|
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 25 2014 16:27 Danglars wrote:I love the NYT campaigning against gun rights. Show nested quote +“I don’t think it will backfire,” said Jerry Henry, director of Georgia Carry, one of the main local groups that promoted the bill. “You can bet those politicians who voted for it knew what their constituents wanted.”[...]
“This is a private property issue,” said State Representative Rick Jasperse, the bill’s original sponsor. “We’re not going to decide what goes on inside a bar. Let the bar owner decide.”[...]
“The people you have to worry about are not the ones who have gone to the trouble to have applied for a license and gotten a background check,” said Mr. Henry of Georgia Carry. “The ones you have to worry about are the criminals who are not going to abide by the law anyway.” At least this time they spent time drawing from some proponents, so there's a point in their favor. Maybe bars by default is reaching for it a little; but they've already shown people disregarding existing law & rules as is. Maybe arming law abiding citizens as well as criminals would help in that situation.
You really think the issue of any potential violence in a bar will be made...better by arming all the drunk idiots too?
|
On March 26 2014 01:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2014 22:49 aksfjh wrote:On March 25 2014 10:55 Danglars wrote:On March 25 2014 04:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2014 03:05 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2014 19:30 RvB wrote:Interesting article by Reuters on the pension fund problems in the US. Speaking in general, public pension systems are badly underfunded in states, such as Colorado, that give elected politicians in the legislature the power to set funding levels. Oregon and other states that are mandated by law to meet annual funding requirements are in much better shape.
Over the past five years, only nine states have made the full required contributions to their pension plans, according to the non-partisan Pew Center on the States. sourceSeems like it's more a political problem than anything. You can't expect to pay out the promised pensions if you don't fund them well. The last thing you want on the road to re-election is opposition from large public employee unions. The first thing you do to keep that support is dismiss the funding problems currently plaguing them. Promise that the rich will pay through increased taxation. As Jonny pointed out, Detroit lost that option. The political problem continues. That your way of saying "Yes, the government should reduce it's contractual commitments to military retirees because it can't afford the ridiculous commitments it has made. The veterans should of known that a government in ever increasing debt would never be able to fulfill those ridiculous obligations and should just expect to have their retirements cut down or removed all together because they simply aren't sustainable."? Let's separate disparate problems. A state or local government dealing with pensions, and a federal government with a paid military. The former cannot print money to monetize the debt; the latter can. Secondly, public employee unions already earn equal or great pay than their private sector counterparts. I'm sorry if new employees have to get the shaft, but their pensions in sane decision making must be less lavish. It remains a political problem to renegotiate union pensions, which is exactly what I'm saying and what you're avoiding. Citation needed. (But don't go comparing public worker pay in San Francisco with private worker pay in Trent, Texas.) Found this (CBO): Show nested quote +Overall, the federal government paid 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers. Link Also a blog post referencing the CBO as well as another study (somewhat different results) and why the premium may or may not be justified (jobs are different, so it's hard to control for everything accurately). To your other post - healthcare has been a good source of good paying jobs. It's unfortunate that the skill set there differs a lot from sectors like manufacturing that have been shedding jobs.
It's not surprising that public sector employees make more money than private sector employees, as workers in the public sector have been more able to protect their unions and bargaining rights. Private sector wages, without such worker protections, and without even an increase in the minimum wage, have been free to drop relative to such indicators of growth as productivity, profits, GDP, etc. The CBO's report is, if anything, an argument that private sector employees are particularly oppressed and that the government should offer more jobs in this time of national crisis. Tax the richest and provide jobs to everyone who wants one at a good wage. Give people a right to a decent job. More and more people are dropping out of the labor force every day. Hopelessness reigns in many parts of America.
![[image loading]](http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/01/Not%20in%20Labor%20Force%20Dec.jpg)
|
On March 25 2014 10:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2014 04:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2014 03:05 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2014 19:30 RvB wrote:Interesting article by Reuters on the pension fund problems in the US. Speaking in general, public pension systems are badly underfunded in states, such as Colorado, that give elected politicians in the legislature the power to set funding levels. Oregon and other states that are mandated by law to meet annual funding requirements are in much better shape.
