|
|
On September 16 2012 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
america's foreign policy aspirations are noble and only sometimes self serving. thats aabout as good as you can get really
Im sorry but you just broke my sarcasm meter.
|
On September 16 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote:
Defacer, America is the lone superpower. We have the chance to change the world for the better. Should we not try and do so?
Not when it comes to places with super pissed off Muslims. We can exploit as many other countries as we want, but the Muslim ones always come back to bite us. They are way too united and way too easily pissed off. Not trying to be racist or anything, but they straight up flip out. This whole anti-US protesting thing is totally out of control.
|
On September 15 2012 23:38 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 09:58 Defacer wrote:
Despite the tragic attack in recent days, you have to give credit to Obama for overthrowing Gaddafi. He probably saved tens of thousands of innocent Lybian civilians, and so far there have been only four (?) US casualties.
You also have to give him credit for giving the Muslim Brotherhood power who are causing this big mess. I agree Gaddafi was a terrible man but he also got rid of Mubarak our best ally for years and as Mubarak said handed the country over to the Muslim brotherhood and you can see it spreading. If Obama doesn't see what is going on, the middle east will somehow find a way to get worse. God help them if he gets a second term.
Yes, I'm sure invading Iran over a captured drone would have made the Middle East situation much better. Also, this situation (religious extremists in power as a result of democratic reforms) did not spread from Egypt at all...the Arab Spring started in Tunisia.
|
On September 16 2012 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote:
Defacer, America is the lone superpower. We have the chance to change the world for the better. Should we not try and do so? Not when it comes to places with super pissed off Muslims. We can exploit as many other countries as we want, but the Muslim ones always come back to bite us. They are way too united and way too easily pissed off. Not trying to be racist or anything, but they straight up flip out. This whole anti-US protesting thing is totally out of control.
Look at all the shit you have done to them in the past. I really dont blame em for being pissed off at you.
|
On September 16 2012 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote:
Defacer, America is the lone superpower. We have the chance to change the world for the better. Should we not try and do so? Not when it comes to places with super pissed off Muslims. We can exploit as many other countries as we want, but the Muslim ones always come back to bite us. They are way too united and way too easily pissed off. Not trying to be racist or anything, but they straight up flip out. This whole anti-US protesting thing is totally out of control.
Err... that's more of a question of methodology than whether we should try to change things.
And where did you get that the muslim countries are particularly united? I mean Libya, for instance, is actually one of the more pro-US countries in the region. Like the majority is pretty pro-western.
|
On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment.
The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits)
|
On September 16 2012 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
america's foreign policy aspirations are noble and only sometimes self serving. thats aabout as good as you can get really
It's not as though many countries have anything approaching a genuinely altruistic foreign policy--America certainly doesn't, and by dint of America's power and global involvement, American foreign policy does a lot more damage than most countries do, even if the only thing holding back other countries in the fact they don't have as much power. There are a few countries that might be considered benevolent on balance in foreign policy such as Norway and Cuba, but they are few are far between.
|
On September 16 2012 04:30 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits)
If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers.
|
On September 16 2012 05:39 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 04:30 kmillz wrote:On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits) If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers.
There really should be some measure of discouraged workers who would normally be part of the labor pool if employment statistics are supposed to be taken as a measure of economic health rather than a number fetish, though.
|
On September 16 2012 05:41 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 05:39 kwizach wrote:On September 16 2012 04:30 kmillz wrote:On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits) If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers. There really should be some measure of discouraged workers who would normally be part of the labor pool if employment statistics are supposed to be taken as a measure of economic health rather than a number fetish, though.
U6 measures U3 plus involuntary part-timers and discouraged job-seekers.
|
On September 16 2012 05:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 05:41 HunterX11 wrote:On September 16 2012 05:39 kwizach wrote:On September 16 2012 04:30 kmillz wrote:On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits) If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers. There really should be some measure of discouraged workers who would normally be part of the labor pool if employment statistics are supposed to be taken as a measure of economic health rather than a number fetish, though. U6 measures U3 plus involuntary part-timers and discouraged job-seekers.
Oh that's my bad--I only hear about U3 and U6 all the time, and didn't realize discouraged workers were in U4 already.
|
On September 16 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote:
Obama has openly said that he does not consider Egypt an enemy or ally at this point (until they show how they react to this). That's pretty harsh diplomacy. But I guess these crazy hawks are never satisfied unless there's people dying. Psychopaths.
Defacer, America is the lone superpower. We have the chance to change the world for the better. Should we not try and do so?
Of course. I just think that the idea that somehow Obama's foreign policy the past four years could have prevented: a dingbat making hate propaganda; a grocer setting himself on fire; or 50 years of civilian resentment in Islamic countries towards America and their own governments' failures -- is absolutely ludicrous.
I just can't take people seriously when they imply that Middle East resentment towards America is somehow 'Obama's fault'.
Meanwhile, I think Obama calling bullshit on Morsi is an example of just how effective his foreign policy actually is. Morsi, realizing that he needs American and European support much more then they need them, realigned himself.
While speaking at the European Commission in Brussels Thursday, Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi condemned the recent video that sparked protests around the Muslim world. Demonstrators say it insults Islam and the prophet Mohammed. But Morsi also condemned the violent reactions to the video in his strongest language to date.
Morsi repeatedly stressed Egypt is able to secure diplomatic delegations and visitors on its soil, directing his message of peace toward “the whole world.”
Excerpts from his speech follow:
“Muslims and Christians in Egypt are equal citizens and have the same rights… We are cautious about those principles and human values, also respecting visitors and respecting tourists... and respecting and protecting diplomatic delegations and private and public properties, and not attacking them.
“Freedom, and ensuring safety of self, and protecting this freedom and people and preserving property is the responsibility of the Egyptian nation.”
