Obama on Wednesday to demand an immediate clarification, her spokesman said.
SourcePlease stop listening to our phones USA : (
Just gonna quote that so it won't be forgotten amongst those(imho)rather silly economic arguments.
USA, your move. Explain yourself.
|
On October 24 2013 12:28 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 12:00 Wegandi wrote:On October 24 2013 11:50 zlefin wrote:
getting rid of the fed seems silly; how would that work? It seems if you try to back your currency with something, then if whatever the backing is changes in value, that would cause large economic swings; there's also a shortage of things that would actually work as backing, there's just not enough gold in the world to back a modern economy with it.
At any rate, i'm against getting rid of the fed when it seems to be one of the most responsible and competent parts of government (current situation).
As to military; certainly USA could survive just fine with almost no military, not sure how the rest of the world would take that; that'd be quite a bit of chaos I'd imagine, hehe. Because large economic swings are non-existent since the Fed. Lol. I would address this argument, but I'm laughing too much. (If you read any Economic History you would know prior to the Fed US recessions often lasted a few months due to market corrections taking place much quicker thanks to a lot less intervention - never mind that competition was at an all-time high before the Progressive Era) Oh yea, those monopolies of the Gilded Age had to compete with a lot of other monopolies! And depressions were great under the gold standard! Gold standard is silly. Why would inflation be tied to gold-mining efforts? It's not like you don't have inflation/deflation under the gold standard. You just don't have any control over it, so if you start to get deflation (like from a recession), you're fucked. Edit: Hyperinflation will occur any day now! I SWEAR!!!
Yea, that is probably the most annoying thing about 'Austrians', its not enough that they have to reject empiricism, they have to reject history. "What, the massive gold finds in Australia and California fueled an expansionary monetary period? But that is impossible! Gold standard only has monetary expansion when everyone Galts it up with innovation! like the innovation of US Steel charging 1000 dollars per ton because they could!"
|
On October 24 2013 08:00 xDaunt wrote:
Oh how quickly we have forgotten Obama's campaign promises in 2008 about how he was going to restore America's respectability on the international stage. I think we can safely file that one into the the good 'ol "bag o' ROFLs" category.
Its a mixed bag from my point of view. Egypt sure its worked out bad there is no denying that but when the people rise up in those numbers and a dictator starts demanding the military shoots its own population who are protesting non-violently our only option is to condemn him. Esp when the world known he is your puppet.
Syria is a giant mess, we talked about it plenty of times in the Syria thread its complicated and there is no good answer, that said its his job and the job of his advisers to find an answer.
Talking with Iran is not a sin. Your not at open war with them. You just don't like them after they overthrew your puppet government. Talking to them is fine.
Arabia is throwing a fit because America doesnt seem to be at there beck and call like they were under Bush. I dont see that as a bad thing.
All that said tho when you look further at the drone strikes and the NSA stuff yes its hurting America's relations. Esp with its European allies and hes fucked up there.
|
On October 24 2013 08:00 xDaunt wrote:
Oh how quickly we have forgotten Obama's campaign promises in 2008 about how he was going to restore America's respectability on the international stage. I think we can safely file that one into the the good 'ol "bag o' ROFLs" category.
Yeah, totally! Score 1 for team Rep. We got 'em boys. Obammy messed up on the big stage with Saudi Arabia. Let's just ROFL at this pathetic excuse for a president. Speaking of which... did I mention that Obammy-Care is destroying 'Merica?
|
On October 24 2013 07:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 07:07 DoubleReed wrote:
I have no idea why people take Austrian Economics seriously. I discarded them the moment I found out their theories aren't based on mathematics or empiricism. That's all you really need to know. Oh, and that they like to predict DOOOOOOM a lot. You do know Economics as a profession is a logician based field, right? Or are you saying that from the 1700s to the early 1920's all of Economics was wrong? Similarly, you can't use the same methodology that physics and other 'hard' sciences use because you're dealing with human beings, who have their own motivations, and influences. How can you use math for instance, to understand how power dynamics influence decisions (re: things like Stanford Experiment). You're expecting people in positions of power to act benevolently on the behalf of 'the people', when they have no incentive and are rewarded for doing exactly the opposite. You can't model those things with math. Also, Austrian Economics doesn't outright reject empiricism. We reject that empiricism can inform theory, before theory informs empiricism. You can't base theories off empiricism is what we are saying, not that empiricism itself is to be completely discarded. In fact, if you bothered to do any investigation you could easily listen to some of Rothbard's lectures he used to give in which he gives many empirical examples of things like preference (e.g. at the first American Austrian Economics conference there were two stores side by side in the same small town. One had far higher prices than the other, but yet was in business all the same. Why? Because half the town hated the one store, and half the town hated the other store, out of personal spite.) This is why when people say things like 'perfect markets' as a theory to describe Austrian Economics I can only laugh. None of us believe in that silly Walrasian non-sense. It's a strawman you use to try and discredit something you're personally against. If anything Keynesian and Neo-Classical economics is more Walrasian than it isn't which is pretty ironic considering the excuses you guys use against AE. Kirzner does a good job here: http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Dolan/dlnFMA3.html#Part 2, Essay 2
We all know the limits of keynesians and neo classical economics, but the differences with austrian economics seems unclear to me.
