|
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 March 01 2014 06:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 06:43 xDaunt wrote:
I looked at the opinion. It is very fact-specific as these Fourth Amendment cases often are. For what it's worth, I think that they got it right. It has long been held that co-occupants/tenants can unilaterally admit law enforcement onto the property when the other occupants/tenants are absent, and that any evidence found can be used against the absent occupants/tenants without a warrant. The only new twist here was whether a warrantless search can be conducted when one occupant objects and is later lawfully arrested, and then law enforcement secures permission to enter the premises after the arrest. The Court says yes, though, in dicta, it does suggest that the result could be different if the objector was unlawfully arrested/removed from the premises. In other words, this decision does not give the police license skirt warrant requirements just by having the objector haphazardly "removed."
Long story short, I don't think that this decision is a big deal or that it dramatically departs from past law. That said, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is a mess in general, and this decision definitely doesn't simplify things. That's kind of what I took from it. I don't mind inhabitants letting people on to the owner's property, but the thing that concerned me was the fact that Fernandez had refused earlier. Thanks for your input.
One thing to keep in mind with these cases is that the Court is very cognizant of how complex these rules can be, so it likes to create bright line rules that are easy for cops to follow and adhere to. The Court actually talks about this policy consideration in a lot of its Fourth Amendment cases. That's why the Court refused to consider tests that touch upon the subjective state of mind of the cops at the time of the search.
|
On March 01 2014 05:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 05:22 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:08 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 04:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 03:19 WhiteDog wrote:[quote] America's low saving rate, and its big size are the two main reasons why the capital overall in the US is less than in Europe (as I said 400% of the national income in one year to 600 % average in europe) but it doesn't mean there are no capital at all. Plus the savings were low before the crisis, exactly because capital was cheap. It's true that the US is different as it has also a great inequality in labor income, but that doesn't mean the patrimony part does not exist. + Show Spoiler + I still think you're arguing that "it's an issue" rather than "it's a driving issue". The other issues I cited just seem so much more important. Everything you cited is linked to the biggest macroeconomic trend I'm talking about. Just look in the graph, the 2007 subprime crisis is easy to spot. The correlation is pretty clear... Every bubble are on that graph actually, more or less, but what's most interesting is the global trend of capital being more and more important in our societies, which was my first point. Wolfstan came up with the 2007 crisis like it was a perfect explanation of why you should not tax capital (or give capital to poor) and I just responded that it is the lack of capital taxation that is directly linked to the crisis. I'm not saying there are no specific questions about the financial market, the way it function, the lack of regulation, etc. that explains the subprime crisis, like you are trying to argue. I'm merely saying capital is part of the problem : to say it in another way, you talk about the specifics of the crisis, while I'm talking about the macroeconomic context. A rising amount of capital isn't an "over" accumulation though... a big part of how modern economies grow is by intensifying capital use. It's only a problem if you don't have anywhere to put the financial capital... which was a problem external to the US (mainly). When the return on capital is systemically higher than production growth (5 to 2% a year), you know that there is a concentration of capital in a few hands that is not sustainable in the long run. When the level of accumulation is the same as the beginning of the XXth century in Europe, it is a big problem. You don't know it, because you're from the US and it is not part of your culture (you never had a such a level of over accumulation for various reasons). But in France, and most of western Europe, between 1890 and 1930, a big part of the population were rentier who gained their money just because of their patrimony. Also, a big part of how modern economies grow is by... using human capital. Yes there are studies about that. Capital accumulation is useless by itself : "il n'y a de richesse que d'hommes". First, where are you getting your 5% and 2% numbers? Second, some of the capital accumulation is related to human capital. From the book you should read. And 5% is on average, for financial market the return on capital gain is around 7-8 % (more risky). The 2% is just an average growth of GDP. Second no. Unless slavery is legal again. Are those numbers apples to apples (real vs real, after tax)? Do they account for labor components of capital at all? 2% seems low for US too... Umm, no. Human capital should have an affect on some asset classes. Ex. as worker's human capital and income rises, the value of housing stock should rise as well. Between 1970 and 2010, the GDP growth in the US was, on average and per capita, 1.8 %. The US has a better GDP growth than Germany or France, but with a demographic growth of 1% a year since 1970, so when you take the demographic growth in the addition, the GDP growth is always between 1.6 and 2.0 in the entire western world between 1970 and 2010 (Italy at 1.6% and Japan at 2%, with US, Germany, UK, France, Canada and Australiain in between). Those are all real term. The return on capital is also real after tax. He also gives the differences between various components of capital in the book but you know it is a fucking 1000 page book so you should buy it and see for yourself :/ Why would the value of housing stock should rise ? This is just theory. Well, I don't see why you'd go per capita if you aren't also going per capita for capital... that's apples to oranges. More people should mean both more GDP and capital. Show nested quote +GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.24 Percent from 1947 until 2013 sourceThat's getting pretty close to that 5% number, which probably contains some labor elements. Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income. I also see no reason why other capital assets wouldn't rise in value along with a growing economy. Why wouldn't the value of Coca-Cola's brand rise along with a growing population / economy? Edit: what book anyways?
It's very obvious that the United States has been supplying the demand for the world's (China's) excess production capacity for the last couple decades. Excess capital has to go somewhere. After world war II it went into housing with the flight to the suburbs, but strong growth still continued, primarily because real wages kept growing among the working class up until the 70s.
When real wages stop rising for the working class, demand sinks, but capital still has to go somewhere. So what happens? Capital invests in housing/real estate markets. You have banks lending credit to developers to invest in new real estate, and then turning around to hand out credit to the working class, with stagnated incomes, to buy those new houses. The developers get to pay off their loans, and both the developers and the bank get rich, while the homeowners get placed under increasingly more debt. The government promotes this process, through tax credits and other policies designed to make home ownership a priority, but at some point, the whole thing collapses. Luckily the banks and the developers walk away with bailouts, so they can keep the cycle going.