Over the past five years, only nine states have made the full required contributions to their pension plans, according to the non-partisan Pew Center on the States. sourceSeems like it's more a political problem than anything. You can't expect to pay out the promised pensions if you don't fund them well. The last thing you want on the road to re-election is opposition from large public employee unions. The first thing you do to keep that support is dismiss the funding problems currently plaguing them. Promise that the rich will pay through increased taxation. As Jonny pointed out, Detroit lost that option. The political problem continues. That your way of saying "Yes, the government should reduce it's contractual commitments to military retirees because it can't afford the ridiculous commitments it has made. The veterans should of known that a government in ever increasing debt would never be able to fulfill those ridiculous obligations and should just expect to have their retirements cut down or removed all together because they simply aren't sustainable."? Let's separate disparate problems. A state or local government dealing with pensions, and a federal government with a paid military. The former cannot print money to monetize the debt; the latter can. Secondly, public employee unions already earn equal or great pay than their private sector counterparts. I'm sorry if new employees have to get the shaft, but their pensions in sane decision making must be less lavish. It remains a political problem to renegotiate union pensions, which is exactly what I'm saying and what you're avoiding. Show nested quote +On March 25 2014 08:47 IgnE wrote:On March 25 2014 03:05 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2014 19:30 RvB wrote:Interesting article by Reuters on the pension fund problems in the US. Speaking in general, public pension systems are badly underfunded in states, such as Colorado, that give elected politicians in the legislature the power to set funding levels. Oregon and other states that are mandated by law to meet annual funding requirements are in much better shape.
Over the past five years, only nine states have made the full required contributions to their pension plans, according to the non-partisan Pew Center on the States. sourceSeems like it's more a political problem than anything. You can't expect to pay out the promised pensions if you don't fund them well. The last thing you want on the road to re-election is opposition from large public employee unions. The first thing you do to keep that support is dismiss the funding problems currently plaguing them. Promise that the rich will pay through increased taxation. As Jonny pointed out, Detroit lost that option. The political problem continues. You are forgetting the most critical element of your story: the politicians, including Obama, brazenly lie to the unions over and over again. Inequality has only gotten worse in the 6 years since Obama was elected, and pensions are being cut left and right. Politicians lie to the unions and politicians lie to their constituents. Your point being? I focused in on the relationship between politicians seeking election/reelection and the public employee unions. If you handle the pension problem like a grown-up, you create a powerful enemy. Frankly, no, pensions aren't being cut left and right. I'm mostly focused on CalPERS and cities in my state like Stockton and San Jose. You can still retire at around 90% of your salary, and maybe even you will admit that's unsustainable even with leftist dream tax rates.
So what you're saying is that states should slash police and emergency responder's retirements in order to help with their budgeting shortfalls? But you oppose having the federal government reduce it's unsustainable funding of military retirees? (Maybe you're suggesting the Fed can Print away pension problems?)
Also, are you arguing that private sector collective bargaining needs to be strengthened so they can negotiate better wages or that people should just be getting payed less for their work?
|
On March 26 2014 03:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 01:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 25 2014 22:49 aksfjh wrote:On March 25 2014 10:55 Danglars wrote:On March 25 2014 04:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2014 03:05 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2014 19:30 RvB wrote:Interesting article by Reuters on the pension fund problems in the US. Speaking in general, public pension systems are badly underfunded in states, such as Colorado, that give elected politicians in the legislature the power to set funding levels. Oregon and other states that are mandated by law to meet annual funding requirements are in much better shape.
