|
Some corrections
3.3 trillion= amount printed during 08
15+trillion=amout fed loaned thru discount window during 08 crisis/stimulus package
Go Kiarip(i was sleeping), but you can do better on your facts. Not a diss, since your argument parellels mine. Sunprince, go back and watch the Tom Woods video for a different perspective on FDR/New Deal. Woods is only a PhD in History from Columbia U and degrees in economics. Not like he's going to sell you a magic hand...
The only reason we know this, is because of the first ever audit(since1913) of the FED practices during the crisis.
|
Yeah I thought I read about 15 trillion total somewhere, but I couldn't find a link so I thought I made a mistake.
As for women I'm sure they still have some kind of tiny percent of wage discrimination against them, nothing huge. You also have to consider that they maternity leave, and at least in US men don't paternity leave, so that's obviously coming out of their wages.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
A feature on David Graeber, a contributor of some of the most influential ideas behind the OWS. The strands of anarchism color the lack of a coherent demands, the extra-political nature of the protest, the horizontal natural of organization, and the spontaneity of the movement. The anarchist, as usually, have better ideas than the statists.
Business Week Article
|
On November 01 2011 22:50 Kiarip wrote:
Yeah I thought I read about 15 trillion total somewhere, but I couldn't find a link so I thought I made a mistake.
As for women I'm sure they still have some kind of tiny percent of wage discrimination against them, nothing huge. You also have to consider that they maternity leave, and at least in US men don't paternity leave, so that's obviously coming out of their wages.
Thankfully, the reality is that FMLA doesn't discriminate so that's not true at all. Which is good because fathers should absolutely be involved and raising a baby is probably the most stressful thing ever.
For instance, a 2001 U.S. Department of Education study found that highly involved biological fathers had children who were 43 percent more likely than other children to earn mostly As and 33 percent less likely than other children to repeat a grade.12
- http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm
Also, if you want to get a better idea of what OWS is about, read the below PDF. It's not by the people on OWS, but a lot of people marching on OWS are arguing against what you read in there.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/pdf/threefaces.pdf
|
On November 01 2011 22:50 Kiarip wrote:
Yeah I thought I read about 15 trillion total somewhere, but I couldn't find a link so I thought I made a mistake.
As for women I'm sure they still have some kind of tiny percent of wage discrimination against them, nothing huge. You also have to consider that they maternity leave, and at least in US men don't paternity leave, so that's obviously coming out of their wages.
The wage discrimination varies from job to job. While it is true that in some jobs the man does get paid more, in a lot of jobs involving engineering or really anything involving a lot of math and science the woman actually gets paid more. There was a guest speaker who was on the Colbert Report backing this up, but I can't find her as of yet.
IIRC when single the wage discrimination is tilted favorably towards the woman, when married towards to man.
But yeah, factoring in social discrimination I think all of that is negligible enough to the point it shouldn't be a problem to either sex.
|
I'm surprised that more people here don't recognize the dangers in globalization.
The economy is enacting a nightmare envisaged by the classical economists, Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Both recognized that if British merchants and manufacturers invested abroad and relied on imports, they would profit, but England would suffer. Both hoped that these consequences would be averted by home bias, a preference to do business in the home country and see it grow and develop. Ricardo hoped that thanks to home bias, most men of property would "be satisfied" with the low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations.
The true globalization and exploitation of cheap labor that began in the 70s and took off under Reagan and has only continued to grow. We are nearing the final stages in the game the financial elite, with total access to global capital pools, have been playing to siphon the world's wealth upwards into their hands.
|
On November 01 2011 23:08 ShadowWolf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 22:50 Kiarip wrote:
Yeah I thought I read about 15 trillion total somewhere, but I couldn't find a link so I thought I made a mistake.
As for women I'm sure they still have some kind of tiny percent of wage discrimination against them, nothing huge. You also have to consider that they maternity leave, and at least in US men don't paternity leave, so that's obviously coming out of their wages. Thankfully, the reality is that FMLA doesn't discriminate so that's not true at all. Which is good because fathers should absolutely be involved and raising a baby is probably the most stressful thing ever.
Oh cool, just checked for myself, wasn't aware of this.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
http://www.womendontask.com/stats.html
Women not negotiating their pay as much as men do has a lot to do with wage inequalities between the two.
So whatever Biff mentioned about pay inequalities is wrong.
|
On November 02 2011 03:17 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 23:08 ShadowWolf wrote:On November 01 2011 22:50 Kiarip wrote:
Yeah I thought I read about 15 trillion total somewhere, but I couldn't find a link so I thought I made a mistake.