The same destination for capital has been happening in China. What do you think has been fueling China's growth? Yes they have a bunch of factories, but their profit margins are tiny, and capital is accumulating. On the other hand, in the last decade or two China has built a number of large cities, entirely from the ground up. Countries in Latin and South America that supply the raw materials for these public works projects have seen growth rates slightly below that of China, which is what you would expect. These cities are full of empty infrastructure, but China has the advantage of being able to dictate policy to the Chinese banks (i.e. continue to extend credit to these developers). Even though China is offering incentives to people to move in and make use of these massive public infrastructure projects, at some point they are going to have to recapitalize their banks, at great cost.
Whitedog is right about the global growth rates, you just seem to have your head so far down in the sand that this comes as a shock to you. You must know that it's a joke to use a timeline averaging growth from 1947 to the present. Yes, bubbles have been growing and bursting for a long time. But we are undergoing a serious shift here that you are missing. There is a systemic overaccumulation of capital, with increasingly fewer places to find a return on investment. Securitization has helped reduce the risk to the individual players in the game, but has vastly increased the overall systemic risk of shocks. A barrel of oil was below $40 before 9/11. Now it's up over $80. Energy costs are increasing. Patrimony is accumulating more and more of a very slowly growing pie. The system requires 3% annual growth forever to continue to exist. Years and years of failing to hit that number has led to an explosion of credit. But credit only works for so long.
|
On March 01 2014 06:43 xDaunt wrote:
I looked at the opinion. It is very fact-specific as these Fourth Amendment cases often are. For what it's worth, I think that they got it right. It has long been held that co-occupants/tenants can unilaterally admit law enforcement onto the property when the other occupants/tenants are absent, and that any evidence found can be used against the absent occupants/tenants without a warrant. The only new twist here was whether a warrantless search can be conducted when one occupant objects and is later lawfully arrested, and then law enforcement secures permission to enter the premises after the arrest. The Court says yes, though, in dicta, it does suggest that the result could be different if the objector was unlawfully arrested/removed from the premises. In other words, this decision does not give the police license skirt warrant requirements just by having the objector haphazardly "removed."
Long story short, I don't think that this decision is a big deal or that it dramatically departs from past law. That said, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is a mess in general, and this decision definitely doesn't simplify things.
It's only a big deal on Reason.com.
|
On March 01 2014 06:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 06:46 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2014 06:43 xDaunt wrote:
I looked at the opinion. It is very fact-specific as these Fourth Amendment cases often are. For what it's worth, I think that they got it right. It has long been held that co-occupants/tenants can unilaterally admit law enforcement onto the property when the other occupants/tenants are absent, and that any evidence found can be used against the absent occupants/tenants without a warrant. The only new twist here was whether a warrantless search can be conducted when one occupant objects and is later lawfully arrested, and then law enforcement secures permission to enter the premises after the arrest. The Court says yes, though, in dicta, it does suggest that the result could be different if the objector was unlawfully arrested/removed from the premises. In other words, this decision does not give the police license skirt warrant requirements just by having the objector haphazardly "removed."
Long story short, I don't think that this decision is a big deal or that it dramatically departs from past law. That said, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is a mess in general, and this decision definitely doesn't simplify things. That's kind of what I took from it. I don't mind inhabitants letting people on to the owner's property, but the thing that concerned me was the fact that Fernandez had refused earlier. Thanks for your input. One thing to keep in mind with these cases is that the Court is very cognizant of how complex these rules can be, so it likes to create bright line rules that are easy for cops to follow and adhere to. The Court actually talks about this policy consideration in a lot of its Fourth Amendment cases. That's why the Court refused to consider tests that touch upon the subjective state of mind of the cops at the time of the search.
If I were a cop I'd be scared of screwing up something too, lol. Anyway, thanks for your comments.
It's only a big deal on Reason.com.
I just thought it was interesting, so I was kind of surprised it wasn't here. I mean, lots of interesting things never make it here, but still...
You didn't exactly see me screaming about it like I do Obamacare, right? I just had a couple questions and concerns.
It was the subject of a 5 paragraph blog post on Reason that also contained zero hysteria. Is it possible for you to not make snarky comments so often? What you said doesn't stand the test of time- the 1 minute it took to read the post.
|
So multiple times in this thread I have railed against Obama for being weak on foreign policy and inviting foreign leaders to take advantage of that weakness. Anyone who just saw his statement on the Ukraine should see exactly what I have been talking about. Someone please explain to me why Obama's speech would dissuade Putin from continuing to occupy and reinforce his troops in the Crimea.
|
On March 01 2014 07:15 xDaunt wrote:
So multiple times in this thread I have railed against Obama for being weak on foreign policy and inviting foreign leaders to take advantage of that weakness. Anyone who just saw his statement on the Ukraine should see exactly what I have been talking about. Someone please explain to me why Obama's speech would dissuade Putin from continuing to occupy and reinforce his troops in the Crimea.
I dont often agree with you but I can only nod here. Putin has been pushing and prodding since he got in power. You cant just stand back and tell him to not be naughty when he is already shipping troops into the Ukraine.
|
On March 01 2014 07:02 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 01 2014 06:46 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2014 06:43 xDaunt wrote:
I looked at the opinion. It is very fact-specific as these Fourth Amendment cases often are. For what it's worth, I think that they got it right. It has long been held that co-occupants/tenants can unilaterally admit law enforcement onto the property when the other occupants/tenants are absent, and that any evidence found can be used against the absent occupants/tenants without a warrant. The only new twist here was whether a warrantless search can be conducted when one occupant objects and is later lawfully arrested, and then law enforcement secures permission to enter the premises after the arrest. The Court says yes, though, in dicta, it does suggest that the result could be different if the objector was unlawfully arrested/removed from the premises. In other words, this decision does not give the police license skirt warrant requirements just by having the objector haphazardly "removed."
Long story short, I don't think that this decision is a big deal or that it dramatically departs from past law. That said, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is a mess in general, and this decision definitely doesn't simplify things. That's kind of what I took from it. I don't mind inhabitants letting people on to the owner's property, but the thing that concerned me was the fact that Fernandez had refused earlier. Thanks for your input. One thing to keep in mind with these cases is that the Court is very cognizant of how complex these rules can be, so it likes to create bright line rules that are easy for cops to follow and adhere to. The Court actually talks about this policy consideration in a lot of its Fourth Amendment cases. That's why the Court refused to consider tests that touch upon the subjective state of mind of the cops at the time of the search. If I were a cop I'd be scared of screwing up something too, lol. Anyway, thanks for your comments. I just thought it was interesting, so I was kind of surprised it wasn't here. I mean, lots of interesting things never make it here, but still... You didn't exactly see me screaming about it like I do Obamacare, right? I just had a couple questions and concerns. It was the subject of a 5 paragraph blog post on Reason that also contained zero hysteria. Is it possible for you to not make snarky comments so often? What you said doesn't stand the test of time- the 1 minute it took to read the post.