Over the past five years, only nine states have made the full required contributions to their pension plans, according to the non-partisan Pew Center on the States. sourceSeems like it's more a political problem than anything. You can't expect to pay out the promised pensions if you don't fund them well. The last thing you want on the road to re-election is opposition from large public employee unions. The first thing you do to keep that support is dismiss the funding problems currently plaguing them. Promise that the rich will pay through increased taxation. As Jonny pointed out, Detroit lost that option. The political problem continues. That your way of saying "Yes, the government should reduce it's contractual commitments to military retirees because it can't afford the ridiculous commitments it has made. The veterans should of known that a government in ever increasing debt would never be able to fulfill those ridiculous obligations and should just expect to have their retirements cut down or removed all together because they simply aren't sustainable."? Let's separate disparate problems. A state or local government dealing with pensions, and a federal government with a paid military. The former cannot print money to monetize the debt; the latter can. Secondly, public employee unions already earn equal or great pay than their private sector counterparts. I'm sorry if new employees have to get the shaft, but their pensions in sane decision making must be less lavish. It remains a political problem to renegotiate union pensions, which is exactly what I'm saying and what you're avoiding. Citation needed. (But don't go comparing public worker pay in San Francisco with private worker pay in Trent, Texas.) Found this (CBO): Overall, the federal government paid 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers. Link Also a blog post referencing the CBO as well as another study (somewhat different results) and why the premium may or may not be justified (jobs are different, so it's hard to control for everything accurately). To your other post - healthcare has been a good source of good paying jobs. It's unfortunate that the skill set there differs a lot from sectors like manufacturing that have been shedding jobs. It's not surprising that public sector employees make more money than private sector employees, as workers in the public sector have been more able to protect their unions and bargaining rights. Private sector wages, without such worker protections, and without even an increase in the minimum wage, have been free to drop relative to such indicators of growth as productivity, profits, GDP, etc. The CBO's report is, if anything, an argument that private sector employees are particularly oppressed and that the government should offer more jobs in this time of national crisis. Tax the richest and provide jobs to everyone who wants one at a good wage. Give people a right to a decent job. More and more people are dropping out of the labor force every day. Hopelessness reigns in many parts of America.
What a useless graph absolute numbers don't mean anything. It's obviously going to increase since population increases as well.
(Reuters) - A landmark study by Federal Reserve economists found that large U.S. banks enjoy a "too-big-to-fail" advantage in financial markets, joining a heated debate that could influence regulators that are implementing tough new rules for Wall Street.
The series of research papers, published on Tuesday by the U.S. central bank's influential New York branch, suggests the biggest banks benefited even after the financial crisis from lower funding and operating costs compared with smaller ones. The researchers used data through 2009, which did not reflect post-crisis reforms.
Fed economists also found that the biggest banks can take bigger risks than their smaller peers.
While the study did not pinpoint the reason big banks can borrow more cheaply, Wall Street critics say it is because investors believe the U.S. government would again rescue them in a panic.
The new research shows "it is improper to ask the taxpayer to underwrite the non-commercial banking operations of a complex bank holding company," Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, a long-time critic of big banks, said in an interview.
Fed economists estimated the funding advantage for the five largest banks over smaller peers to be about 0.31 percent, which they said was statistically significant. The Fed said the papers represented the conclusions of their individual authors, not the central bank itself.
The study did not look at whether the advantage persists as regulators implement the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street law. Banks and their critics have been at loggerheads for years over whether the law did enough to prevent regulators from bailing out banks in a future crisis.
source
|
During oral arguments Tuesday about the validity of Obamacare's birth control mandate, Justice Elena Kagan cleverly echoed Justice Antonin Scalia's past warning that religious-based exceptions to neutral laws could lead to "anarchy."
"Your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire U.S. Code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard," she told Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing against the mandate for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. "So another employer comes in and that employer says, I have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, I have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. And all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative."
Kagan's remarks might sound familiar to the legally-trained ear. In a 1990 majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, Scalia alluded to the same examples of what might happen if religious entities are permitted to claim exemptions from generally applicable laws. He warned that "[a]ny society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy."
"The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind," Scalia wrote in the 6-3 opinion, "ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."
Indeed, Clement picked up on the reference.
"If you look at that parade of horribles -- Social Security, minimum wage, discrimination laws, compelled vaccination -- every item on that list was included in Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court in Smith," he said.
Source
|
On March 26 2014 05:55 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 03:14 IgnE wrote:On March 26 2014 01:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 25 2014 22:49 aksfjh wrote:On March 25 2014 10:55 Danglars wrote:On March 25 2014 04:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2014 03:05 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2014 19:30 RvB wrote:Interesting article by Reuters on the pension fund problems in the US. Speaking in general, public pension systems are badly underfunded in states, such as Colorado, that give elected politicians in the legislature the power to set funding levels. Oregon and other states that are mandated by law to meet annual funding requirements are in much better shape.