I'm always a bit interested when I see someone in this forum talking about "austrian economics", because in my country austrian economics are dead since Böhm Bawerk (only cited one in a while for the idea of the roundaboutness) and Hayek (who can be interesting, like his discussion on banks or on inflation as disturbance of relative prices, but who is utterly a nutjob who supported dictatures). Plus they are completly outdated.
Your talk on the epistemology of economy is true and interesting but you don't push it enough : empiricism can only inform theory, but never any economic theory will be always and everywhere true since it can't be always true empirically. Laws in economy are always false, there are only tendencies : the fed do bad sometimes, sometimes do good, and what matter is how you use it in relation to the context in which you use it. Saying that the Fed is always bad is as wrong as saying that it is always good.
On October 24 2013 07:34 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 07:13 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 07:07 Sub40APM wrote:On October 24 2013 06:56 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 06:41 Wegandi wrote:On October 24 2013 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 03:44 Nyxisto wrote:On October 24 2013 03:38 DoubleReed wrote:On October 24 2013 02:38 Nyxisto wrote:On October 24 2013 02:27 WhiteDog wrote:[quote] Fiscal stimulus was high during the crisis... so altho the labor market didn't showed any big "recovery" it didn't mean that it wasn't effective : you would have to evaluate the number of job it prevented from getting destroyed. To say it bluntly, it didn't create any job, it limited the rise of unemployment. Simple explanation of the mecanism at hand in Krugman's blog back in 2009 : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/[quote] Why am I am not surprised that you are German ? I could live on the moon, that wouldn't change the fact that monetary policy isn't solving any problems. All it does is buying you time and easing pressure. What? I don't understand your characterization of monetary policy. How is it "buying time"? Monetary policy helps. Inflation works and has always worked to shrink unemployment. Google "Baby-sitting the Economy" for how printing money can actually spur real growth depending on the conditions. No, monetary policy has no long term effect on real variables. That is called Neutrality of money and is basically accepted by every economist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_of_moneyIf you lower interest rates through monetary policy, the economy basically needs to 'earn that money back'. Else you are just feeding into a bubble of worthless credits. That's why i was talking about "buying time". You need to follow an expansive monetary policy up by real-growth, monetary policy does not lead to real growth in the sense that monetary policy would create growth. That's also why the German government opposes the idea of euro-bonds or an expansive MP . They fear it will take the pressure from debt ridden countries to make real structural reforms. It has nothing to do with a 'German fear of inflation', it's just the acknowledgement of the fact that printing paper or artificially low interest rates are not going to help you in the long run. Yes, monetary policy have no long term effect on real variables. Do you know what "real variables" means ? Having a debt in central money is not "real"... or to say it in another way, real interest rate can be below 0%. You've read some theory you don't know about and you just use it to support your own point of view. When they say that monetary policy have no impact on real variable, it means that you cannot (in theory) use monetary policy to lower unemployment or to push GDP : it is the conclusion modern economists have come after the discussion behind the phillips curve that advanced the idea that there was a possible trade off between inflation rate and unemployment (the more inflation, the less unemployment). Today, and since Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps' works, we consider that this trade off doesn't work in the long run, because of rational anticipations, but is still possible in the short run due to some circumstances (mainly price rigidity). PLUS this was proved to be true only under a certain inflation rate (which explained the idea of the inflation target). Thus monetary policy might still have an impact in the long run if the inflation rate is under a certain ratio (between 2 to 4%). See Akerlof Dickens & Perry's workThis doesn't mean that we have no control over inflation rate, and that a 4% inflation would not greatly lower our debt : if you have 2% more money at the end of each month, and you have to give the exact same amount to the people who posses your debt, then the real debt has effectively lowered. There is a reason why almost every economists - from the FMI to Krugman - push for a 4% inflation ratio, despite the fact that it is supposed to disturb market allocations : it will lower our debt, force firms to push salaries up (since they are indexed to inflation and we see, since some years now, a complete split between productivity and salaries) and it might also permit a trade off between inflation and unemployment. See, all that by changing a simple inflation target. Except that is not true. Wages have never matched inflation because of the Cantillon Effect. The allocation of the newly printed money must necessarily move from the first person, to the second, and the third, and so on and so forth. Those who are at the front of this chain reap the benefits of the newly printed money (e.g. higher purchasing power), because the effects of the inflation have yet to be systematically felt. In other words, inflation is a domino affect whereby the first benefactors reap higher purchasing power at the expense of those down the chain. When you finally get the money that has been newly created months down the line you've become poorer because you've been robbed the purchasing power of the dollar you had months earlier