|
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 February 04 2014 13:03 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 04 2014 08:06 itsjustatank wrote:
Per capita or not, GDP only measures the size of an economy. It does not translate to the well-being of each and every person within that economy (and certainly does not begin to measure the well-being of those people who are systematically left out of that economy). Such a silly and ridiculous thought that you can't extrapolate on a variable... very glad you're not in charge of anything analytically based at all. It's hard to have a back and forth when you present such an extreme that empirical evidence states the complete opposite (that GDP per cap is very highly correlated with standard of living). Correlation is not causation. All you can say is things appear to be correlated with a high standard of living. Your continued posts are non-responsive to the fact that GDP terminally does not equate to well-being because the metric has a number of deficits that make it fundamentally not suitable for measuring well-being, namely, that growth and size of an economy does not translate necessarily to well-being because all it indicates is that things are being consumed. Additionally a 'high standard of living' is not the same as a society that has a high quality of life or a high value to life, and that is where I see any credible metric for determining the well-being of society focusing its effort. The standard of living metric ignores a number of fundamental components such as destruction of the environment, respect for human rights, following the rule of law, science and education, corporate social responsibility, and more.
Really? Correlation is not causation? REALLY?
Worst excuse ever.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
Read the rest.
It also happens to be a fundamental tenet of responsible statistics.
|
On February 04 2014 13:40 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 13:27 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 13:13 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 12:56 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 12:37 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 12:00 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 11:53 xDaunt wrote:On February 04 2014 11:46 zusch wrote:
You want to hear a conspiracy? The President's MyRA program is the first step in an effort to confiscate the savings of American to pay for the $16 trillion federal deficit.
Impossible? Think Cyprus. Creating a voluntary investment vehicle is a far cry from wealth confiscation. Key phrase in my post is "first step." At first it is voluntary, but who know when they will change the rules and it becomes mandatory. And what really is this "investment vehicle?" Obama described it as a "guaranteed reasonable return with zero risk." The only thing he can mean is U.S. treasuries. Not even U.S. treasuries have zero risk, contrary to popular belief. The U.S. is not immune to default. You could just as well say "Government is the first step towards wealth confiscation" As an aside, if we are getting really cynical here had Obama just forced every American to have an S&P index the day he announced stocks are a good investment back in 09 when the bailout really got rolling...well, they'd be a hell of a lot richer today. Gov't is a wealth confiscation machine...this is true, but they are capable of taking it to a whole new level. I am opposed to any President forcing any American to buy anything whether it be gov't bonds, the S&P 500, or Obamacare. Now do you want to know why the S&P has risen so precipitously since '09? The answer is gov't intervention in capital markets. The Federal Reserve has been buying U.S. treasuries at an unsustainable pace, making U.S. treasuries a non-viable investment for money managers, pension funds, and private citizens. As a result all of that money funnels into the stock market. On December 18th, 2013, the Fed cut it Quantitative Easing program by $10 billion a month (for the record stocks rallied hard that day, which is counter-intuitive, but that is market dynamics at work). On January 29th, 2014, the Fed cut QE by an additional $10 billion a month and the S&P is currently trading lower than its Dec 18th open. Some will debate that the economic recovery has been substantial, stock prices are fairly valued, and ending QE is being (or is already) priced into the market, but that is all opinions. The fact is since QE has been tapered slightly, the S&P has traded lower. https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/gfdblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FED-BAL-SHT1.pngThis is a chart comparing the Fed's balance sheet to the S&P 500. Notice the correlation starting in 2009. Its more than double of where it was before QE started. Bonds actually have been a great investment because so many people have been screaming, and investing, about the coming hyper inflation and the collapse of the dollar. Japan has been at 200% debt to GDP and has been adding to its debt for almost 30 years now and the stop that is supposed to arrive has merely wrecked the careers of thousands of investment managers who dont seem to get that analysis of complex, developed economies is much more opaque than just tracking foreign inflows of hot money into emerging markets with its inevitable short circuit and bust. QE1 started November 2008 so please get your facts straight. Bonds have been a terrible investment so please get your facts straight. Investment managers have made an absolute KILLING shorting the Japanese Yen after Abe essentially told them to do just that so please get your facts straight. I know repeating zero hedge makes you feel like you are cool, like you are part of the 'in crowd' who 'gets it' but its literally just a quick google search to confirm: Here is how the US 10 year did starting from Nov 08 using an ETF because i am lazy: https://www.google.ca/finance?q=NYSEARCA:IEF&sq=US 10 year&sp=1&ei=52zwUqjdIqeTiAKgwAEMaking 8% on TREASURY when the real interest rate is touching zero is amazing. Bonds have been a great investment if you want a zero risk return. Investment managers have been attacking the Japanese bonds not the Japanese yen because they, like you, believe that there is mystical red line that once a country is too indebted it crosses and collapses and those investors, following your logic that borrowing is the devil, have repeatedly blown themselves up year after year after year, its called a widow maker for a reason. Anyway, its great to see someone interested in finance. Unfortunately its a little bit more complicated than zero hedge makes it seem.
So if I calculate the returns for the ETF you linked I come up with roughly 11% versus the S&P which has returned 80% in the same time frame. Stocks have been essentially a zero risk investment, the same as bonds, if you just listened to the Fed. So in conclusion, bonds have been a shitty investment.
I'm not really familiar with investment managers attacking Japanese bonds, maybe you could provide a link.
Unfortunate that you assume I'm a ZH troll (maybe I am, but does that make me wrong?).
|
On February 04 2014 13:52 itsjustatank wrote:
Switzerland is and has been in a strategic and very-hard-to-invade position for centuries now. They will do just fine.
oh okay. so sometimes worthless pieces of paper can have worth beyond having a big army then? are there other reasons worthless pieces of paper can be worth something, beyond being 'very hard to invade' position?
|
On February 04 2014 14:00 itsjustatank wrote:
Read the rest.