As for women I'm sure they still have some kind of tiny percent of wage discrimination against them, nothing huge. You also have to consider that they maternity leave, and at least in US men don't paternity leave, so that's obviously coming out of their wages. Thankfully, the reality is that FMLA doesn't discriminate so that's not true at all. Which is good because fathers should absolutely be involved and raising a baby is probably the most stressful thing ever. Oh cool, just checked for myself, wasn't aware of this.
In reality, however, most fathers will not take that leave and expect to still have a job. This is coming from someone who was fired while on FMLA. I could have kept trying to appeal, but once you are unemployed, it is a bit hard to find money for legal fees. Besides, most lawyers aren't too interested in taking discrimination cases against male workers like they are if they are female.
|
The two "representatives" of Occupy Wall Street that appeared on Colbert Report this monday looked like two complete morons to me, sad to see these oddball characters ruin the movement.
|
On November 02 2011 03:28 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 03:17 Kiarip wrote:On November 01 2011 23:08 ShadowWolf wrote:On November 01 2011 22:50 Kiarip wrote:
Yeah I thought I read about 15 trillion total somewhere, but I couldn't find a link so I thought I made a mistake.
As for women I'm sure they still have some kind of tiny percent of wage discrimination against them, nothing huge. You also have to consider that they maternity leave, and at least in US men don't paternity leave, so that's obviously coming out of their wages. Thankfully, the reality is that FMLA doesn't discriminate so that's not true at all. Which is good because fathers should absolutely be involved and raising a baby is probably the most stressful thing ever. Oh cool, just checked for myself, wasn't aware of this. In reality, however, most fathers will not take that leave and expect to still have a job. This is coming from someone who was fired while on FMLA. I could have kept trying to appeal, but once you are unemployed, it is a bit hard to find money for legal fees. Besides, most lawyers aren't too interested in taking discrimination cases against male workers like they are if they are female.
Well, FMLA is terrible and woefully insufficient for both new mothers and new fathers. I know that all the expectant fathers where I work as well as most of my friends have taken some level of paternity leave, but it's not really where it should be. Furthermore, it's usually mostly unpaid and, in some cases, people have lost their positions even where I work when they come back from not-extensive FMLA. Cases like your's are way more common than they should be, though, I agree!
|
afaik all they have to do is move or eliminate your position and they can't be held much accountable.
|
On November 01 2011 21:08 TanGeng wrote:"The Market for Lemons" is about quality control in a theoretical market where asymmetrical information highly favors the sellers.
You're obviously missing the implications. There is massive information asymmetry between bank depositors and banks; that is, banks know a whole lot more about how risky they are. This information asymmetery actually damages the market because consumers will not be able to trust banks, and therefore will either not use banks at all or will only use banks that offer very high interest rates (i.e. risky banks).
On November 01 2011 21:08 TanGeng wrote:"The Market for Lemons" is empirically shown to not correctly capture the dynamics of the used car market.
Show me a peer-review scientific paper that says this. Akerlof's Nobel Prize says otherwise.
|
On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:mainstream economics is Keynesian, and it's what got us where we are today. The reason it's so easy to accept is because empowers the government to do a lot of spending, and of course the government isn't going to reject this system even in the face of it's complete failure, because it would mean to willingly give up power.
You're still making a claim without an iota of evidence. Show me a system that has ever done better or that theoretically does better with convincing empirical proof.
On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:Look at government "calculated" inflation rate, then look at the real inflation rate in the market.
You still haven't proven that most bailout provisions didn't turn a profit. Show me the numbers, please.
On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:It hasn't been spiraling down because we were in such advantageous position as manufactorers at the end of world war 2, but as others have rebuilt and are also increasing their production our regulations and monetary system makes it impossible for us to compete... regulations and the monetary polices date back to the early 1900s.
Wat. All of our major competititors also use regulations and monetary policy. If we're getting beaten, it has nothing to do with those.
On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:If putting money in the bank isn't safe then the banks can higher the interest rates. If they don't, people can keep the money under their mattress.
I don't think you understand how banks works. For a bank to increase interest rates, they would also have to turn a higher profit on their lending/investment practices. Your proposed system basically means that banks will engage in riskier speculation...which is exactly the case prior to the FDIC. What the FDIC does is guarantee depositors, but also requires the banks to adhere to certain rules to negate moral hazard.
|
On November 02 2011 06:38 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:mainstream economics is Keynesian, and it's what got us where we are today. The reason it's so easy to accept is because empowers the government to do a lot of spending, and of course the government isn't going to reject this system even in the face of it's complete failure, because it would mean to willingly give up power. You're still making a claim without an iota of evidence. Show me a system that has ever done better or that theoretically does better with convincing empirical proof.
late 1800s to early 1910s United States.
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:Look at government "calculated" inflation rate, then look at the real inflation rate in the market. You still haven't proven that most bailout provisions didn't turn a profit. Show me the numbers, please.
A profit for who? Wealth disparity is going up, and national production has decreased, like you would assume with such unemployment numbers...