by the people who first received the new monies. This means, that the Government has stolen your wealth from you and handed it over to its chosen few. This means large corporate entities like GE, Citigroup, MIC, and of course the Welfare recepients. Those most hurt are in the middle. The people who make too much to qualify for much of the Welfare, and those who make not enough or those who are ideologically opposed to taking the money from the Government. Essentially the Government creates a system of patronage. This was the entire point behind the Federal Reserve System and the ability to decouple the dollar from a weight of gold or silver. Why do you think these Corporations are so large and powerful? They're creations of Government patronage. It's a perverse system that steals the wealth from Middle America and redistributes to the Government cronies whether they're rich, or poor. What do the politicians get in return? (power, wealth, etc.) That's nothing to say of the Institutional problems themselves - of motivation, of conflicts of interest, of calculation problems. Prices are there to allocate resources, and by fucking with natural price mechanisms you highly distort the economy causing recessions and depressions. The Federal Reserve is equivalent to the USSR CPSU and Politburo. These people have no idea what the 300 million individuals in the US prefer at any given moment or time and expecting them to properly allocate resources (money and interest (or the price of money)), is absurd. They cause enormous economic hardship on the people of the US. They're not a boon - they're a colossal disaster. Look the last 30 years, with the lowest inflation rate we've had since the 2nd world war, and look how inequality have risen. Of course, it's not completly the fault of the low inflation rate, but it is pretty simple to understand how a higher inflation would have prevented those inequalities to a certain extend. the mechanism you describe only works if you are talking about savings being in terms of actual cash. assets rise in an inflationary environment, and the rich who save via houses or stocks would win out as well. Yes but those type of savings are less liquid so it would not be possible for rentiers to completly save through those. Also, there are more taxs in housing than in other type of savings. if you expect inflation, and you are well connected, you buy houses and lock in interest you are paying. You not only save, you get rich thanks to leverage and the retarded American tax code that encourages house buying.
Maybe you need to change the fiscal policy too if you change the target, in France household are taxed quite a lot and some economists are pushing for the state to tax them even more. But that doesn't change my point : houses aren't very liquids so you can't completly save through those and you will be forced to keep a good portion of your savings in central money or at least in liquid assets.
No to mention inflation might slightly change the distribution of the added value between work and capital and push firms to pay more salaries, something that could even start a virtuous circle (currently there is a split between productivity gain and wages in almost all developped countries).
|
Snippets from couple articles on the changing shape of corporate America. I think it demonstrates the need for meaningful changes to the tax code and regulatory regime.
The new American capitalism - Rise of the distorporation A mutation in the way companies are financed and managed will change the distribution of the wealth they create AT THE beginning of the 1980s capital was flooding into the American oil and gas industry. Apache Corporation, an erstwhile conglomerate spanning steel, dude-ranching and car sales, sought to tap into the flow in a novel way. It wrapped a bunch of private oil and gas assets into a new ownership structure that was akin to a partnership but was publicly listed. It was a useful idea—until steep declines in tax rates and energy prices put the Apache Petroleum Company to rest in 1987. This time round the master limited partnership (MLP) structure which Apache pioneered is no longer just a footnote. In the 2000s such companies allowed the capital-intensive energy industry to attract vital funds even during a devastating financial crisis. Kinder Morgan, a complex entity built around interlocking MLPs, has an enterprise value (its market capitalisation plus its debt) of $109 billion. The collective market capitalisation of MLPs recently passed that of Exxon Mobil, the most highly valued energy company on the New York Stock Exchange. The new popularity of the MLP is part of a larger shift in the way businesses structure themselves that is changing how American capitalism works. The essence is a move towards types of firm which retain very little of their earnings: “pass-through” companies which every year pay out more or less as much as they take in. Many of the standard rules that corporations which retain their earnings have to follow when dealing with shareholders do not apply to such firms. And, crucially, so long as they distribute their earnings such set-ups can largely avoid corporate tax. ... + Show Spoiler +
Link
Subterranean capitalist blues - In response to red tape and high taxes, corporate America is mutating
... It would be easy to turn this into a morality play about rule-dodging capitalism. That is too simplistic. The rise of listed partnerships and other corporate forms is neither all good nor all bad. MLPs have raised capital quickly for the reconstruction of America’s energy industry; business-development companies (BDCs), another pass-through structure, provide credit to businesses that banks have abandoned; real estate investment trusts (REITs) have helped people manage property portfolios. The need to distribute profits means that these firms are constantly inhaling and exhaling capital rather than storing up cash: market discipline is constantly applied as a result. There is room for competition among corporate structures. Anything that breathes life into listed markets is welcome.