It also happens to be a fundamental tenet of responsible statistics.
Yes, but there's also confidence intervals, which pretty much nullify your point.
|
On February 04 2014 12:55 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 12:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 04 2014 12:20 Danglars wrote:
I do enjoy reading most of StealthBlue's topics. They're humorous and occasionally thought provoking. ...and sometimes they're just rubbish like that anti-fracking study that he posted a couple days ago. I'd hate to see them end! But that's the logical conclusion to throwing out politically leaning sources into the disreputable barrel. And yes, this is the correct way to look at it. you mean this NIH study? you need to distinguish between a study having limited conclusive power and one that is flawed, i.e. mistakenly stating its own conclusions. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/122/1/ehp.1306722.pdfi see no quackery here. edit: i even found this fracking thread to see your post against this study. it's a one liner. not sure what you have against a large cohort study of 120k cases that spent a few pages outlining the standard limitations faced by such long time elapse and regional variance studies with no dosage discrimination
So you don't see the problem of posting a news story claiming that a study has found that fracking causes birth defects when that study -- on its own accord -- admits that it has limited conclusive power? And that's without even getting into the nitty gritty details of why the study has limited (if any) value?
Yeah, good luck with that one.
|
On February 04 2014 14:07 zusch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 13:40 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 13:27 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 13:13 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 12:56 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 12:37 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 12:00 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 11:53 xDaunt wrote:On February 04 2014 11:46 zusch wrote:
You want to hear a conspiracy? The President's MyRA program is the first step in an effort to confiscate the savings of American to pay for the $16 trillion federal deficit.
Impossible? Think Cyprus. Creating a voluntary investment vehicle is a far cry from wealth confiscation. Key phrase in my post is "first step." At first it is voluntary, but who know when they will change the rules and it becomes mandatory. And what really is this "investment vehicle?" Obama described it as a "guaranteed reasonable return with zero risk." The only thing he can mean is U.S. treasuries. Not even U.S. treasuries have zero risk, contrary to popular belief. The U.S. is not immune to default. You could just as well say "Government is the first step towards wealth confiscation" As an aside, if we are getting really cynical here had Obama just forced every American to have an S&P index the day he announced stocks are a good investment back in 09 when the bailout really got rolling...well, they'd be a hell of a lot richer today. Gov't is a wealth confiscation machine...this is true, but they are capable of taking it to a whole new level. I am opposed to any President forcing any American to buy anything whether it be gov't bonds, the S&P 500, or Obamacare. Now do you want to know why the S&P has risen so precipitously since '09? The answer is gov't intervention in capital markets. The Federal Reserve has been buying U.S. treasuries at an unsustainable pace, making U.S. treasuries a non-viable investment for money managers, pension funds, and private citizens. As a result all of that money funnels into the stock market. On December 18th, 2013, the Fed cut it Quantitative Easing program by $10 billion a month (for the record stocks rallied hard that day, which is counter-intuitive, but that is market dynamics at work). On January 29th, 2014, the Fed cut QE by an additional $10 billion a month and the S&P is currently trading lower than its Dec 18th open. Some will debate that the economic recovery has been substantial, stock prices are fairly valued, and ending QE is being (or is already) priced into the market, but that is all opinions. The fact is since QE has been tapered slightly, the S&P has traded lower. https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/gfdblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FED-BAL-SHT1.pngThis is a chart comparing the Fed's balance sheet to the S&P 500. Notice the correlation starting in 2009. Its more than double of where it was before QE started. Bonds actually have been a great investment because so many people have been screaming, and investing, about the coming hyper inflation and the collapse of the dollar. Japan has been at 200% debt to GDP and has been adding to its debt for almost 30 years now and the stop that is supposed to arrive has merely wrecked the careers of thousands of investment managers who dont seem to get that analysis of complex, developed economies is much more opaque than just tracking foreign inflows of hot money into emerging markets with its inevitable short circuit and bust. QE1 started November 2008 so please get your facts straight. Bonds have been a terrible investment so please get your facts straight. Investment managers have made an absolute KILLING shorting the Japanese Yen after Abe essentially told them to do just that so please get your facts straight. I know repeating zero hedge makes you feel like you are cool, like you are part of the 'in crowd' who 'gets it' but its literally just a quick google search to confirm: Here is how the US 10 year did starting from Nov 08 using an ETF because i am lazy: https://www.google.ca/finance?q=NYSEARCA:IEF&sq=US 10 year&sp=1&ei=52zwUqjdIqeTiAKgwAEMaking 8% on TREASURY when the real interest rate is touching zero is amazing. Bonds have been a great investment if you want a zero risk return. Investment managers have been attacking the Japanese bonds not the Japanese yen because they, like you, believe that there is mystical red line that once a country is too indebted it crosses and collapses and those investors, following your logic that borrowing is the devil, have repeatedly blown themselves up year after year after year, its called a widow maker for a reason. Anyway, its great to see someone interested in finance. Unfortunately its a little bit more complicated than zero hedge makes it seem. So if I calculate the returns for the ETF you linked I come up with roughly 11% versus the S&P which has returned 80% in the same time frame. Stocks have been essentially a zero risk investment the same as bonds if you just listened to the Fed. So in conclusion, bonds have been a shitty investment. I'm not really familiar with investment managers attacking Japanese bonds, maybe you could provide a link. Unfortunate that you assume I'm a ZH troll (maybe I am, but does that make me wrong?).
Oh I see, so your definition of shitty investment is a strong return is still a horrible return because there is an even stronger return? Sorry, I thought we were talking about actual loses. Ok thanks, I apologize for misunderstanding.
