|
|
On July 30 2012 11:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 11:00 sam!zdat wrote:On July 30 2012 10:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 09:52 aksfjh wrote:On July 30 2012 08:06 xDaunt wrote:On July 30 2012 07:55 aksfjh wrote:On July 29 2012 12:13 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2012 10:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Some stimulus research: CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness. Some highlights: If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields. In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance. The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here. Wow, just wow. This is facepalm worthy. The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt. The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise. Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009? Do you understand what happened in the first place? Yeah, all of those debt-based, derivative "assets" turned out to not have much value, causing the financial system to collapse on itself. Almost every investment is "debt-based." Somebody has capital and somebody else has something else they want to buy or invest in. True but too much equity is a much easier problem to manage than too much debt  Not really. The problem of too much equity is what got us into this mess in the first place. Have a surplus, too stupid (and embedded in neoliberal ideological fixation on "growth") to consume it away like you should, struggle to find things to invest in, those things turn out not to be a good idea, the rest is history. the problem of too much equity is a big problem. Can you explain that? It sounds like you are taking a bunch of concepts and amalgamating them into your own definition of equity.
there's a good chance I don't know what I'm talking about
I may be confused about what equity means
edit: maybe the problem I'm talking about is too much liquidity that has yet to be turned into equity... (?)
|
United States6277 Posts
On July 30 2012 11:40 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 11:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 11:00 sam!zdat wrote:On July 30 2012 10:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 09:52 aksfjh wrote:On July 30 2012 08:06 xDaunt wrote:On July 30 2012 07:55 aksfjh wrote:On July 29 2012 12:13 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2012 10:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Some stimulus research: CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness. Some highlights: [quote] [quote] The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here. Wow, just wow. This is facepalm worthy. The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt. The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise. Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009? Do you understand what happened in the first place? Yeah, all of those debt-based, derivative "assets" turned out to not have much value, causing the financial system to collapse on itself. Almost every investment is "debt-based." Somebody has capital and somebody else has something else they want to buy or invest in. True but too much equity is a much easier problem to manage than too much debt Not really. The problem of too much equity is what got us into this mess in the first place. Have a surplus, too stupid (and embedded in neoliberal ideological fixation on "growth") to consume it away like you should, struggle to find things to invest in, those things turn out not to be a good idea, the rest is history. the problem of too much equity is a big problem. Can you explain that? It sounds like you are taking a bunch of concepts and amalgamating them into your own definition of equity. there's a good chance I don't know what I'm talking about I may be confused about what equity means edit: maybe the problem I'm talking about is too much liquidity that has yet to be turned into equity... (?)
yeah sounds like you are talking about more money being pushed into the system.
|
On July 30 2012 12:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 11:40 sam!zdat wrote:On July 30 2012 11:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 11:00 sam!zdat wrote:On July 30 2012 10:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 09:52 aksfjh wrote:On July 30 2012 08:06 xDaunt wrote:On July 30 2012 07:55 aksfjh wrote:On July 29 2012 12:13 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2012 10:24 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
Wow, just wow.
This is facepalm worthy.
The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt.
The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise. Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009? Do you understand what happened in the first place? Yeah, all of those debt-based, derivative "assets" turned out to not have much value, causing the financial system to collapse on itself. Almost every investment is "debt-based." Somebody has capital and somebody else has something else they want to buy or invest in. True but too much equity is a much easier problem to manage than too much debt Not really. The problem of too much equity is what got us into this mess in the first place. Have a surplus, too stupid (and embedded in neoliberal ideological fixation on "growth") to consume it away like you should, struggle to find things to invest in, those things turn out not to be a good idea, the rest is history. the problem of too much equity is a big problem. Can you explain that? It sounds like you are taking a bunch of concepts and amalgamating them into your own definition of equity. there's a good chance I don't know what I'm talking about I may be confused about what equity means edit: maybe the problem I'm talking about is too much liquidity that has yet to be turned into equity... (?) yeah sounds like you are talking about more money being pushed into the system.
yes, sorry. finance is not my native language.
carry on then :D
|
On July 30 2012 09:07 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On July 30 2012 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 06:03 Derez wrote:On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Republican saber ratting begins: JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses." Source I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too. I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development. Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table? Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man. The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table. I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point. Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president.
Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush.
Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context.
Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically.
Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy.
It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way.
|
United States6277 Posts
On July 30 2012 13:14 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 09:07 Signet wrote:On July 30 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On July 30 2012 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 06:03 Derez wrote:On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Republican saber ratting begins: JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses." Source I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too. I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development. Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table? Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man. The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table. I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point. Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president. Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush. Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context. Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically. Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy. It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way.
To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power.
“Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.”
Source
Islamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east.