And yet these firms are also troubling to anyone who cares about capitalism. The primary advantage of these structures is that they minimise tax payments. The exemptions that are enabling more firms to become MLPs, BDCs or REITs depend on lobbying. The quirks of tax rules impede mutual funds and many others from investing; they tend to be vehicles for very rich investors. The flow of money out of the companies means that they are difficult to analyse like normal corporations. ...
Link
A couple things to go along with it:
Private businesses (which can face fewer taxes and regulations and have differences in corporate governance) have been investing more heavily in recent years than public ones. source
+ Show Spoiler +
And small businesses, which generally face fewer, but possibly more burdensome regulations, have been complaining more about regulations in recent years. source
+ Show Spoiler +
|
WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told his Democratic caucus last week in a private meeting that a top House Republican said to President Barack Obama, "I cannot even stand to look at you," according to two Democratic senators who were present.
The account was confirmed by two Senate Democratic aides who said they independently learned of the exchange from other senators.
A White House official said Thursday that the administration did relay such a message to Reid, but that it was the result of a miscommunication.
“While the quote attributed to a Republican lawmaker in the House GOP meeting with the President is not accurate, there was a miscommunication when the White House read out that meeting to Senate Democrats, and we regret the misunderstanding," the official said in a statement.
Asked to clarify, then, what the White House originally told Senate Democratic leaders about Obama's meeting with House Republicans, the official said only, "Not going to read out the details of private meetings with the President, or private meetings between WH and Dem leaders."
The two senators who spoke to HuffPost did not hear the Republican make the remark, but said a top White House aide who was present later told Senate Democratic leaders that the lawmaker who made the remark was Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Rules Committee.
Source
|
Keep seeing updates on this and wondering why we care?
|
Because we all secretly want to be DC insiders, didn't ya know? 
|
The National Security Agency tracked "phone conversations" of 35 foreign leaders, according to documents obtained by the Guardian from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
The NSA encouraged executive branch officials to share their contact lists with the spy agency so that it could monitor the phone calls of foreign leaders, according to a 2006 memo. The memo notes that one U.S. official gave the NSA contact information for 35 foreign leaders, but the it does not include any names.
Source
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
|
spying on allies is such an insanely stupid mistake I dont even know what to say.
As if fucking GERMANY is not a strong enough ally of ours that we would need to spy on them.
Our intelligence agencies work very closely, I have no idea what they are doing risking that cooperation with shit like this.
|
On October 25 2013 04:56 farvacola wrote:Because we all secretly want to be DC insiders, didn't ya know?
Speaking of insiders, has anyone noticed the somewhat humorous end of a relatively highly ranked National Security adviser who also ran an anonymous twitter on the side where he shittalked everyone? And now that he is outed his career is finished. I always wondered how much power it takes for someone to go full retard and it seems like every generation its a little bit less and less.
|
On October 25 2013 06:13 PassiveAce wrote:
spying on allies is such an insanely stupid mistake I dont even know what to say.
As if fucking GERMANY is not a strong enough ally of ours that we would need to spy on them.
Our intelligence agencies work very closely, I have no idea what they are doing risking that cooperation with shit like this.
Espionage is really dumb. We all spy on each other, act like we don't spy on each other, and get really angry when we find out we're spying on each other. Hypocrisy is the norm, not the exception.
Israel/US espionage is particularly stupid and absurd.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
besides industrial espionage, spying of everyone on everyone else affects international negotiations. with both sides knowing each other's core interests and leverages, no need for guesswork and posturing, unless you are posturing for your own people ala china
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 25 2013 06:47 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 06:13 PassiveAce wrote:
spying on allies is such an insanely stupid mistake I dont even know what to say.
As if fucking GERMANY is not a strong enough ally of ours that we would need to spy on them.
Our intelligence agencies work very closely, I have no idea what they are doing risking that cooperation with shit like this. Espionage is really dumb. We all spy on each other, act like we don't spy on each other, and get really angry when we find out we're spying on each other. Hypocrisy is the norm, not the exception. Israel/US espionage is particularly stupid and absurd.
That's the problem here - they found out (or are about to). Everyone (the public) knows that it happens to an extent, but not the exact details and so we are endowed with blissful ignorance. However, once the public finds out and things are confirmed, it puts a lot of hostile pressure on a country's leaders (both the spyed and the spyer) and relations will sour.
Either way, I think it's ridiculous to go as far as tapping a foreign leader's phones. The backlash may be severe if we find out who exactly the 35 countries are.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not ridiculous at all. that's what these agencies are created for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/20131026_FBC601%20%28240x233%29.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/20110319_src231.gif)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--U6k5fKJ-MY/Ul6_eH5ZGKI/AAAAAAAAD7A/Uxxsq-9bfUo/s400/nfib2.png)