So just to clarify your position bonds are theft because they only returned 11% AND that eventually there will be a collapse even though Japan has been heavily indebted for 30 years and has not had a collapse because the current government's economic policies lowered the yen?
|
On February 04 2014 13:42 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 13:31 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2014 13:18 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 13:08 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2014 12:34 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 11:12 Danglars wrote:JON STEWART: Why do we have so much trouble executing the plans with any kind of efficiency?
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): Well, again, if you're dealing with people who have no agenda, you know, who nothing -- nothing is their agenda and never is our timetable, it's very hard to negotiate with them. So we are responsible. In other words, call us responsible. They know we're going to vote not to shut down government. They know we are going t o vote for the budget no matter how unpleasant it is. The choice we have is to be irresponsible and follow their path or we don't want to be fearmongers but to explain this to the public is very bad news. We want to be positive.
STEWART: Aside from that aspect, I meant more in terms of, 'Okay, we are going to set up a health care web site that is an exchange. People are going to come to it.' Why is it so hard to get a company to execute that competently?
PELOSI: I don't know. As one who was very --
[Laughter]
PELOSI: No, and that is my question.
STEWART: Let me get the House Minority Leader here, I can ask her. Hold on. What do you mean you don't know? How do you not know?
PELOSI: It's not my responsibility. But I will say this, we worked very hard to honor our responsibility to pass the bill that honors the vowels of our founders: life, a healthier life, liberty to pursue your happiness. sourceMany of my leftist and lean-leftist nonpolitical friends depend on Comedy Central for their news. Now the majority leader claims to be responsible (in contrast to the mean government shutdown opponents), and simultaneously claims she doesn't know why her government health plan turned out so badly. I mean, not even the standard "Well health care and health insurance is so complex and there's so many people so there was bound to be problems." I had become used to the party of Big Government downplaying the size of the problem and emphasizing the complexity of the issues. I guess focus groups showed that ignorance was better than an intricacy discussion. I think its a great question since most civilized countries actually are capable of delivering government owned healthcare at a lower cost than the Americans without nearly as much mess. It would be great to have a series of hearings on the way government contractors work in the US and it would certainly benefit the Republic. I'm with you in the primary thrust of what you're saying. We could deliver this new "essential services," subsidies, marketplace, tax package much better, if we accept for the time being that these changes will happen no matter what and its a question of how. Why is the IRS even involved in administrating the ACA to the extent of 47 tax provisions in the ACA? Democrats certainly hurt their case passing it all without a single republican vote, claiming it had to be passed first to determine how good everything inside it was, and then bungling it to this level. Simultaneously, the pre-ACA regulations that hurt the free market and privileged employer providers didn't turn up a good free-market alternative to government health insurance--it was heavily regulated already. Some of the cost analysis of government-run health care regimes (and not every country's is the same efficiency) is pretty compelling. I'm still against, primarily for the increase in wait times and problems involving end-of-life care. Once the state pays for it, sure you have a say in how your tax money is spent in representative government. Even in low-cost schemes, the budgetary pressures on government and budgetary pressures on the individual and his/her health insurance company are different and can lead to very unintended consequences. I'm even supportive of form of welfare for low-income individuals giving them a government voucher for health insurance to shop around with. Accomplish it with regulations leading to long-term continuation of coverage, allowing you to go to a private plan with better benefits with your own money. This effectively kills the pre-existing condition coverage we hear so much about without perversely rewarding people for waiting until they get sick to purchase insurance coverage. And you know why the IRS is involved. The Republican Supreme Court ruled it a tax instead of commerce clause legislation, and you can either accept that as Roberts chickening out at the last minute or Roberts the ingenious legal scholar setting up a long term plan to crush the Commerce Clause as a vehicle of federal regulation (which is ingenious of him). I don't know where you're going with this last paragraph. It was passed in 2009 and the supreme court challenge came in in 2012. The wording was drafted as a cause of administration, not as some kind of legalese to get out of a constitutionality challenge. The Democrats really wanted the IRS to administer several aspects and not just the individual mandate tax-penalty penalty tax (it was found to be a penalty according to the Anti-Injunction Act, but a tax with respects to the individual mandate). That does indeed set it apart from other country's successful attempts (as we discussed in the other paragraphs). It wasn't like they had to change wording after the Supreme Court challenge ... the wording was already there. The opinion that talked about why it wasn't a commerce clause wasn't the majority opinion, it was merely a concurring opinion. So really, the commerce clause is still the same in all its current legal interpretation glory, Roberts did not limit it. ...it was in the bill because democrats have people who went to good law schools too and they realized in a 5-4 court the commerce clause would be attacked by a roberts court that has signaled it is going to attack the commerce clause...but like introvert said we are just going to start re-treading an argument we all feel comfortable with our positions on. I'd be interested to see any congressional Democrat said it that way ever. You don't go putting in 47 tax provisions stretching all the way to 2018 if its just to make it squeeky clean for 9 justices. If you said this has already been hashed out, I'll rest my case there. It's really the first time I've seen anyone make that argument seriously, the rest say its a core nature of IRS to determine subsidy benefits, tax credits, and tax penalties and the two government bureaucracies were natively necessary in US.
|
On February 04 2014 14:13 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 14:07 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 13:40 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 13:27 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 13:13 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 12:56 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 12:37 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 12:00 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 11:53 xDaunt wrote:On February 04 2014 11:46 zusch wrote:
You want to hear a conspiracy? The President's MyRA program is the first step in an effort to confiscate the savings of American to pay for the $16 trillion federal deficit.