Your post said, "I'm surprised no one's talking about this," and you linked to a reason.com article. It's unclear why you are surprised, other than the implication that reason.com thinks it is surprising. The decision looks like a rather ordinary one in 4th amendment jurisprudence.
|
On March 01 2014 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 07:15 xDaunt wrote:
So multiple times in this thread I have railed against Obama for being weak on foreign policy and inviting foreign leaders to take advantage of that weakness. Anyone who just saw his statement on the Ukraine should see exactly what I have been talking about. Someone please explain to me why Obama's speech would dissuade Putin from continuing to occupy and reinforce his troops in the Crimea. I dont often agree with you but I can only nod here. Putin has been pushing and prodding since he got in power. You cant just stand back and tell him to not be naughty when he is already shipping troops into the Ukraine.
I really don't get this attitude. Russia is a major world/geopolitical power. What the hell is the U.S. supposed to say to them? Are they just supposed to bully them? Do people really think that would work? This isn't some minor country that no one likes and that everyone can cut ties from if we start not liking them. Plenty of countries are going to keep ties to Russia as opposed to the U.S.
|
Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 05:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:22 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:08 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 04:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I still think you're arguing that "it's an issue" rather than "it's a driving issue". The other issues I cited just seem so much more important. Everything you cited is linked to the biggest macroeconomic trend I'm talking about. Just look in the graph, the 2007 subprime crisis is easy to spot. The correlation is pretty clear... Every bubble are on that graph actually, more or less, but what's most interesting is the global trend of capital being more and more important in our societies, which was my first point. Wolfstan came up with the 2007 crisis like it was a perfect explanation of why you should not tax capital (or give capital to poor) and I just responded that it is the lack of capital taxation that is directly linked to the crisis. I'm not saying there are no specific questions about the financial market, the way it function, the lack of regulation, etc. that explains the subprime crisis, like you are trying to argue. I'm merely saying capital is part of the problem : to say it in another way, you talk about the specifics of the crisis, while I'm talking about the macroeconomic context. A rising amount of capital isn't an "over" accumulation though... a big part of how modern economies grow is by intensifying capital use. It's only a problem if you don't have anywhere to put the financial capital... which was a problem external to the US (mainly). When the return on capital is systemically higher than production growth (5 to 2% a year), you know that there is a concentration of capital in a few hands that is not sustainable in the long run. When the level of accumulation is the same as the beginning of the XXth century in Europe, it is a big problem. You don't know it, because you're from the US and it is not part of your culture (you never had a such a level of over accumulation for various reasons). But in France, and most of western Europe, between 1890 and 1930, a big part of the population were rentier who gained their money just because of their patrimony. Also, a big part of how modern economies grow is by... using human capital. Yes there are studies about that. Capital accumulation is useless by itself : "il n'y a de richesse que d'hommes". First, where are you getting your 5% and 2% numbers? Second, some of the capital accumulation is related to human capital. From the book you should read. And 5% is on average, for financial market the return on capital gain is around 7-8 % (more risky). The 2% is just an average growth of GDP. Second no. Unless slavery is legal again. Are those numbers apples to apples (real vs real, after tax)? Do they account for labor components of capital at all? 2% seems low for US too... Umm, no. Human capital should have an affect on some asset classes. Ex. as worker's human capital and income rises, the value of housing stock should rise as well. Between 1970 and 2010, the GDP growth in the US was, on average and per capita, 1.8 %. The US has a better GDP growth than Germany or France, but with a demographic growth of 1% a year since 1970, so when you take the demographic growth in the addition, the GDP growth is always between 1.6 and 2.0 in the entire western world between 1970 and 2010 (Italy at 1.6% and Japan at 2%, with US, Germany, UK, France, Canada and Australiain in between). Those are all real term. The return on capital is also real after tax. He also gives the differences between various components of capital in the book but you know it is a fucking 1000 page book so you should buy it and see for yourself :/ Why would the value of housing stock should rise ? This is just theory. Well, I don't see why you'd go per capita if you aren't also going per capita for capital... that's apples to oranges. More people should mean both more GDP and capital. GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.24 Percent from 1947 until 2013 sourceThat's getting pretty close to that 5% number, which probably contains some labor elements. Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income. I also see no reason why other capital assets wouldn't rise in value along with a growing economy. Why wouldn't the value of Coca-Cola's brand rise along with a growing population / economy? Edit: what book anyways? No ? Omg can you focus ? Of you course you need to go per capita because you a measuring capital accumulation and concentration, so if you don't take into consideration the number of people, you are not measuring that... And of course the demographic play a role (again it is another indicator that set the US aside, there are various). I don't understand your point at all, assets rising through the market means they gain value, this has no link with human capital. And of course one impact on the other, but that is irrelevant to the matter... Your argument mean nothing. For the book, watch video linked by Oneofthem. And your number is a fraud, please. It start at 1947 of course it is going to be higher. There is a reason why I start at 1970... Plus is it real term ? Not sure.
Sorry I forgot you aren't doing growth rate vs growth rate. Not quite sure how that plays out atm, but I'll stop nitpicking the numbers.
Anyways, as I pointed out before it still isn't a valuable metric. Capital accumulation isn't a bad thing - that's how economies develop. Concentration can be an issue, along with any other inequality metric, but that's besides the issue we're discussing here.
As I pointed out before, the credit bubble was driven more by capital coming in from overseas than an internal imbalance. Similar situation as within the EU (Germans lending to Greeks). Additionally, that imbalance turned really sour more because of how it was structured rather than its simple existence.