Who has this profit? You must be talking about inflation. I can show you inflation... price of gold, silver, copper, price of oil, price of food, even our stock market is seemingly stable while the economy is continuously declining... why? the market is measured in terms of declining currency, that's why.
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:It hasn't been spiraling down because we were in such advantageous position as manufactorers at the end of world war 2, but as others have rebuilt and are also increasing their production our regulations and monetary system makes it impossible for us to compete... regulations and the monetary polices date back to the early 1900s. Wat. All of our major competititors also use regulations and monetary policy. If we're getting beaten, it has nothing to do with those.
In the late 1800s we had less regulation than other Western countries (since a lot of them were still monarchies, and such,) and we had an incredible increase in productivity, which resulted in an increase in wealth in our country.
Now we have some of the most regulations of the Western countries, and our wealth is dwindling... Even countries widely accepted as Socialist have less regulations in most of their market sectors than we do... the thing that's only really socialist about them with relation to us is their entitlement policies.
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:If putting money in the bank isn't safe then the banks can higher the interest rates. If they don't, people can keep the money under their mattress. I don't think you understand how banks works. For a bank to increase interest rates, they would also have to turn a higher profit on their lending/investment practices. Your proposed system basically means that banks will engage in riskier speculation...which is exactly the case prior to the FDIC. What the FDIC does is guarantee depositors, but also requires the banks to adhere to certain rules to negate moral hazard.
[/quote]
Lol... negate moral hazard? It creates moral hazard.
If people don't trust banks to lend banks money, they will still borrow money, and on average they will try to borrow more than gets lent.
The interest rates will coordinate Banks' balance regardless of the reason that people don't want to put their money in the bank. Fear of bank crash isn't a matter of principle, if the rates were sky-high people wouldn't think twice before putting money in the bank, and would probably never borrow... If people are seemingly too scared to make bank deposits it simply means that the interest rates are too low.
Of course the government wouldn't want them to rise, because low rates provides all this fake "growth" in form of bubbles, which politicians then put on their resumes, as long as they don't burst on their watch.
|
late 1800s to early 1910s United States.
lol yeah recession after recession the good old times when unemployment ranged from 11% to 36% Such a stable and prosperous economy for everyone.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 02 2011 06:30 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 21:08 TanGeng wrote:"The Market for Lemons" is about quality control in a theoretical market where asymmetrical information highly favors the sellers. You're obviously missing the implications. There is massive information asymmetry between bank depositors and banks; that is, banks know a whole lot more about how risky they are. This information asymmetery actually damages the market because consumers will not be able to trust banks, and therefore will either not use banks at all or will only use banks that offer very high interest rates (i.e. risky banks).
So... the answer is... moral hazard!!! Here's a link to Akerlof's paper: www.perishablepundit.com/docs/market-for-lemons.pdf. Notice, no where does it even suggest that a government entity should step in and buy up all the Lemons from customers that have been duped. Counteracting tactics are guarantees & warranties, licensing, brand name, franchising, and/or personal knowledge.
The point of the paper is to examine how sellers can prove their trustworthiness to buyers. It is not for a government to pretend that all sellers are trustworthy and trick the buyers into thinking so (and introduce a moral hazard).
On November 01 2011 21:08 TanGeng wrote:"The Market for Lemons" is empirically shown to not correctly capture the dynamics of the used car market.
I've already mentioned tactics to counter act the low trust dynamic of lemon market. In fact, Akerlof mentioned them himself in the paper! If you look at the counteracting tactics, they're all in play. From certified used cars, dealer warranties, new car dealerships selling used cars of their own brands, and individuals doing their own due diligence and inspections on cars. Just reading the paper, and the thesis as applied to used car market is dead-on-arrival.
Now... the health insurance industry...
|
On November 02 2011 06:53 Kiarip wrote:late 1800s to early 1910s United States.
You mean the Progressive Era, when we started regulating business practices to ensure free enterprise? You're hurting your own point here.
On November 02 2011 06:53 Kiarip wrote:A profit for who? Wealth disparity is going up, and national production has decreased, like you would assume with such unemployment numbers...
Wtf are you talking about? The bailout provisions were comprised of loans to banks at risk of failing. Those loans were paid back with interest, so that the Fed got back more money than they lost in loans that were defaulted. Hence they turned a profit on those loans.
On November 02 2011 06:53 Kiarip wrote:In the late 1800s we had less regulation than other Western countries (since a lot of them were still monarchies, and such,) and we had an incredible increase in productivity, which resulted in an increase in wealth in our country.
Now we have some of the most regulations of the Western countries, and our wealth is dwindling... Even countries widely accepted as Socialist have less regulations in most of their market sectors than we do... the thing that's only really socialist about them with relation to us is their entitlement policies.