Impossible? Think Cyprus. Creating a voluntary investment vehicle is a far cry from wealth confiscation. Key phrase in my post is "first step." At first it is voluntary, but who know when they will change the rules and it becomes mandatory. And what really is this "investment vehicle?" Obama described it as a "guaranteed reasonable return with zero risk." The only thing he can mean is U.S. treasuries. Not even U.S. treasuries have zero risk, contrary to popular belief. The U.S. is not immune to default. You could just as well say "Government is the first step towards wealth confiscation" As an aside, if we are getting really cynical here had Obama just forced every American to have an S&P index the day he announced stocks are a good investment back in 09 when the bailout really got rolling...well, they'd be a hell of a lot richer today. Gov't is a wealth confiscation machine...this is true, but they are capable of taking it to a whole new level. I am opposed to any President forcing any American to buy anything whether it be gov't bonds, the S&P 500, or Obamacare. Now do you want to know why the S&P has risen so precipitously since '09? The answer is gov't intervention in capital markets. The Federal Reserve has been buying U.S. treasuries at an unsustainable pace, making U.S. treasuries a non-viable investment for money managers, pension funds, and private citizens. As a result all of that money funnels into the stock market. On December 18th, 2013, the Fed cut it Quantitative Easing program by $10 billion a month (for the record stocks rallied hard that day, which is counter-intuitive, but that is market dynamics at work). On January 29th, 2014, the Fed cut QE by an additional $10 billion a month and the S&P is currently trading lower than its Dec 18th open. Some will debate that the economic recovery has been substantial, stock prices are fairly valued, and ending QE is being (or is already) priced into the market, but that is all opinions. The fact is since QE has been tapered slightly, the S&P has traded lower. https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/gfdblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FED-BAL-SHT1.pngThis is a chart comparing the Fed's balance sheet to the S&P 500. Notice the correlation starting in 2009. Its more than double of where it was before QE started. Bonds actually have been a great investment because so many people have been screaming, and investing, about the coming hyper inflation and the collapse of the dollar. Japan has been at 200% debt to GDP and has been adding to its debt for almost 30 years now and the stop that is supposed to arrive has merely wrecked the careers of thousands of investment managers who dont seem to get that analysis of complex, developed economies is much more opaque than just tracking foreign inflows of hot money into emerging markets with its inevitable short circuit and bust. QE1 started November 2008 so please get your facts straight. Bonds have been a terrible investment so please get your facts straight. Investment managers have made an absolute KILLING shorting the Japanese Yen after Abe essentially told them to do just that so please get your facts straight. I know repeating zero hedge makes you feel like you are cool, like you are part of the 'in crowd' who 'gets it' but its literally just a quick google search to confirm: Here is how the US 10 year did starting from Nov 08 using an ETF because i am lazy: https://www.google.ca/finance?q=NYSEARCA:IEF&sq=US 10 year&sp=1&ei=52zwUqjdIqeTiAKgwAEMaking 8% on TREASURY when the real interest rate is touching zero is amazing. Bonds have been a great investment if you want a zero risk return. Investment managers have been attacking the Japanese bonds not the Japanese yen because they, like you, believe that there is mystical red line that once a country is too indebted it crosses and collapses and those investors, following your logic that borrowing is the devil, have repeatedly blown themselves up year after year after year, its called a widow maker for a reason. Anyway, its great to see someone interested in finance. Unfortunately its a little bit more complicated than zero hedge makes it seem. So if I calculate the returns for the ETF you linked I come up with roughly 11% versus the S&P which has returned 80% in the same time frame. Stocks have been essentially a zero risk investment the same as bonds if you just listened to the Fed. So in conclusion, bonds have been a shitty investment. I'm not really familiar with investment managers attacking Japanese bonds, maybe you could provide a link. Unfortunate that you assume I'm a ZH troll (maybe I am, but does that make me wrong?). Oh I see, so your definition of shitty investment is a strong return is still a horrible return because there is an even stronger return? Sorry, I thought we were talking about actual loses. Ok thanks, I apologize for misunderstanding. So just to clarify your position bonds are theft because they only returned 11% AND that eventually there will be a collapse even though Japan has been heavily indebted for 30 years and has not had a collapse because the current government's economic policies lowered the yen?
Yes.
Japenese bonds have been a terrible investment as well with yields falling since 1984 (furthest out I could get data). Only since early '13 when Abe announced a policy change to weaken the Yen have Japanese bond yields gone up. Are you sure you are interested in finance? ZH has a plethora of informative articles on the subjects we've discussed if you want to read up.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 04 2014 14:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 12:55 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2014 12:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 04 2014 12:20 Danglars wrote:
I do enjoy reading most of StealthBlue's topics. They're humorous and occasionally thought provoking. ...and sometimes they're just rubbish like that anti-fracking study that he posted a couple days ago. I'd hate to see them end! But that's the logical conclusion to throwing out politically leaning sources into the disreputable barrel. And yes, this is the correct way to look at it. you mean this NIH study? you need to distinguish between a study having limited conclusive power and one that is flawed, i.e. mistakenly stating its own conclusions. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/122/1/ehp.1306722.pdfi see no quackery here. edit: i even found this fracking thread to see your post against this study. it's a one liner. not sure what you have against a large cohort study of 120k cases that spent a few pages outlining the standard limitations faced by such long time elapse and regional variance studies with no dosage discrimination So you don't see the problem of posting a news story claiming that a study has found that fracking causes birth defects when that study -- on its own accord -- admits that it has limited conclusive power? And that's without even getting into the nitty gritty details of why the study has limited (if any) value? Yeah, good luck with that one.
there are inherent limitations to such studies, but it does have a large cohort and still has great value. its conclusions include over double the rate of neural tube defects which is linked to certain petrol related chemicals.
but really, you are basically asking the same question italian courts asked the seismologists lol
|
On February 04 2014 14:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 13:42 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 13:31 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2014 13:18 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 13:08 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2014 12:34 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 11:12 Danglars wrote:JON STEWART: Why do we have so much trouble executing the plans with any kind of efficiency?
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): Well, again, if you're dealing with people who have no agenda, you know, who nothing -- nothing is their agenda and never is our timetable, it's very hard to negotiate with them. So we are responsible. In other words, call us responsible. They know we're going to vote not to shut down government. They know we are going t o vote for the budget no matter how unpleasant it is. The choice we have is to be irresponsible and follow their path or we don't want to be fearmongers but to explain this to the public is very bad news. We want to be positive.