Lastly, assets markets rising absolutely have a link to human capital. As you yourself point out "of course one impact the other" so.. derp, yeah, they're related.
|
On March 01 2014 07:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 07:02 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2014 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 01 2014 06:46 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2014 06:43 xDaunt wrote:
I looked at the opinion. It is very fact-specific as these Fourth Amendment cases often are. For what it's worth, I think that they got it right. It has long been held that co-occupants/tenants can unilaterally admit law enforcement onto the property when the other occupants/tenants are absent, and that any evidence found can be used against the absent occupants/tenants without a warrant. The only new twist here was whether a warrantless search can be conducted when one occupant objects and is later lawfully arrested, and then law enforcement secures permission to enter the premises after the arrest. The Court says yes, though, in dicta, it does suggest that the result could be different if the objector was unlawfully arrested/removed from the premises. In other words, this decision does not give the police license skirt warrant requirements just by having the objector haphazardly "removed."
Long story short, I don't think that this decision is a big deal or that it dramatically departs from past law. That said, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is a mess in general, and this decision definitely doesn't simplify things. That's kind of what I took from it. I don't mind inhabitants letting people on to the owner's property, but the thing that concerned me was the fact that Fernandez had refused earlier. Thanks for your input. One thing to keep in mind with these cases is that the Court is very cognizant of how complex these rules can be, so it likes to create bright line rules that are easy for cops to follow and adhere to. The Court actually talks about this policy consideration in a lot of its Fourth Amendment cases. That's why the Court refused to consider tests that touch upon the subjective state of mind of the cops at the time of the search. If I were a cop I'd be scared of screwing up something too, lol. Anyway, thanks for your comments. It's only a big deal on Reason.com. I just thought it was interesting, so I was kind of surprised it wasn't here. I mean, lots of interesting things never make it here, but still... You didn't exactly see me screaming about it like I do Obamacare, right? I just had a couple questions and concerns. It was the subject of a 5 paragraph blog post on Reason that also contained zero hysteria. Is it possible for you to not make snarky comments so often? What you said doesn't stand the test of time- the 1 minute it took to read the post. Your post said, "I'm surprised no one's talking about this," and you linked to a reason.com article. It's unclear why you are surprised, other than the implication that reason.com thinks it is surprising. The decision looks like a rather ordinary one in 4th amendment jurisprudence.
I don't have to be surprised because I think it's some big issue. ALL of the given context should have made that obvious. But you like to speed read and post one liners, so I guess you didn't really catch that.
I was surprised because I thought it was kind of interesting. Neither the blog post nor my post contained anything along the lines of "omg gubment gonna git me!"
|
On March 01 2014 07:15 xDaunt wrote:
So multiple times in this thread I have railed against Obama for being weak on foreign policy and inviting foreign leaders to take advantage of that weakness. Anyone who just saw his statement on the Ukraine should see exactly what I have been talking about. Someone please explain to me why Obama's speech would dissuade Putin from continuing to occupy and reinforce his troops in the Crimea.
I always find your criticism on this point about Obama especially confusing, presumably you view Bush as a more muscular president? And yet where was his action in Georgia, last time I checked Abkhazia and Ossetia have been physically and legally separated from Georgia. Ditto Bush's rhetoric on Iran, other than arbitrarily looping them into a lame Axis of Evil what is the difference?
|
On March 01 2014 06:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 05:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:22 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:08 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 04:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I still think you're arguing that "it's an issue" rather than "it's a driving issue". The other issues I cited just seem so much more important. Everything you cited is linked to the biggest macroeconomic trend I'm talking about. Just look in the graph, the 2007 subprime crisis is easy to spot. The correlation is pretty clear... Every bubble are on that graph actually, more or less, but what's most interesting is the global trend of capital being more and more important in our societies, which was my first point. Wolfstan came up with the 2007 crisis like it was a perfect explanation of why you should not tax capital (or give capital to poor) and I just responded that it is the lack of capital taxation that is directly linked to the crisis. I'm not saying there are no specific questions about the financial market, the way it function, the lack of regulation, etc. that explains the subprime crisis, like you are trying to argue. I'm merely saying capital is part of the problem : to say it in another way, you talk about the specifics of the crisis, while I'm talking about the macroeconomic context. A rising amount of capital isn't an "over" accumulation though... a big part of how modern economies grow is by intensifying capital use. It's only a problem if you don't have anywhere to put the financial capital... which was a problem external to the US (mainly). When the return on capital is systemically higher than production growth (5 to 2% a year), you know that there is a concentration of capital in a few hands that is not sustainable in the long run. When the level of accumulation is the same as the beginning of the XXth century in Europe, it is a big problem. You don't know it, because you're from the US and it is not part of your culture (you never had a such a level of over accumulation for various reasons). But in France, and most of western Europe, between 1890 and 1930, a big part of the population were rentier who gained their money just because of their patrimony. Also, a big part of how modern economies grow is by... using human capital. Yes there are studies about that. Capital accumulation is useless by itself : "il n'y a de richesse que d'hommes". First, where are you getting your 5% and 2% numbers? Second, some of the capital accumulation is related to human capital. From the book you should read. And 5% is on average, for financial market the return on capital gain is around 7-8 % (more risky). The 2% is just an average growth of GDP. Second no. Unless slavery is legal again. Are those numbers apples to apples (real vs real, after tax)? Do they account for labor components of capital at all? 2% seems low for US too... Umm, no. Human capital should have an affect on some asset classes. Ex. as worker's human capital and income rises, the value of housing stock should rise as well. Between 1970 and 2010, the GDP growth in the US was, on average and per capita, 1.8 %. The US has a better GDP growth than Germany or France, but with a demographic growth of 1% a year since 1970, so when you take the demographic growth in the addition, the GDP growth is always between 1.6 and 2.0 in the entire western world between 1970 and 2010 (Italy at 1.6% and Japan at 2%, with US, Germany, UK, France, Canada and Australiain in between). Those are all real term. The return on capital is also real after tax. He also gives the differences between various components of capital in the book but you know it is a fucking 1000 page book so you should buy it and see for yourself :/ Why would the value of housing stock should rise ? This is just theory. Well, I don't see why you'd go per capita if you aren't also going per capita for capital... that's apples to oranges. More people should mean both more GDP and capital. GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.24 Percent from 1947 until 2013 sourceThat's getting pretty close to that 5% number, which probably contains some labor elements. Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income. I also see no reason why other capital assets wouldn't rise in value along with a growing economy. Why wouldn't the value of Coca-Cola's brand rise along with a growing population / economy? Edit: what book anyways? It's very obvious that the United States has been supplying the demand for the world's (China's) excess production capacity for the last couple decades. Excess capital has to go somewhere. After world war II it went into housing with the flight to the suburbs, but strong growth still continued, primarily because real wages kept growing among the working class up until the 70s. When real wages stop rising for the working class, demand sinks, but capital still has to go somewhere. So what happens? Capital invests in housing/real estate markets. You have banks lending credit to developers to invest in new real estate, and then turning around to hand out credit to the working class, with stagnated incomes, to buy those new houses. The developers get to pay off their loans, and both the developers and the bank get rich, while the homeowners get placed under increasingly more debt. The government promotes this process, through tax credits and other policies designed to make home ownership a priority, but at some point, the whole thing collapses. Luckily the banks and the developers walk away with bailouts, so they can keep the cycle going.