Over the past five years, only nine states have made the full required contributions to their pension plans, according to the non-partisan Pew Center on the States. sourceSeems like it's more a political problem than anything. You can't expect to pay out the promised pensions if you don't fund them well. The last thing you want on the road to re-election is opposition from large public employee unions. The first thing you do to keep that support is dismiss the funding problems currently plaguing them. Promise that the rich will pay through increased taxation. As Jonny pointed out, Detroit lost that option. The political problem continues. That your way of saying "Yes, the government should reduce it's contractual commitments to military retirees because it can't afford the ridiculous commitments it has made. The veterans should of known that a government in ever increasing debt would never be able to fulfill those ridiculous obligations and should just expect to have their retirements cut down or removed all together because they simply aren't sustainable."? Let's separate disparate problems. A state or local government dealing with pensions, and a federal government with a paid military. The former cannot print money to monetize the debt; the latter can. Secondly, public employee unions already earn equal or great pay than their private sector counterparts. I'm sorry if new employees have to get the shaft, but their pensions in sane decision making must be less lavish. It remains a political problem to renegotiate union pensions, which is exactly what I'm saying and what you're avoiding. Citation needed. (But don't go comparing public worker pay in San Francisco with private worker pay in Trent, Texas.) Found this (CBO): Overall, the federal government paid 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers. Link Also a blog post referencing the CBO as well as another study (somewhat different results) and why the premium may or may not be justified (jobs are different, so it's hard to control for everything accurately). To your other post - healthcare has been a good source of good paying jobs. It's unfortunate that the skill set there differs a lot from sectors like manufacturing that have been shedding jobs. It's not surprising that public sector employees make more money than private sector employees, as workers in the public sector have been more able to protect their unions and bargaining rights. Private sector wages, without such worker protections, and without even an increase in the minimum wage, have been free to drop relative to such indicators of growth as productivity, profits, GDP, etc. The CBO's report is, if anything, an argument that private sector employees are particularly oppressed and that the government should offer more jobs in this time of national crisis. Tax the richest and provide jobs to everyone who wants one at a good wage. Give people a right to a decent job. More and more people are dropping out of the labor force every day. Hopelessness reigns in many parts of America. What a useless graph absolute numbers don't mean anything. It's obviously going to increase since population increases as well. Show nested quote +(Reuters) - A landmark study by Federal Reserve economists found that large U.S. banks enjoy a "too-big-to-fail" advantage in financial markets, joining a heated debate that could influence regulators that are implementing tough new rules for Wall Street.
The series of research papers, published on Tuesday by the U.S. central bank's influential New York branch, suggests the biggest banks benefited even after the financial crisis from lower funding and operating costs compared with smaller ones. The researchers used data through 2009, which did not reflect post-crisis reforms.
Fed economists also found that the biggest banks can take bigger risks than their smaller peers.
While the study did not pinpoint the reason big banks can borrow more cheaply, Wall Street critics say it is because investors believe the U.S. government would again rescue them in a panic.
The new research shows "it is improper to ask the taxpayer to underwrite the non-commercial banking operations of a complex bank holding company," Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, a long-time critic of big banks, said in an interview.
Fed economists estimated the funding advantage for the five largest banks over smaller peers to be about 0.31 percent, which they said was statistically significant. The Fed said the papers represented the conclusions of their individual authors, not the central bank itself.
The study did not look at whether the advantage persists as regulators implement the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street law. Banks and their critics have been at loggerheads for years over whether the law did enough to prevent regulators from bailing out banks in a future crisis. source
So I guess the fact that a record 91+ million people out of the labor force, the most in US history, isn't very helpful either? Or that, at the current rate, the number of people not working could exceed the number of people working in four years?