STEWART: Aside from that aspect, I meant more in terms of, 'Okay, we are going to set up a health care web site that is an exchange. People are going to come to it.' Why is it so hard to get a company to execute that competently?
PELOSI: I don't know. As one who was very --
[Laughter]
PELOSI: No, and that is my question.
STEWART: Let me get the House Minority Leader here, I can ask her. Hold on. What do you mean you don't know? How do you not know?
PELOSI: It's not my responsibility. But I will say this, we worked very hard to honor our responsibility to pass the bill that honors the vowels of our founders: life, a healthier life, liberty to pursue your happiness. sourceMany of my leftist and lean-leftist nonpolitical friends depend on Comedy Central for their news. Now the majority leader claims to be responsible (in contrast to the mean government shutdown opponents), and simultaneously claims she doesn't know why her government health plan turned out so badly. I mean, not even the standard "Well health care and health insurance is so complex and there's so many people so there was bound to be problems." I had become used to the party of Big Government downplaying the size of the problem and emphasizing the complexity of the issues. I guess focus groups showed that ignorance was better than an intricacy discussion. I think its a great question since most civilized countries actually are capable of delivering government owned healthcare at a lower cost than the Americans without nearly as much mess. It would be great to have a series of hearings on the way government contractors work in the US and it would certainly benefit the Republic. I'm with you in the primary thrust of what you're saying. We could deliver this new "essential services," subsidies, marketplace, tax package much better, if we accept for the time being that these changes will happen no matter what and its a question of how. Why is the IRS even involved in administrating the ACA to the extent of 47 tax provisions in the ACA? Democrats certainly hurt their case passing it all without a single republican vote, claiming it had to be passed first to determine how good everything inside it was, and then bungling it to this level. Simultaneously, the pre-ACA regulations that hurt the free market and privileged employer providers didn't turn up a good free-market alternative to government health insurance--it was heavily regulated already. Some of the cost analysis of government-run health care regimes (and not every country's is the same efficiency) is pretty compelling. I'm still against, primarily for the increase in wait times and problems involving end-of-life care. Once the state pays for it, sure you have a say in how your tax money is spent in representative government. Even in low-cost schemes, the budgetary pressures on government and budgetary pressures on the individual and his/her health insurance company are different and can lead to very unintended consequences. I'm even supportive of form of welfare for low-income individuals giving them a government voucher for health insurance to shop around with. Accomplish it with regulations leading to long-term continuation of coverage, allowing you to go to a private plan with better benefits with your own money. This effectively kills the pre-existing condition coverage we hear so much about without perversely rewarding people for waiting until they get sick to purchase insurance coverage. And you know why the IRS is involved. The Republican Supreme Court ruled it a tax instead of commerce clause legislation, and you can either accept that as Roberts chickening out at the last minute or Roberts the ingenious legal scholar setting up a long term plan to crush the Commerce Clause as a vehicle of federal regulation (which is ingenious of him). I don't know where you're going with this last paragraph. It was passed in 2009 and the supreme court challenge came in in 2012. The wording was drafted as a cause of administration, not as some kind of legalese to get out of a constitutionality challenge. The Democrats really wanted the IRS to administer several aspects and not just the individual mandate tax-penalty penalty tax (it was found to be a penalty according to the Anti-Injunction Act, but a tax with respects to the individual mandate). That does indeed set it apart from other country's successful attempts (as we discussed in the other paragraphs). It wasn't like they had to change wording after the Supreme Court challenge ... the wording was already there. The opinion that talked about why it wasn't a commerce clause wasn't the majority opinion, it was merely a concurring opinion. So really, the commerce clause is still the same in all its current legal interpretation glory, Roberts did not limit it. ...it was in the bill because democrats have people who went to good law schools too and they realized in a 5-4 court the commerce clause would be attacked by a roberts court that has signaled it is going to attack the commerce clause...but like introvert said we are just going to start re-treading an argument we all feel comfortable with our positions on. I'd be interested to see any congressional Democrat said it that way ever. You don't go putting in 47 tax provisions stretching all the way to 2018 if its just to make it squeeky clean for 9 justices. If you said this has already been hashed out, I'll rest my case there. It's really the first time I've seen anyone make that argument seriously, the rest say its a core nature of IRS to determine subsidy benefits, tax credits, and tax penalties and the two government bureaucracies were natively necessary in US. Why do you think they wrote it that way?