Not really, no. Again, a lot of the credit came externally rather than from a marxian from the rich class to the working class.
The same destination for capital has been happening in China. What do you think has been fueling China's growth? Yes they have a bunch of factories, but their profit margins are tiny, and capital is accumulating. On the other hand, in the last decade or two China has built a number of large cities, entirely from the ground up. Countries in Latin and South America that supply the raw materials for these public works projects have seen growth rates slightly below that of China, which is what you would expect. These cities are full of empty infrastructure, but China has the advantage of being able to dictate policy to the Chinese banks (i.e. continue to extend credit to these developers). Even though China is offering incentives to people to move in and make use of these massive public infrastructure projects, at some point they are going to have to recapitalize their banks, at great cost.
Sure, China has some problems. Europe has lots of housing related problems too.
Whitedog is right about the global growth rates, you just seem to have your head so far down in the sand that this comes as a shock to you. You must know that it's a joke to use a timeline averaging growth from 1947 to the present. Yes, bubbles have been growing and bursting for a long time. But we are undergoing a serious shift here that you are missing. There is a systemic overaccumulation of capital, with increasingly fewer places to find a return on investment. Securitization has helped reduce the risk to the individual players in the game, but has vastly increased the overall systemic risk of shocks. A barrel of oil was below $40 before 9/11. Now it's up over $80. Energy costs are increasing. Patrimony is accumulating more and more of a very slowly growing pie. The system requires 3% annual growth forever to continue to exist. Years and years of failing to hit that number has led to an explosion of credit. But credit only works for so long.
There's lots of places for capital to go. Businesses returned to profitability pretty quickly, if you hadn't noticed. High commodity prices mean great investment potential in that space, and we're under-investing in housing now.
And no, we don't need 3% growth forever.. that's just nonsense.
|
On March 01 2014 07:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 06:55 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2014 05:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:22 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:08 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 04:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Everything you cited is linked to the biggest macroeconomic trend I'm talking about. Just look in the graph, the 2007 subprime crisis is easy to spot. The correlation is pretty clear... Every bubble are on that graph actually, more or less, but what's most interesting is the global trend of capital being more and more important in our societies, which was my first point.
Wolfstan came up with the 2007 crisis like it was a perfect explanation of why you should not tax capital (or give capital to poor) and I just responded that it is the lack of capital taxation that is directly linked to the crisis. I'm not saying there are no specific questions about the financial market, the way it function, the lack of regulation, etc. that explains the subprime crisis, like you are trying to argue. I'm merely saying capital is part of the problem : to say it in another way, you talk about the specifics of the crisis, while I'm talking about the macroeconomic context. A rising amount of capital isn't an "over" accumulation though... a big part of how modern economies grow is by intensifying capital use. It's only a problem if you don't have anywhere to put the financial capital... which was a problem external to the US (mainly). When the return on capital is systemically higher than production growth (5 to 2% a year), you know that there is a concentration of capital in a few hands that is not sustainable in the long run. When the level of accumulation is the same as the beginning of the XXth century in Europe, it is a big problem. You don't know it, because you're from the US and it is not part of your culture (you never had a such a level of over accumulation for various reasons). But in France, and most of western Europe, between 1890 and 1930, a big part of the population were rentier who gained their money just because of their patrimony. Also, a big part of how modern economies grow is by... using human capital. Yes there are studies about that. Capital accumulation is useless by itself : "il n'y a de richesse que d'hommes". First, where are you getting your 5% and 2% numbers? Second, some of the capital accumulation is related to human capital. From the book you should read. And 5% is on average, for financial market the return on capital gain is around 7-8 % (more risky). The 2% is just an average growth of GDP. Second no. Unless slavery is legal again. Are those numbers apples to apples (real vs real, after tax)? Do they account for labor components of capital at all? 2% seems low for US too... Umm, no. Human capital should have an affect on some asset classes. Ex. as worker's human capital and income rises, the value of housing stock should rise as well. Between 1970 and 2010, the GDP growth in the US was, on average and per capita, 1.8 %. The US has a better GDP growth than Germany or France, but with a demographic growth of 1% a year since 1970, so when you take the demographic growth in the addition, the GDP growth is always between 1.6 and 2.0 in the entire western world between 1970 and 2010 (Italy at 1.6% and Japan at 2%, with US, Germany, UK, France, Canada and Australiain in between). Those are all real term. The return on capital is also real after tax. He also gives the differences between various components of capital in the book but you know it is a fucking 1000 page book so you should buy it and see for yourself :/ Why would the value of housing stock should rise ? This is just theory. Well, I don't see why you'd go per capita if you aren't also going per capita for capital... that's apples to oranges. More people should mean both more GDP and capital. GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.24 Percent from 1947 until 2013 sourceThat's getting pretty close to that 5% number, which probably contains some labor elements. Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income. I also see no reason why other capital assets wouldn't rise in value along with a growing economy. Why wouldn't the value of Coca-Cola's brand rise along with a growing population / economy? Edit: what book anyways? It's very obvious that the United States has been supplying the demand for the world's (China's) excess production capacity for the last couple decades. Excess capital has to go somewhere. After world war II it went into housing with the flight to the suburbs, but strong growth still continued, primarily because real wages kept growing among the working class up until the 70s. When real wages stop rising for the working class, demand sinks, but capital still has to go somewhere. So what happens? Capital invests in housing/real estate markets. You have banks lending credit to developers to invest in new real estate, and then turning around to hand out credit to the working class, with stagnated incomes, to buy those new houses. The developers get to pay off their loans, and both the developers and the bank get rich, while the homeowners get placed under increasingly more debt. The government promotes this process, through tax credits and other policies designed to make home ownership a priority, but at some point, the whole thing collapses. Luckily the banks and the developers walk away with bailouts, so they can keep the cycle going. Not really, no. Again, a lot of the credit came externally rather than from a marxian from the rich class to the working class. Show nested quote +The same destination for capital has been happening in China. What do you think has been fueling China's growth? Yes they have a bunch of factories, but their profit margins are tiny, and capital is accumulating. On the other hand, in the last decade or two China has built a number of large cities, entirely from the ground up. Countries in Latin and South America that supply the raw materials for these public works projects have seen growth rates slightly below that of China, which is what you would expect. These cities are full of empty infrastructure, but China has the advantage of being able to dictate policy to the Chinese banks (i.e. continue to extend credit to these developers). Even though China is offering incentives to people to move in and make use of these massive public infrastructure projects, at some point they are going to have to recapitalize their banks, at great cost. Sure, China has some problems. Europe has lots of housing related problems too. Show nested quote +Whitedog is right about the global growth rates, you just seem to have your head so far down in the sand that this comes as a shock to you. You must know that it's a joke to use a timeline averaging growth from 1947 to the present. Yes, bubbles have been growing and bursting for a long time. But we are undergoing a serious shift here that you are missing. There is a systemic overaccumulation of capital, with increasingly fewer places to find a return on investment. Securitization has helped reduce the risk to the individual players in the game, but has vastly increased the overall systemic risk of shocks. A barrel of oil was below $40 before 9/11. Now it's up over $80. Energy costs are increasing. Patrimony is accumulating more and more of a very slowly growing pie. The system requires 3% annual growth forever to continue to exist. Years and years of failing to hit that number has led to an explosion of credit. But credit only works for so long. There's lots of places for capital to go. Businesses returned to profitability pretty quickly, if you hadn't noticed. High commodity prices mean great investment potential in that space, and we're under-investing in housing now. And no, we don't need 3% growth forever.. that's just nonsense.
Oh you have a different number? What's your sensible number?
The profitability of business does not mean it's a place for continued investment. If you increase your productive capacity too much you kill your profit and end up with useless physical capital. There are not lots of places for capital to go. High commodity prices are speculation. And we are definitely not "under-investing" in housing now.
|
On March 01 2014 07:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 07:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 06:55 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2014 05:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:22 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:08 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 04:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
A rising amount of capital isn't an "over" accumulation though... a big part of how modern economies grow is by intensifying capital use. It's only a problem if you don't have anywhere to put the financial capital... which was a problem external to the US (mainly). When the return on capital is systemically higher than production growth (5 to 2% a year), you know that there is a concentration of capital in a few hands that is not sustainable in the long run. When the level of accumulation is the same as the beginning of the XXth century in Europe, it is a big problem. You don't know it, because you're from the US and it is not part of your culture (you never had a such a level of over accumulation for various reasons). But in France, and most of western Europe, between 1890 and 1930, a big part of the population were rentier who gained their money just because of their patrimony. Also, a big part of how modern economies grow is by... using human capital. Yes there are studies about that. Capital accumulation is useless by itself : "il n'y a de richesse que d'hommes". First, where are you getting your 5% and 2% numbers? Second, some of the capital accumulation is related to human capital. From the book you should read. And 5% is on average, for financial market the return on capital gain is around 7-8 % (more risky). The 2% is just an average growth of GDP. Second no. Unless slavery is legal again. Are those numbers apples to apples (real vs real, after tax)? Do they account for labor components of capital at all? 2% seems low for US too... Umm, no. Human capital should have an affect on some asset classes. Ex. as worker's human capital and income rises, the value of housing stock should rise as well. Between 1970 and 2010, the GDP growth in the US was, on average and per capita, 1.8 %. The US has a better GDP growth than Germany or France, but with a demographic growth of 1% a year since 1970, so when you take the demographic growth in the addition, the GDP growth is always between 1.6 and 2.0 in the entire western world between 1970 and 2010 (Italy at 1.6% and Japan at 2%, with US, Germany, UK, France, Canada and Australiain in between). Those are all real term. The return on capital is also real after tax. He also gives the differences between various components of capital in the book but you know it is a fucking 1000 page book so you should buy it and see for yourself :/ Why would the value of housing stock should rise ? This is just theory. Well, I don't see why you'd go per capita if you aren't also going per capita for capital... that's apples to oranges. More people should mean both more GDP and capital. GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.24 Percent from 1947 until 2013 sourceThat's getting pretty close to that 5% number, which probably contains some labor elements. Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income. I also see no reason why other capital assets wouldn't rise in value along with a growing economy. Why wouldn't the value of Coca-Cola's brand rise along with a growing population / economy? Edit: what book anyways? It's very obvious that the United States has been supplying the demand for the world's (China's) excess production capacity for the last couple decades. Excess capital has to go somewhere. After world war II it went into housing with the flight to the suburbs, but strong growth still continued, primarily because real wages kept growing among the working class up until the 70s. When real wages stop rising for the working class, demand sinks, but capital still has to go somewhere. So what happens? Capital invests in housing/real estate markets. You have banks lending credit to developers to invest in new real estate, and then turning around to hand out credit to the working class, with stagnated incomes, to buy those new houses. The developers get to pay off their loans, and both the developers and the bank get rich, while the homeowners get placed under increasingly more debt. The government promotes this process, through tax credits and other policies designed to make home ownership a priority, but