(The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year.
But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers.
Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this."
Source
So, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be.
|
On July 30 2012 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 13:14 Defacer wrote:On July 30 2012 09:07 Signet wrote:On July 30 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On July 30 2012 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 06:03 Derez wrote:On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Republican saber ratting begins: JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses." Source I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too. I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development. Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table? Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man. The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table. I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point. Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president. Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush. Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context. Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically. Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy. It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way. To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power. Show nested quote +“Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.” SourceIslamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east. Show nested quote + (The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year. Show nested quote +But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers. Show nested quote +Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this." SourceSo, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be.
It's exactly as Defacer said though - those groups were elected democratically. What exactly should the US have done, according to Romney, if it wasn't letting the people decide for themselves who they wanted to elect?
|
On July 30 2012 10:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 09:52 aksfjh wrote:On July 30 2012 08:06 xDaunt wrote:On July 30 2012 07:55 aksfjh wrote:On July 29 2012 12:13 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2012 10:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Some stimulus research: CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness. Some highlights: If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields. In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance. The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here. Wow, just wow. This is facepalm worthy. The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt. The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise. Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009? Do you understand what happened in the first place? Yeah, all of those debt-based, derivative "assets" turned out to not have much value, causing the financial system to collapse on itself. Almost every investment is "debt-based." Somebody has capital and somebody else has something else they want to buy or invest in. True but too much equity is a much easier problem to manage than too much debt
Not sure what form of "equity" you're using.
If you mean it's easier to manage an excess of capital than an excess of debt, then yes. In most cases that's true. Right now though, some may disagree with investors flocking to safe investments at a loss right now.
|
O RLY?
JERUSALEM — Presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney offered praise for the Israeli health care system today — a medical plan that has been socialized since its founding in 1948.
Romney, who championed the Massachusetts health care mandate, but is an opponent of the federal mandate passed by President Barack Obama, marveled at how little Israel spends on health care relative to the United States.
“Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? eight percent," Romney told donors at a fundraiser at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, speaking of a health care system that is compulsory for Israelis and funded by the government. "You spend eight percent of GDP on health care. You're a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18% of our GDP on health care. Ten percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, compare that with the size of our military — our military which is four percent — four percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways — not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to find and manage our health care costs."
Romney has explained that he opposes ObamaCare because what worked in Massachusetts may not work for other states. Highlighting the success of the Israeli system — in a country that enjoys one of the highest life expectancy rates in the world — could complicate matters for Romney at home.
Rights of the Insured under the National Health Insurance Law
-—Every Israeli citizen is entitled to health care services under the National Health Insurance Law.
—Every resident has a right to register as a member of an HMO of his/her choice, free of any preconditions or limitations stemming from his/her age or the state of his/her health.
—Every resident has a right to receive, via the HMO of which he or she is a member, all of the services included in the medical services basket, subject to medical discretion, and at a reasonable quality level, within a reasonable period of time and at a reasonable distance from his/her home.
—Each member has a right to receive the health services while preserving the member’s dignity, privacy and medical confidentiality.
—Every Israeli resident has the right to transfer from one HMO to another.
—Each member has a right to select the service providers, such as doctors, caregivers, therapists, hospitals and institutes, from within a list of service providers who have entered into an agreement with the HMO to which the member belongs, and within the arrangements in place for the selection of the service providers, and which the HMO publishes from time to time.
—Each member has a right to know which hospitals and institutes, and other service providers, are included in the agreement with the HMO, and what are the selection processes at the HMO.
—Each member has a right to see and to receive a copy of the HMO regulations.
—Each resident has a right to receive from the HMO complete information concerning the payment arrangements in place in the HMO for health services as well as the HMO’s plans offered for additional health services (CIP).
—Each member has a right to complain with the Public Inquiries commissioner at the medical institute that treated the member, to the person in charge of investigating member complaints at the HMO of which s/he is a member, or to the complaints commissioner for the national health insurance law in the Ministry of Health.
—Each member has a right to file suit at the district labor court.
|
Romney pandering? I am shocked, utterly and completely shocked!
|
Obama! Please let him win.... Mitt Romney is a complete flop.
|
I had no idea how high the life expectancy was in Israel esp. considering how they keep getting bombed (RPGs, Mortors, rockets)
|
Then next week he'll do a fund raiser in Iran saying he would protect their right to nuclear power.
|
As an American who can vote. I don't like either.
I don't vote for liars.
I didn't like Clinton when he said 'I did not have sexual relations with that women"
I didn't like Bush when he said 'WEPAONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION OMG KILL KILL NOW NOW"
(Ya that last one wasn't a real quote but you know what I mean)
and now Obama has lied to us. "I will NOT raise the taxes".
and yet i'm about to get hit by a Obama care tax that I tihnk starts Feb 2013 (might be wrong on that date, lota numbers being thrown around concerning Ocare).