|
On February 04 2014 14:25 zusch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 14:13 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 14:07 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 13:40 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 13:27 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 13:13 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 12:56 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 12:37 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 12:00 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 11:53 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Creating a voluntary investment vehicle is a far cry from wealth confiscation. Key phrase in my post is "first step." At first it is voluntary, but who know when they will change the rules and it becomes mandatory. And what really is this "investment vehicle?" Obama described it as a "guaranteed reasonable return with zero risk." The only thing he can mean is U.S. treasuries. Not even U.S. treasuries have zero risk, contrary to popular belief. The U.S. is not immune to default. You could just as well say "Government is the first step towards wealth confiscation" As an aside, if we are getting really cynical here had Obama just forced every American to have an S&P index the day he announced stocks are a good investment back in 09 when the bailout really got rolling...well, they'd be a hell of a lot richer today. Gov't is a wealth confiscation machine...this is true, but they are capable of taking it to a whole new level. I am opposed to any President forcing any American to buy anything whether it be gov't bonds, the S&P 500, or Obamacare. Now do you want to know why the S&P has risen so precipitously since '09? The answer is gov't intervention in capital markets. The Federal Reserve has been buying U.S. treasuries at an unsustainable pace, making U.S. treasuries a non-viable investment for money managers, pension funds, and private citizens. As a result all of that money funnels into the stock market. On December 18th, 2013, the Fed cut it Quantitative Easing program by $10 billion a month (for the record stocks rallied hard that day, which is counter-intuitive, but that is market dynamics at work). On January 29th, 2014, the Fed cut QE by an additional $10 billion a month and the S&P is currently trading lower than its Dec 18th open. Some will debate that the economic recovery has been substantial, stock prices are fairly valued, and ending QE is being (or is already) priced into the market, but that is all opinions. The fact is since QE has been tapered slightly, the S&P has traded lower. https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/gfdblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FED-BAL-SHT1.pngThis is a chart comparing the Fed's balance sheet to the S&P 500. Notice the correlation starting in 2009. Its more than double of where it was before QE started. Bonds actually have been a great investment because so many people have been screaming, and investing, about the coming hyper inflation and the collapse of the dollar. Japan has been at 200% debt to GDP and has been adding to its debt for almost 30 years now and the stop that is supposed to arrive has merely wrecked the careers of thousands of investment managers who dont seem to get that analysis of complex, developed economies is much more opaque than just tracking foreign inflows of hot money into emerging markets with its inevitable short circuit and bust. QE1 started November 2008 so please get your facts straight. Bonds have been a terrible investment so please get your facts straight. Investment managers have made an absolute KILLING shorting the Japanese Yen after Abe essentially told them to do just that so please get your facts straight. I know repeating zero hedge makes you feel like you are cool, like you are part of the 'in crowd' who 'gets it' but its literally just a quick google search to confirm: Here is how the US 10 year did starting from Nov 08 using an ETF because i am lazy: https://www.google.ca/finance?q=NYSEARCA:IEF&sq=US 10 year&sp=1&ei=52zwUqjdIqeTiAKgwAEMaking 8% on TREASURY when the real interest rate is touching zero is amazing. Bonds have been a great investment if you want a zero risk return. Investment managers have been attacking the Japanese bonds not the Japanese yen because they, like you, believe that there is mystical red line that once a country is too indebted it crosses and collapses and those investors, following your logic that borrowing is the devil, have repeatedly blown themselves up year after year after year, its called a widow maker for a reason. Anyway, its great to see someone interested in finance. Unfortunately its a little bit more complicated than zero hedge makes it seem. So if I calculate the returns for the ETF you linked I come up with roughly 11% versus the S&P which has returned 80% in the same time frame. Stocks have been essentially a zero risk investment the same as bonds if you just listened to the Fed. So in conclusion, bonds have been a shitty investment. I'm not really familiar with investment managers attacking Japanese bonds, maybe you could provide a link. Unfortunate that you assume I'm a ZH troll (maybe I am, but does that make me wrong?). Oh I see, so your definition of shitty investment is a strong return is still a horrible return because there is an even stronger return? Sorry, I thought we were talking about actual loses. Ok thanks, I apologize for misunderstanding. So just to clarify your position bonds are theft because they only returned 11% AND that eventually there will be a collapse even though Japan has been heavily indebted for 30 years and has not had a collapse because the current government's economic policies lowered the yen? Yes. Japenese bonds have been a terrible investment as well with yields falling since 1984 (furthest out I could get data). Only since early '13 when Abe announced a policy change to weaken the Yen have Japanese bond yields gone up. Are you sure you are interested in finance? ZH has a plethora of informative articles on the subjects we've discussed if you want to read up.
Okay so to be clear:
All bonds are theft. Some bonds are a terrible investment because despite returning 11% something else could have returned more. Japan bonds are terrible because despite price gains they have low yield, allowing Japan to continue to add more and more debt? And this is relevant to your original post that US debt will collapse soon because gold is popular and so are bitcoins how?
|
On February 04 2014 14:30 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 14:17 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2014 13:42 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 13:31 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2014 13:18 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 13:08 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2014 12:34 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 11:12 Danglars wrote:JON STEWART: Why do we have so much trouble executing the plans with any kind of efficiency?
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): Well, again, if you're dealing with people who have no agenda, you know, who nothing -- nothing is their agenda and never is our timetable, it's very hard to negotiate with them. So we are responsible. In other words, call us responsible. They know we're going to vote not to shut down government. They know we are going t o vote for the budget no matter how unpleasant it is. The choice we have is to be irresponsible and follow their path or we don't want to be fearmongers but to explain this to the public is very bad news. We want to be positive.
STEWART: Aside from that aspect, I meant more in terms of, 'Okay, we are going to set up a health care web site that is an exchange. People are going to come to it.' Why is it so hard to get a company to execute that competently?
PELOSI: I don't know. As one who was very --
[Laughter]
PELOSI: No, and that is my question.
STEWART: Let me get the House Minority Leader here, I can ask her. Hold on. What do you mean you don't know? How do you not know?