Or this disturbing graph:
![[image loading]](http://www.oftwominds.com/photos2014/participation-rate1-14.png)
showing labor force participation rate approaching levels not seen since before the integration of women into the labor force?
|
It wasn't useful because it doesn't give any indication of the problems relatively. For all I know it could've been better percentage wise but worse in absolute numbers. Now that graph you're posting actually does say something. Are we really going to follow the trend line though since the labor market has been slowly getting better.
|
On March 26 2014 08:34 RvB wrote:
It wasn't useful because it doesn't give any indication of the problems relatively. For all I know it could've been better percentage wise but worse in absolute numbers. Now that graph you're posting actually does say something. Are we really going to follow the trend line though since the labor market has been slowly getting better.
If that were true it would be reflected in the graph. It is not much better and shows no signs of a sudden resurgence.
|
On March 26 2014 08:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 08:34 RvB wrote:
It wasn't useful because it doesn't give any indication of the problems relatively. For all I know it could've been better percentage wise but worse in absolute numbers. Now that graph you're posting actually does say something. Are we really going to follow the trend line though since the labor market has been slowly getting better. If that were true it would be reflected in the graph. It is not much better and shows no signs of a sudden resurgence.
With demographics the way they are the best we'll get is a tapering / leveling off.
|
On March 26 2014 07:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +During oral arguments Tuesday about the validity of Obamacare's birth control mandate, Justice Elena Kagan cleverly echoed Justice Antonin Scalia's past warning that religious-based exceptions to neutral laws could lead to "anarchy."
"Your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire U.S. Code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard," she told Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing against the mandate for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. "So another employer comes in and that employer says, I have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, I have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. And all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative."
Kagan's remarks might sound familiar to the legally-trained ear. In a 1990 majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, Scalia alluded to the same examples of what might happen if religious entities are permitted to claim exemptions from generally applicable laws. He warned that "[a]ny society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy."
"The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind," Scalia wrote in the 6-3 opinion, "ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."
Indeed, Clement picked up on the reference.
"If you look at that parade of horribles -- Social Security, minimum wage, discrimination laws, compelled vaccination -- every item on that list was included in Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court in Smith," he said. Source
I didn't even look at the past rulings from the justices but if Hobby Lobby doesn't even have Scalia as a supporter then they have no chance of winning there case before the court.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On March 26 2014 08:03 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 05:55 RvB wrote:On March 26 2014 03:14 IgnE wrote:On March 26 2014 01:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 25 2014 22:49 aksfjh wrote:On March 25 2014 10:55 Danglars wrote:On March 25 2014 04:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2014 03:05 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2014 19:30 RvB wrote:Interesting article by Reuters on the pension fund problems in the US. Speaking in general, public pension systems are badly underfunded in states, such as Colorado, that give elected politicians in the legislature the power to set funding levels. Oregon and other states that are mandated by law to meet annual funding requirements are in much better shape.
Over the past five years, only nine states have made the full required contributions to their pension plans, according to the non-partisan Pew Center on the States. sourceSeems like it's more a political problem than anything. You can't expect to pay out the promised pensions if you don't fund them well. The last thing you want on the road to re-election is opposition from large public employee unions. The first thing you do to keep that support is dismiss the funding problems currently plaguing them. Promise that the rich will pay through increased taxation. As Jonny pointed out, Detroit lost that option. The political problem continues. That your way of saying "Yes, the government should reduce it's contractual commitments to military retirees because it can't afford the ridiculous commitments it has made. The veterans should of known that a government in ever increasing debt would never be able to fulfill those ridiculous obligations and should just expect to have their retirements cut down or removed all together because they simply aren't sustainable."? Let's separate disparate problems. A state or local government dealing with pensions, and a federal government with a paid military. The former cannot print money to monetize the debt; the latter can. Secondly, public employee unions already earn equal or great pay than their private sector counterparts. I'm sorry if new employees have to get the shaft, but their pensions in sane decision making must be less lavish. It remains a political problem to renegotiate union pensions, which is exactly what I'm saying and what you're avoiding. Citation needed. (But don't go comparing public worker pay in San Francisco with private worker pay in Trent, Texas.) Found this (CBO): Overall, the federal government paid 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers. Link Also a blog post referencing the CBO as well as another study (somewhat different results) and why the premium may or may not be justified (jobs are different, so it's hard to control for everything accurately). To your other post - healthcare has been a good source of good paying jobs. It's unfortunate that the skill set there differs a lot from sectors like manufacturing that have been shedding jobs. It's not surprising that public sector employees make more money than private sector employees, as workers in the public sector have been more able to protect their unions and bargaining rights. Private sector wages, without such worker protections, and without even an increase in the minimum wage, have been free to drop relative to such indicators of growth as productivity, profits, GDP, etc. The CBO's report is, if anything, an argument that private sector employees are particularly oppressed and that the government should offer more jobs in this time of national crisis. Tax the richest and provide jobs to everyone who wants one at a good wage. Give people a right to a decent job. More and more people are dropping out of the labor force every day. Hopelessness reigns in many parts of America. What a useless graph absolute numbers don't mean anything. It's obviously going to increase since population increases as well. (Reuters) - A landmark study by Federal Reserve economists found that large U.S. banks enjoy a "too-big-to-fail" advantage in financial markets, joining a heated debate that could influence regulators that are implementing tough new rules for Wall Street.