Uhh, no. The other major economies are just as or more regulated than we are. Regulations clearly aren't responsible for our decline.
On November 02 2011 06:53 Kiarip wrote:Fear of bank crash isn't a matter of principle, if the rates were sky-high people wouldn't think twice before putting money in the bank, and would probably never borrow... If people are seemingly too scared to make bank deposits it simply means that the interest rates are too low.
Except history proves you wrong.
Your understanding of the topic is so fail it's almost hilarious. It's like talking to a conspiracy theorist, except on economics.
|
On November 02 2011 06:53 Kiarip wrote:In the late 1800s we had less regulation than other Western countries (since a lot of them were still monarchies, and such,) and we had an incredible increase in productivity, which resulted in an increase in wealth in our country.
Now we have some of the most regulations of the Western countries, and our wealth is dwindling... Even countries widely accepted as Socialist have less regulations in most of their market sectors than we do... the thing that's only really socialist about them with relation to us is their entitlement policies.
It is essential that you are more specific about what kind of regulations you are pointing towards. Without knowing for sure I would guess that the general amount of laws in Denmark are far´more restrictive and definately has more pages than the US counterpart. Laws towards companies are very specific and pretty restrictive in general.
We are socialistic in other ways than entitlements. Redistribution of company money (through company taxation - which in Denmark is about the same as in the US + special taxes on cars, sugar, fat, tobacco, alcohol and a lot more), environmentalism is prioritized significantly and the governments are very large, with Denmark having government-jobs as 25-30 % of the total work-force! The big government has made it possible to try restarting economy through government spending. If you look at even recent history raising government spending has been one of the most used tools in avoiding recessions. Under this particular crisis it has for the most part been unrealistic public spending or lotto-banking that has created the crisis and for that reason it has been important to cut spendings as one of the most common themes.
|
On November 02 2011 06:53 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 06:38 sunprince wrote:On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:mainstream economics is Keynesian, and it's what got us where we are today. The reason it's so easy to accept is because empowers the government to do a lot of spending, and of course the government isn't going to reject this system even in the face of it's complete failure, because it would mean to willingly give up power. You're still making a claim without an iota of evidence. Show me a system that has ever done better or that theoretically does better with convincing empirical proof. late 1800s to early 1910s United States. Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:Look at government "calculated" inflation rate, then look at the real inflation rate in the market. You still haven't proven that most bailout provisions didn't turn a profit. Show me the numbers, please. A profit for who? Wealth disparity is going up, and national production has decreased, like you would assume with such unemployment numbers... Who has this profit? You must be talking about inflation. I can show you inflation... price of gold, silver, copper, price of oil, price of food, even our stock market is seemingly stable while the economy is continuously declining... why? the market is measured in terms of declining currency, that's why. Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:It hasn't been spiraling down because we were in such advantageous position as manufactorers at the end of world war 2, but as others have rebuilt and are also increasing their production our regulations and monetary system makes it impossible for us to compete... regulations and the monetary polices date back to the early 1900s. Wat. All of our major competititors also use regulations and monetary policy. If we're getting beaten, it has nothing to do with those. In the late 1800s we had less regulation than other Western countries (since a lot of them were still monarchies, and such,) and we had an incredible increase in productivity, which resulted in an increase in wealth in our country. Now we have some of the most regulations of the Western countries, and our wealth is dwindling... Even countries widely accepted as Socialist have less regulations in most of their market sectors than we do... the thing that's only really socialist about them with relation to us is their entitlement policies. Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:If putting money in the bank isn't safe then the banks can higher the interest rates. If they don't, people can keep the money under their mattress. I don't think you understand how banks works. For a bank to increase interest rates, they would also have to turn a higher profit on their lending/investment practices. Your proposed system basically means that banks will engage in riskier speculation...which is exactly the case prior to the FDIC. What the FDIC does is guarantee depositors, but also requires the banks to adhere to certain rules to negate moral hazard. Lol... negate moral hazard? It creates moral hazard. If people don't trust banks to lend banks money, they will still borrow money, and on average they will try to borrow more than gets lent. The interest rates will coordinate Banks' balance regardless of the reason that people don't want to put their money in the bank. Fear of bank crash isn't a matter of principle, if the rates were sky-high people wouldn't think twice before putting money in the bank, and would probably never borrow... If people are seemingly too scared to make bank deposits it simply means that the interest rates are too low. Of course the government wouldn't want them to rise, because low rates provides all this fake "growth" in form of bubbles, which politicians then put on their resumes, as long as they don't burst on their watch.
Wikipedia is generally a poor first-hand source for this type of thing, but it's challenging to find numbers put together so they're easy to read and such. But compare the recessions during the "Free banking era" that you're promoting to the recessions that we experience after the great depression:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
For a more raw numbers view: http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