PELOSI: It's not my responsibility. But I will say this, we worked very hard to honor our responsibility to pass the bill that honors the vowels of our founders: life, a healthier life, liberty to pursue your happiness. sourceMany of my leftist and lean-leftist nonpolitical friends depend on Comedy Central for their news. Now the majority leader claims to be responsible (in contrast to the mean government shutdown opponents), and simultaneously claims she doesn't know why her government health plan turned out so badly. I mean, not even the standard "Well health care and health insurance is so complex and there's so many people so there was bound to be problems." I had become used to the party of Big Government downplaying the size of the problem and emphasizing the complexity of the issues. I guess focus groups showed that ignorance was better than an intricacy discussion. I think its a great question since most civilized countries actually are capable of delivering government owned healthcare at a lower cost than the Americans without nearly as much mess. It would be great to have a series of hearings on the way government contractors work in the US and it would certainly benefit the Republic. I'm with you in the primary thrust of what you're saying. We could deliver this new "essential services," subsidies, marketplace, tax package much better, if we accept for the time being that these changes will happen no matter what and its a question of how. Why is the IRS even involved in administrating the ACA to the extent of 47 tax provisions in the ACA? Democrats certainly hurt their case passing it all without a single republican vote, claiming it had to be passed first to determine how good everything inside it was, and then bungling it to this level. Simultaneously, the pre-ACA regulations that hurt the free market and privileged employer providers didn't turn up a good free-market alternative to government health insurance--it was heavily regulated already. Some of the cost analysis of government-run health care regimes (and not every country's is the same efficiency) is pretty compelling. I'm still against, primarily for the increase in wait times and problems involving end-of-life care. Once the state pays for it, sure you have a say in how your tax money is spent in representative government. Even in low-cost schemes, the budgetary pressures on government and budgetary pressures on the individual and his/her health insurance company are different and can lead to very unintended consequences. I'm even supportive of form of welfare for low-income individuals giving them a government voucher for health insurance to shop around with. Accomplish it with regulations leading to long-term continuation of coverage, allowing you to go to a private plan with better benefits with your own money. This effectively kills the pre-existing condition coverage we hear so much about without perversely rewarding people for waiting until they get sick to purchase insurance coverage. And you know why the IRS is involved. The Republican Supreme Court ruled it a tax instead of commerce clause legislation, and you can either accept that as Roberts chickening out at the last minute or Roberts the ingenious legal scholar setting up a long term plan to crush the Commerce Clause as a vehicle of federal regulation (which is ingenious of him). I don't know where you're going with this last paragraph. It was passed in 2009 and the supreme court challenge came in in 2012. The wording was drafted as a cause of administration, not as some kind of legalese to get out of a constitutionality challenge. The Democrats really wanted the IRS to administer several aspects and not just the individual mandate tax-penalty penalty tax (it was found to be a penalty according to the Anti-Injunction Act, but a tax with respects to the individual mandate). That does indeed set it apart from other country's successful attempts (as we discussed in the other paragraphs). It wasn't like they had to change wording after the Supreme Court challenge ... the wording was already there. The opinion that talked about why it wasn't a commerce clause wasn't the majority opinion, it was merely a concurring opinion. So really, the commerce clause is still the same in all its current legal interpretation glory, Roberts did not limit it. ...it was in the bill because democrats have people who went to good law schools too and they realized in a 5-4 court the commerce clause would be attacked by a roberts court that has signaled it is going to attack the commerce clause...but like introvert said we are just going to start re-treading an argument we all feel comfortable with our positions on. I'd be interested to see any congressional Democrat said it that way ever. You don't go putting in 47 tax provisions stretching all the way to 2018 if its just to make it squeeky clean for 9 justices. If you said this has already been hashed out, I'll rest my case there. It's really the first time I've seen anyone make that argument seriously, the rest say its a core nature of IRS to determine subsidy benefits, tax credits, and tax penalties and the two government bureaucracies were natively necessary in US. Why do you think they wrote it that way? Don't drag me back in haha, I hear from Introvert you already hashed and rehashed it all so I'm backing out. I would necessarily defend my interpretation and re-issue what I find wrong with yours, and here I would be violating your own advice ... for I do feel very comfortable as well with my position.
|
Gov. Chris Christie's (R-NJ) former deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, said through her lawyer Monday evening that she will invoke her 5th Amendment right not to testify before a state legislative panel. She is also refusing to turn over documents subpoenaed by the panel, according to the Bergen Record.
Kelly's attorney, Michael Critchley, Sr., told the panel that the requested information "directly overlaps with a parallel federal grand jury investigation" while also invoking Kelly's general right to personal privacy.
"Unfettered access to, among other things, Ms. Kelly's personal diaries, calendars and all of her electronic devices amounts to an inappropriate and unlimited invasion of Ms. Kelly's personal privacy and would also potentially reveal highly personal confidential communications completely unrelated to the reassignment of access lanes to the George Washignton Bridge."
Kelly has been at the center of the growing scandal since January 8th when emails showed she had passed the order to Port Authority appointee David Wildstein to trigger a week of traffic jams in Port Lee. "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," Kelly wrote in an Aug. 13 email.
Christie fired Kelly the following day, saying "She lied to me."
