President Obama Re-Elected - Page 254

On August 08 2012 03:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
That's making a leveraged bet on an asset price. You don't need negative interest rates to turn a profit doing that, though it makes it easier. If you want to be realistic about it you should consider transaction and holding costs as well as risk before you declare it 'free'.

On August 08 2012 03:58 darthfoley wrote:
can we get back to the actual election...?

On August 08 2012 03:58 darthfoley wrote:
can we get back to the actual election...?

On August 08 2012 03:59 acker wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

This is what you wrote.
+ Show Spoiler +

This is what he wrote.



...And this is how you "responded".

He gave an example where negative interest rates made money gainable without increasing the deficit in direct response to your quote that money isn't free under negative real interest rates.

You said something completely irrelevant to your original quote: that it was impossible to get free money through negative real interest rates and positive nominal interest rates.

Care to explain how your response invalidates his critique?

On August 08 2012 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
When the money is borrowed and spent on the apples in time 0 a deficit is incurred.

The debt is then paid back in time 1 from the sale of the apples and a surplus is reported.

The money is "free" strictly from the government's perspective in the example he gave. From the total economy's standpoint, there is no free money. Net of all transactions all the government did was change the timing of the purchase of apples.No new value was created and due to inflation a small amount of value was transferred from the consumers of apples to the government.

On August 08 2012 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:


When the money is borrowed and spent on the apples in time 0 a deficit is incurred.

The debt is then paid back in time 1 from the sale of the apples and a surplus is reported.

The money is "free" strictly from the government's perspective in the example he gave. From the total economy's standpoint, there is no free money. Net of all transactions all the government did was change the timing of the purchase of apples. No new value was created and due to inflation a small amount of value was transferred from the consumers of apples to the government.

On August 08 2012 04:24 acker wrote:

This response is a non sequitur. In terms of the total economy, NOTHING creates free money as every sale must necessarily be a purchase. If you're defining things in terms of the total economy, singling out expansionary fiscal policy is ridiculous. Free money can only exist for entities within the total economy.

Nor is your answer remotely connected to your original position, that negative real interest rates and positive nominal interest rates necessarily cause bond sales to increase the deficit. Stop dodging.

On August 08 2012 04:33 TheFrankOne wrote:


Actually, value was transferred from the bond holders who are being paid "interest" only in nominal terms. They have chosen the most risk averse possible form of investment, its so risk averse that they lose money on it. Having investments like bonds are a good way to diversify for exactly that reason, even if they are not exactly going to be bringing in the capital gains.

On August 08 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
In time zero I increased the deficit and sold a bond. They went hand in hand.
In time one I increased the surplus (or reduced the deficit, whatever) and repaid a bond. They went hand in hand.

If you want to net the two time periods together then you get this:

No debt.
A $5 surplus.

On August 08 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The $5 surplus is also contractionary fiscal policy.

On August 08 2012 04:24 ticklishmusic wrote:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/07/harry-reid-is-vilified-by-a-press-corps-that-tolerates-much-worse-from-the-right.html

So many birthers in the comments section.

"Here's a rule of thumb - if you have to follow your claim with the words 'I don't know if that's true,' then shut up."

On August 08 2012 04:42 acker wrote:


I can't believe it took three pages to finally get this far.

...And then this happens.

What makes you claim this is necessarily true? Let's take the most extreme example first: if the bond buyers are from a foreign country and the government puts the 5$ into tax breaks, how is this contractionary fiscal policy?

On August 08 2012 04:47 coverpunch wrote:

This article takes away the context and tries to shrug away all the remaining issues. It's especially laughable because they put in all the context of the birthers and make it sound like a Republican position. But let's go into what the press did not like about Reid's comments, in order:

1) he played the dead dad card on Romney, that's just wrong
2) he offered no proof and refuses to substantiate his claim at all
3) he did this on the Senate floor

As for the remaining issues, they're completely wrong. For one, Reid was most definitely trying to imply that Romney is guilty of tax evasion by saying he hasn't paid any taxes in ten years.

Calling for Romney to release more tax returns and pointing out that his dad did it is one thing. Making wild, unsubstantiated claims that Romney hasn't paid any taxes for a decade on the Senate floor as majority leader and then saying his dead father would be ashamed of him is crossing the line. The media was correct to slam Reid.

Jon Stewart from the Daily Show summed up the media's opinion:

On August 08 2012 04:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Ever hear of a general statement?

Really, you're a total pedant.

On August 08 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The $5 surplus is also contractionary fiscal policy.

In the state of Maine, it is well documented that 21 of the 24 delegates are strong supporters of Congressman Ron Paul.

Those 21 delegates plan to go to Tampa later this month and cast a vote for Dr. Paul to receive the nomination.

A little over a week ago, 20 of those 21 delegates were told that their credentials were being challenged by Mr. Peter Cianchette (who headed the Romney campaign in Maine).

The grounds for the challenge; that 20 of these 21 delegates were illegally elected to represent Maine.

As a result, the RNC planned to not seat the entire Maine delegation at the RNC in Tampa.

Now, here is where it gets really interesting.

This weekend, the RNC, via Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster offered a "compromise"... take a look:

1. A majority of the delegates sign a statement agreeing that, if Ron Paul is not on the ballot, they will vote at the Convention for Mitt Romney.

2. Instead of Brent Tweed, Charlie Webster or Paul LePage would serve as the spokesperson for the delegation and announce the votes cast for president. That spokesperson would also handle all media on behalf of the Maine delegation.

3. There will be nothing negative said about Mitt Romney or positive said about Obama (especially to media).

4. The Delegation will be admitted to the Convention, and to all committee assignments, without barrier.

5. The Contest brought by Jan Staples and Peter Cianchette will be withdrawn.

On August 08 2012 04:47 coverpunch wrote:
1) he played the dead dad card on Romney, that's just wrong
2) he offered no proof and refuses to substantiate his claim at all
3) he did this on the Senate floor