I don't like Romney, but at least he hasn't lied to me yet. (key word yet).
I do like limited goverment, and less red tape that hurts our economy.
I do as a military member fully support our 1st responder, and military personel.
I do like lower taxes for all Americans, not just the poor. (most of which pay 0$)
It's hard for me to support romney cause he did Romney care. Yes I know it's different then Obama care but not by much.
I'm glad he paid for it and didn't get more loans from china , unlike obama
I'm glad he had the popular support of his state, unlike obama
but everything else the same far as I can tell.
Never before in AMERICAN histroy has the goverment MADE you BUY A PRODUCT ON THE CONDITION OF BREATHING.
IE: You make a person who has a car get insurance.
Do you have to have a car to live? No.
Do you have to breathe?
Yes. Buy Obamacare.
I fear for my country. I fear our decline is happening much faster then I anticipated.
We arn't even honest with our populas. I mean we used to at least say what inflation prices were but our goverment in all its wisdom has decided to take 2 huge factors from the inflation equation. Gas prices/ Food prices.
Gas is core part of our industrialism. and Food is a core part of our population sustainment.
Without either we shut down and die, and yet our goverment has decided that those 2 factors need not take part in inflation. /sigh
I pray all the time for our elected leaders, but I wonder if anything can be done to change the course.
|
On July 30 2012 23:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Then next week he'll do a fund raiser in Iran saying he would protect their right to nuclear power.
I don't think so. They don't like Romney and wouldn't let him speak.
|
Here's a question.
About the recent headline about Mitt Romney overseas.
Is he stupid as fuck, or does the media just hate him?
|
Mostly he is horribly out of touch with actual people and he will say anything to make whoever is standing infront of him that moment like him.
So yeah. he is just that stupid :p
|
Isn't this an assholish comment?
Mitt Romney offered up a curious assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at a fundraiser in Jerusalem on Sunday, suggesting that Palestinian suffering — rather than an obstacle to peace — was actually an encouraging sign of Israel’s greatness.
“I was thinking this morning as I prepared to come into this room of a discussion I had across the country in the United States about my perceptions about differences between countries,” Romney told a group of high-dollar donors at a fundraiser in Jerusalem’s King David Hotel. “As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality.”
Source
|
On July 31 2012 00:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Isn't this an assholish comment? Show nested quote +Mitt Romney offered up a curious assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at a fundraiser in Jerusalem on Sunday, suggesting that Palestinian suffering — rather than an obstacle to peace — was actually an encouraging sign of Israel’s greatness.
“I was thinking this morning as I prepared to come into this room of a discussion I had across the country in the United States about my perceptions about differences between countries,” Romney told a group of high-dollar donors at a fundraiser in Jerusalem’s King David Hotel. “As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality.” Source
You left out some of the best parts of that article.
As the Associated Press noted, Romney actually got the numbers very wrong: Israel’s GDP per capita was $31,000 in 2011 and Palestinians’ per capita GDP was just $1,500. Romney at no point mentioned that the Palestinian territories have for decades been occupied without sovereign control, where residents face significant restrictions on movement and employment.
Also the part where he mentions Israel does better than Palestine because of "the hand of providence."
|
Yeah, Romney has been remarkably inept on this trip. All of these visits should be layups, because Romney need do nothing more than show up and smile.
|
On July 30 2012 23:27 SayGen wrote:
I don't like Romney, but at least he hasn't lied to me yet. (key word yet).
The problem is that Romney is so full of shit that you don't know who he's lying to.
I'm not even trying to be cute here. He has flipped on Abortion, Gay Marriage, the Auto Bailout, Healthcare ... almost every major issue. He even changed his tax policy during the Republican nomination process, shifting to Paul Ryan's plan and signing that no-new tax pledge.
I think the two issues he's been consistent on is lowering taxes and increasing military spending. But flattening out the taxes to two rates simply lowers revenue, decreasing taxes for the wealthiest (while raising taxes for the very, very poor).
And there is no amount of loopholes you can close or spending you can cut that would come close to balancing the budget. Not to mention the amount of opposition he'd face in the Senate by trying -- and Romney hasn't exactly shown he has ... well, a backbone.
IMO, I think you would have to really, really, really believe that trickle-down economics will raise the GDP -- so high that it won't increase the deficit -- to believe voting for Romney would be good for the economy.
And I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but all of Romney's Neocon posturing seems to be setting the stage for a war in Iran, on top of a major tax cut America can't afford. It's like George W. Bush all over again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