The series of research papers, published on Tuesday by the U.S. central bank's influential New York branch, suggests the biggest banks benefited even after the financial crisis from lower funding and operating costs compared with smaller ones. The researchers used data through 2009, which did not reflect post-crisis reforms.
Fed economists also found that the biggest banks can take bigger risks than their smaller peers.
While the study did not pinpoint the reason big banks can borrow more cheaply, Wall Street critics say it is because investors believe the U.S. government would again rescue them in a panic.
The new research shows "it is improper to ask the taxpayer to underwrite the non-commercial banking operations of a complex bank holding company," Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, a long-time critic of big banks, said in an interview.
Fed economists estimated the funding advantage for the five largest banks over smaller peers to be about 0.31 percent, which they said was statistically significant. The Fed said the papers represented the conclusions of their individual authors, not the central bank itself.
The study did not look at whether the advantage persists as regulators implement the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street law. Banks and their critics have been at loggerheads for years over whether the law did enough to prevent regulators from bailing out banks in a future crisis. source So I guess the fact that a record 91+ million people out of the labor force, the most in US history, isn't very helpful either? Or that, at the current rate, the number of people not working could exceed the number of people working in four years? Or this disturbing graph: showing labor force participation rate approaching levels not seen since before the integration of women into the labor force?
uhh how was that trendline found? it looks like someone went into paint and added a downward line.
most trendlines would show a positive slope with that data.
|
Obviously it depends on your horizon line. The trend is for the last however many months not for the last 50 years . . .
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On March 26 2014 11:08 IgnE wrote:
Obviously it depends on your horizon line. The trend is for the last however many months not for the last 50 years . . .
uh huh. all i can see here is a bad mspaint job that is quite misleading.
so, again. is this your own personal prediction of where things are going or are you going to tell me how this was made.
|
Even if you cut the trendline in red it shows clearly that the last 15 years have been pretty bad.
|
On March 26 2014 11:15 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 11:08 IgnE wrote:
Obviously it depends on your horizon line. The trend is for the last however many months not for the last 50 years . . . uh huh. all i can see here is a bad mspaint job that is quite misleading. so, again. is this your own personal prediction of where things are going or are you going to tell me how this was made.
I don't really understand what all your bluster is about? Just imagine the trend line isn't there if you don't like it.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
im unconcerned about the politics or even the economics surrounding it. it is lying with statistics in order to influence opinion.
|
|
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
|
You forgot to include the previous 80,000 years of human existence in your macroeconomic plots. The trendline that I posted is the linear regression from 2008. You know, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression that occurred a few years back?
Why don't you actually finish the trend line for your moving average plot? It looks like the trend line there will end up looking a lot like the trendline I posted. At least the derivative of the function for the foreseeable future seems to approximate the derivative of the trendline I posted.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XgzEcPS.png)
Expand it for the next ten years please, so we can see what your more statistically sound trend line says. I would hate to lie to the people with statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dm2KoWA.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aXe6D9J.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2pkA722.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JMPl4vF.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qf2l6Gh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YWatu22.jpg)