at some point, the whole thing collapses. Luckily the banks and the developers walk away with bailouts, so they can keep the cycle going. Not really, no. Again, a lot of the credit came externally rather than from a marxian from the rich class to the working class. The same destination for capital has been happening in China. What do you think has been fueling China's growth? Yes they have a bunch of factories, but their profit margins are tiny, and capital is accumulating. On the other hand, in the last decade or two China has built a number of large cities, entirely from the ground up. Countries in Latin and South America that supply the raw materials for these public works projects have seen growth rates slightly below that of China, which is what you would expect. These cities are full of empty infrastructure, but China has the advantage of being able to dictate policy to the Chinese banks (i.e. continue to extend credit to these developers). Even though China is offering incentives to people to move in and make use of these massive public infrastructure projects, at some point they are going to have to recapitalize their banks, at great cost. Sure, China has some problems. Europe has lots of housing related problems too. Whitedog is right about the global growth rates, you just seem to have your head so far down in the sand that this comes as a shock to you. You must know that it's a joke to use a timeline averaging growth from 1947 to the present. Yes, bubbles have been growing and bursting for a long time. But we are undergoing a serious shift here that you are missing. There is a systemic overaccumulation of capital, with increasingly fewer places to find a return on investment. Securitization has helped reduce the risk to the individual players in the game, but has vastly increased the overall systemic risk of shocks. A barrel of oil was below $40 before 9/11. Now it's up over $80. Energy costs are increasing. Patrimony is accumulating more and more of a very slowly growing pie. The system requires 3% annual growth forever to continue to exist. Years and years of failing to hit that number has led to an explosion of credit. But credit only works for so long. There's lots of places for capital to go. Businesses returned to profitability pretty quickly, if you hadn't noticed. High commodity prices mean great investment potential in that space, and we're under-investing in housing now. And no, we don't need 3% growth forever.. that's just nonsense. Oh you have a different number? What's your sensible number? The profitability of business does not mean it's a place for continued investment. If you increase your productive capacity too much you kill your profit and end up with useless physical capital. There are not lots of places for capital to go. High commodity prices are speculation. And we are definitely not "under-investing" in housing now.
There's no magic number that the economy needs to hit forever.
That's true that current profitability doesn't mean viable new investment. But... there still are lots of places for capital to go.
Citing 'speculation' is irrelevant. If prices are high than investment will be more profitable. And yes, we're under-investing in housing. New construction and inventory have declined very low and some improvement projects, like better energy efficiency, have very good rates of return on them.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
house building is not over invested, but that's different from real estate, which is largely land price. rent generating land is less of a problem in areas with a good land tax in place, but without a land tax you can get some distorted investment priorities.
tho the property tax used in most places overburdens construction at a detriment
|
On March 01 2014 07:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:On March 01 2014 07:15 xDaunt wrote:
So multiple times in this thread I have railed against Obama for being weak on foreign policy and inviting foreign leaders to take advantage of that weakness. Anyone who just saw his statement on the Ukraine should see exactly what I have been talking about. Someone please explain to me why Obama's speech would dissuade Putin from continuing to occupy and reinforce his troops in the Crimea. I dont often agree with you but I can only nod here. Putin has been pushing and prodding since he got in power. You cant just stand back and tell him to not be naughty when he is already shipping troops into the Ukraine. I really don't get this attitude. Russia is a major world/geopolitical power. What the hell is the U.S. supposed to say to them? Are they just supposed to bully them? Do people really think that would work? This isn't some minor country that no one likes and that everyone can cut ties from if we start not liking them. Plenty of countries are going to keep ties to Russia as opposed to the U.S.
Because what Russia is doing at the moment(deploying armed forces in the Ukraine and trying to influence political decision making through economic sanctions) is a violation of the Budapest Memorandum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
See (1),(2) and (3).
|
On March 01 2014 07:34 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 07:15 xDaunt wrote:
So multiple times in this thread I have railed against Obama for being weak on foreign policy and inviting foreign leaders to take advantage of that weakness. Anyone who just saw his statement on the Ukraine should see exactly what I have been talking about. Someone please explain to me why Obama's speech would dissuade Putin from continuing to occupy and reinforce his troops in the Crimea. I always find your criticism on this point about Obama especially confusing, presumably you view Bush as a more muscular president? And yet where was his action in Georgia, last time I checked Abkhazia and Ossetia have been physically and legally separated from Georgia. Ditto Bush's rhetoric on Iran, other than arbitrarily looping them into a lame Axis of Evil what is the difference?
I didn't like Bush doing nothing in Georgia, either. However, that was the first time that Russia tried pulling something like this, and Georgia is far less important than the Ukraine is. The Georgia incident signaled that Russia had once against become a geopolitical adversary of the US, and Russia should have been treated as such ever since. Obama's "reset" policy has obviously been an abject failure, and he needs to pivot towards treating Russia how it should be treated.
|
On March 01 2014 07:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 07:41 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2014 07:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 06:55 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2014 05:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:22 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:08 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 04:53 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
When the return on capital is systemically higher than production growth (5 to 2% a year), you know that there is a concentration of capital in a few hands that is not sustainable in the long run.
When the level of accumulation is the same as the beginning of the XXth century in Europe, it is a big problem. You don't know it, because you're from the US and it is not part of your culture (you never had a such a level of over accumulation for various reasons). But in France, and most of western Europe, between 1890 and 1930, a big part of the population were rentier who gained their money just because of their patrimony.