Source
|
On February 04 2014 14:34 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 14:25 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 14:13 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 14:07 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 13:40 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 13:27 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 13:13 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 12:56 zusch wrote:On February 04 2014 12:37 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 12:00 zusch wrote:
[quote]
Key phrase in my post is "first step." At first it is voluntary, but who know when they will change the rules and it becomes mandatory. And what really is this "investment vehicle?" Obama described it as a "guaranteed reasonable return with zero risk." The only thing he can mean is U.S. treasuries. Not even U.S. treasuries have zero risk, contrary to popular belief. The U.S. is not immune to default. You could just as well say "Government is the first step towards wealth confiscation" As an aside, if we are getting really cynical here had Obama just forced every American to have an S&P index the day he announced stocks are a good investment back in 09 when the bailout really got rolling...well, they'd be a hell of a lot richer today. Gov't is a wealth confiscation machine...this is true, but they are capable of taking it to a whole new level. I am opposed to any President forcing any American to buy anything whether it be gov't bonds, the S&P 500, or Obamacare. Now do you want to know why the S&P has risen so precipitously since '09? The answer is gov't intervention in capital markets. The Federal Reserve has been buying U.S. treasuries at an unsustainable pace, making U.S. treasuries a non-viable investment for money managers, pension funds, and private citizens. As a result all of that money funnels into the stock market. On December 18th, 2013, the Fed cut it Quantitative Easing program by $10 billion a month (for the record stocks rallied hard that day, which is counter-intuitive, but that is market dynamics at work). On January 29th, 2014, the Fed cut QE by an additional $10 billion a month and the S&P is currently trading lower than its Dec 18th open. Some will debate that the economic recovery has been substantial, stock prices are fairly valued, and ending QE is being (or is already) priced into the market, but that is all opinions. The fact is since QE has been tapered slightly, the S&P has traded lower. https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/gfdblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FED-BAL-SHT1.pngThis is a chart comparing the Fed's balance sheet to the S&P 500. Notice the correlation starting in 2009. Its more than double of where it was before QE started. Bonds actually have been a great investment because so many people have been screaming, and investing, about the coming hyper inflation and the collapse of the dollar. Japan has been at 200% debt to GDP and has been adding to its debt for almost 30 years now and the stop that is supposed to arrive has merely wrecked the careers of thousands of investment managers who dont seem to get that analysis of complex, developed economies is much more opaque than just tracking foreign inflows of hot money into emerging markets with its inevitable short circuit and bust. QE1 started November 2008 so please get your facts straight. Bonds have been a terrible investment so please get your facts straight. Investment managers have made an absolute KILLING shorting the Japanese Yen after Abe essentially told them to do just that so please get your facts straight. I know repeating zero hedge makes you feel like you are cool, like you are part of the 'in crowd' who 'gets it' but its literally just a quick google search to confirm: Here is how the US 10 year did starting from Nov 08 using an ETF because i am lazy: https://www.google.ca/finance?q=NYSEARCA:IEF&sq=US 10 year&sp=1&ei=52zwUqjdIqeTiAKgwAEMaking 8% on TREASURY when the real interest rate is touching zero is amazing. Bonds have been a great investment if you want a zero risk return. Investment managers have been attacking the Japanese bonds not the Japanese yen because they, like you, believe that there is mystical red line that once a country is too indebted it crosses and collapses and those investors, following your logic that borrowing is the devil, have repeatedly blown themselves up year after year after year, its called a widow maker for a reason. Anyway, its great to see someone interested in finance. Unfortunately its a little bit more complicated than zero hedge makes it seem. So if I calculate the returns for the ETF you linked I come up with roughly 11% versus the S&P which has returned 80% in the same time frame. Stocks have been essentially a zero risk investment the same as bonds if you just listened to the Fed. So in conclusion, bonds have been a shitty investment. I'm not really familiar with investment managers attacking Japanese bonds, maybe you could provide a link. Unfortunate that you assume I'm a ZH troll (maybe I am, but does that make me wrong?). Oh I see, so your definition of shitty investment is a strong return is still a horrible return because there is an even stronger return? Sorry, I thought we were talking about actual loses. Ok thanks, I apologize for misunderstanding. So just to clarify your position bonds are theft because they only returned 11% AND that eventually there will be a collapse even though Japan has been heavily indebted for 30 years and has not had a collapse because the current government's economic policies lowered the yen? Yes. Japenese bonds have been a terrible investment as well with yields falling since 1984 (furthest out I could get data). Only since early '13 when Abe announced a policy change to weaken the Yen have Japanese bond yields gone up. Are you sure you are interested in finance? ZH has a plethora of informative articles on the subjects we've discussed if you want to read up. Okay so to be clear: All bonds are theft. Some bonds are a terrible investment because despite returning 11% something else could have returned more. Japan bonds are terrible because despite price gains they have low yield, allowing Japan to continue to add more and more debt? And this is relevant to your original post that US debt will collapse soon because gold is popular and so are bitcoins how?
Now I can't tell if you are trolling me or if you little to nothing about finance...so I'm just going to log off for the night.
|
On February 04 2014 14:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Gov. Chris Christie's (R-NJ) former deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, said through her lawyer Monday evening that she will invoke her 5th Amendment right not to testify before a state legislative panel. She is also refusing to turn over documents subpoenaed by the panel, according to the Bergen Record.
Kelly's attorney, Michael Critchley, Sr., told the panel that the requested information "directly overlaps with a parallel federal grand jury investigation" while also invoking Kelly's general right to personal privacy.
"Unfettered access to, among other things, Ms. Kelly's personal diaries, calendars and all of her electronic devices amounts to an inappropriate and unlimited invasion of Ms. Kelly's personal privacy and would also potentially reveal highly personal confidential communications completely unrelated to the reassignment of access lanes to the George Washignton Bridge."
Kelly has been at the center of the growing scandal since January 8th when emails showed she had passed the order to Port Authority appointee David Wildstein to trigger a week of traffic jams in Port Lee. "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," Kelly wrote in an Aug. 13 email.
Christie fired Kelly the following day, saying "She lied to me." Source
So Christie was the big hope of the GOP for about 6 months before it all came crashing down huh? Rand Paul '16 then?
|
I doubt Rand Paul would do, he's too out there. While Christie had some popularity, it was known for some time that he had quite a lot of issues and baggage that would bite him in a presidential run.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there's a joke somewhere about that, new jersey politician without baggage. surely?
|
Danglers, xDaunt, team America, who do you guys have in '16? One of the hispanic governors ya'll have down in the south west?
|
Well, Seb40EPM, everybody who ran or said they were considering running in 2012 minus Mitt Romney (unless he changes his mind) and Cain. It's not the conservative party, it's the Republican party, my preferred candidates are the most conservative I hold any hope for.
Against a Biden or Clinton, I'd support a Cruz, Paul (Rand), Trump, Ryan, Gingrich. Longest of the long shots Bolton, Ben Carson, Huntsman, DeMint. If they decided to run, Cuccinelli, Issa, Jindal, Palin (Flame On!), Rubio, Walker, West, Bachmann.
I couldn't get behind a Christie, or a Huckabee, or many of the rest of possibilities I didn't mention. As good as Bush was on terrorism, he was a big government type that grew it and paved the way for some of Obama's excesses; I don't want another Bush. Christie's opposition to Obamacare was hardly present and that issue remains big in my mind.
Of course if Coolidge and Reagan are any indication, we should be due another conservative guy I REALLY like in 2030. I hope I'm not voting for "the other guy" sometime before then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