Also, a big part of how modern economies grow is by... using human capital. Yes there are studies about that. Capital accumulation is useless by itself : "il n'y a de richesse que d'hommes". First, where are you getting your 5% and 2% numbers? Second, some of the capital accumulation is related to human capital. From the book you should read. And 5% is on average, for financial market the return on capital gain is around 7-8 % (more risky). The 2% is just an average growth of GDP. Second no. Unless slavery is legal again. Are those numbers apples to apples (real vs real, after tax)? Do they account for labor components of capital at all? 2% seems low for US too... Umm, no. Human capital should have an affect on some asset classes. Ex. as worker's human capital and income rises, the value of housing stock should rise as well. Between 1970 and 2010, the GDP growth in the US was, on average and per capita, 1.8 %. The US has a better GDP growth than Germany or France, but with a demographic growth of 1% a year since 1970, so when you take the demographic growth in the addition, the GDP growth is always between 1.6 and 2.0 in the entire western world between 1970 and 2010 (Italy at 1.6% and Japan at 2%, with US, Germany, UK, France, Canada and Australiain in between). Those are all real term. The return on capital is also real after tax. He also gives the differences between various components of capital in the book but you know it is a fucking 1000 page book so you should buy it and see for yourself :/ Why would the value of housing stock should rise ? This is just theory. Well, I don't see why you'd go per capita if you aren't also going per capita for capital... that's apples to oranges. More people should mean both more GDP and capital. GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.24 Percent from 1947 until 2013 sourceThat's getting pretty close to that 5% number, which probably contains some labor elements. Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income. I also see no reason why other capital assets wouldn't rise in value along with a growing economy. Why wouldn't the value of Coca-Cola's brand rise along with a growing population / economy? Edit: what book anyways? It's very obvious that the United States has been supplying the demand for the world's (China's) excess production capacity for the last couple decades. Excess capital has to go somewhere. After world war II it went into housing with the flight to the suburbs, but strong growth still continued, primarily because real wages kept growing among the working class up until the 70s. When real wages stop rising for the working class, demand sinks, but capital still has to go somewhere. So what happens? Capital invests in housing/real estate markets. You have banks lending credit to developers to invest in new real estate, and then turning around to hand out credit to the working class, with stagnated incomes, to buy those new houses. The developers get to pay off their loans, and both the developers and the bank get rich, while the homeowners get placed under increasingly more debt. The government promotes this process, through tax credits and other policies designed to make home ownership a priority, but at some point, the whole thing collapses. Luckily the banks and the developers walk away with bailouts, so they can keep the cycle going. Not really, no. Again, a lot of the credit came externally rather than from a marxian from the rich class to the working class. The same destination for capital has been happening in China. What do you think has been fueling China's growth? Yes they have a bunch of factories, but their profit margins are tiny, and capital is accumulating. On the other hand, in the last decade or two China has built a number of large cities, entirely from the ground up. Countries in Latin and South America that supply the raw materials for these public works projects have seen growth rates slightly below that of China, which is what you would expect. These cities are full of empty infrastructure, but China has the advantage of being able to dictate policy to the Chinese banks (i.e. continue to extend credit to these developers). Even though China is offering incentives to people to move in and make use of these massive public infrastructure projects, at some point they are going to have to recapitalize their banks, at great cost. Sure, China has some problems. Europe has lots of housing related problems too. Whitedog is right about the global growth rates, you just seem to have your head so far down in the sand that this comes as a shock to you. You must know that it's a joke to use a timeline averaging growth from 1947 to the present. Yes, bubbles have been growing and bursting for a long time. But we are undergoing a serious shift here that you are missing. There is a systemic overaccumulation of capital, with increasingly fewer places to find a return on investment. Securitization has helped reduce the risk to the individual players in the game, but has vastly increased the overall systemic risk of shocks. A barrel of oil was below $40 before 9/11. Now it's up over $80. Energy costs are increasing. Patrimony is accumulating more and more of a very slowly growing pie. The system requires 3% annual growth forever to continue to exist. Years and years of failing to hit that number has led to an explosion of credit. But credit only works for so long. There's lots of places for capital to go. Businesses returned to profitability pretty quickly, if you hadn't noticed. High commodity prices mean great investment potential in that space, and we're under-investing in housing now. And no, we don't need 3% growth forever.. that's just nonsense. Oh you have a different number? What's your sensible number? The profitability of business does not mean it's a place for continued investment. If you increase your productive capacity too much you kill your profit and end up with useless physical capital. There are not lots of places for capital to go. High commodity prices are speculation. And we are definitely not "under-investing" in housing now. There's no magic number that the economy needs to hit forever. That's true that current profitability doesn't mean viable new investment. But... there still are lots of places for capital to go. Citing 'speculation' is irrelevant. If prices are high than investment will be more profitable. And yes, we're under-investing in housing. New construction and inventory have declined very low and some improvement projects, like better energy efficiency, have very good rates of return on them.
Wait, you are seriously saying that the system won't collapse at zero or negative growth rates?
|
Here's part of Krauthammer's column this week:
What Obama doesn’t seem to understand is that American inaction creates a vacuum. His evacuation from Iraq consigned that country to Iranian hegemony, just as Obama’s writing off Syria invited in Russia, Iran and Hezbollah to reverse the tide of battle.
Putin fully occupies vacuums. In Ukraine, he keeps flaunting his leverage. He’s withdrawn the multibillion-dollar aid package with which he had pulled the now-deposed Ukrainian president away from the E.U. He has suddenly mobilized Russian forces bordering Ukraine. His health officials are even questioning the safety of Ukrainian food exports.
This is no dietary hygiene campaign. This is a message to Kiev: We can shut down your agricultural exports today, your natural gas supplies tomorrow. We can make you broke and we can make you freeze.
Kissinger once also said, “In the end, peace can be achieved only by hegemony or by balance of power.” Either Ukraine will fall to Russian hegemony or finally determine its own future — if America balances Russia’s power.
|
On March 01 2014 09:28 xDaunt wrote:Here's part of Krauthammer's column this week: Show nested quote +What Obama doesn’t seem to understand is that American inaction creates a vacuum. His evacuation from Iraq consigned that country to Iranian hegemony, just as Obama’s writing off Syria invited in Russia, Iran and Hezbollah to reverse the tide of battle.
Putin fully occupies vacuums. In Ukraine, he keeps flaunting his leverage. He’s withdrawn the multibillion-dollar aid package with which he had pulled the now-deposed Ukrainian president away from the E.U. He has suddenly mobilized Russian forces bordering Ukraine. His health officials are even questioning the safety of Ukrainian food exports.
This is no dietary hygiene campaign. This is a message to Kiev: We can shut down your agricultural exports today, your natural gas supplies tomorrow. We can make you broke and we can make you freeze.
Kissinger once also said, “In the end, peace can be achieved only by hegemony or by balance of power.” Either Ukraine will fall to Russian hegemony or finally determine its own future — if America balances Russia’s power.
Iraq was consigned to Iranian hegemony the minute Bush overthrew the fiercely anti-Iranian Hussein...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