He continued: “The Egyptian nation is capable now of protecting people’s opinions and allowing them breathing room, as well as protecting diplomatic delegations and all foreigners, visitors, tourists, embassies and consulates in Egypt.”
“I see in Egypt and the Arab and Islamic world a severe anger toward the violations made by a very small number of individuals. They have insulted the prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. We stand very strongly against this. We don’t agree with or approve this, and we stand against anyone who tries to raise such false slogans and create these disturbances, tension and hatred between populations.”
“Those [people] are not accepted, not by people in Egypt nor other Arab and Islamic countries, nor by their own people. I affirm that the American people reject this and I’ve called on them to declare their rejection of them, at the same time with our rejection of those bad practices that bring harm and not benefit.”
“At the same time, we don’t accept, condone, or approve at all for there to be attacks on embassies, consulates or people, or killing in any way.”
“We want to cooperate with the entire world and we are cooperating now with the E.U. and the European people and with the American people and others and the U.S. administration to prevent such practices in the future. Also, we insist on the protection of persons, properties and embassies. The Egyptian people are very civilized and could not ever express their rejection of such practices with an attack on an embassy or person or consulate.”
Morsi also said that he came to an agreement of cooperation with the EU, and that, as a friend of Egypt, the EU would help the country with its democratic transition, whether on a political or economic level. He said that they also agreed on the necessity of trying to find a way to end the “bloodshed” in Syria and help the country through its democratic transition based on the wishes and ambitions of the Syrian people.
BOOM. If Bush did the same thing, conservatives would be singing his praises.
|
On September 16 2012 00:19 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:14 Praetorial wrote:On September 16 2012 00:09 CajunMan wrote:On September 15 2012 23:45 Praetorial wrote:On September 15 2012 23:38 CajunMan wrote:On September 15 2012 09:58 Defacer wrote:
Despite the tragic attack in recent days, you have to give credit to Obama for overthrowing Gaddafi. He probably saved tens of thousands of innocent Lybian civilians, and so far there have been only four (?) US casualties.
You also have to give him credit for giving the Muslim Brotherhood power who are causing this big mess. I agree Gaddafi was a terrible man but he also got rid of Mubarak our best ally for years and as Mubarak said handed the country over to the Muslim brotherhood and you can see it spreading. If Obama doesn't see what is going on, the middle east will somehow find a way to get worse. God help them if he gets a second term. You also have to give the Muslim Brotherhood credit for suppressing the protests and still supporting our interests in israel. Where? On September 15 2012 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
BUT THEIR PARTY PLATFORM HAS SHIT ABOUT STONING WOMEN
AND THEY HAVE A SECRET AGENDA FOR GLOBAL JIHAD
AND STUFF
But seriously, this Morsi guy is pretty good. I think he's taken a lot of good positions on tricky issues. "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations." Yes Quotes the Qur'an--->bad person possibly terrorist. Nice logic there my friend. Say what you will, he's implemented democracy, put the military in its place, cleared the protests out of Cairo(open google news fro heaven's sake), and secured the Egypt-Israel border like Mubarak did. You understand what Jihad is right? That is the Muslim Brotherhoods slogan not me making shit up.
I'm surprised that no one called you on this. For the record, do you understand what Jihad is? I'm not going to derail into a religious argument, but it's unsettling that people just let the part in bold stand.
EDIT: Saw this a minute ago, also, along with a few other opinion polls.
![[image loading]](http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/Ey/esq-obama-romney-fistfight-2012-xlg.jpg)
Source.
|
On September 16 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote:
Obama has openly said that he does not consider Egypt an enemy or ally at this point (until they show how they react to this). That's pretty harsh diplomacy. But I guess these crazy hawks are never satisfied unless there's people dying. Psychopaths.
Defacer, America is the lone superpower. We have the chance to change the world for the better. Should we not try and do so?
Another thing, I rewatched Obama's Nobel acceptance speech in light of the Michael Lewis article, and he made an excellent point. When any free democracy turns a blind eye to oppression in other countries, and the UN doesn't make an effort to punish those countries through sanctions or other means, it makes them complicit. War should always be a last resort, but it wouldn't occur as often if other nations stepped up to the plate and put pressure on these nation's governments to protect the safety, welfare and rights of their citizens.
Basically, I agree that America has the capacity to improve the freedoms and rights of citizens globally. But they shouldn't be doing alone. Other countries can and should be taking responsibility instead of sticking it to America. Every. Single. Time.
|
On September 16 2012 07:45 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote:
Obama has openly said that he does not consider Egypt an enemy or ally at this point (until they show how they react to this). That's pretty harsh diplomacy. But I guess these crazy hawks are never satisfied unless there's people dying. Psychopaths.
Defacer, America is the lone superpower. We have the chance to change the world for the better. Should we not try and do so? Another thing, I rewatched Obama's Nobel acceptance speech in light of the Michael Lewis article, and he made an excellent point. When any free democracy turns a blind eye to oppression in other countries, and the UN doesn't make an effort to punish those countries through sanctions or other means, it makes them complicit. War should always be a last resort, but it wouldn't occur as often if other nations stepped up to the plate and put pressure on these nation's governments to protect the safety, welfare and rights of their citizens. Basically, I agree that America has the capacity to improve the freedoms and rights of citizens globally. But they shouldn't be doing alone. Other countries can and should be taking responsibility instead of sticking it to America. Every. Single. Time.
What? I thought I was disagreeing with you. Instead I'm trying to upvote your post even though this isn't reddit. I must have missed the context in what you were saying.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 16 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 07:45 Defacer wrote:On September 16 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote:
Obama has openly said that he does not consider Egypt an enemy or ally at this point (until they show how they react to this). That's pretty harsh diplomacy. But I guess these crazy hawks are never satisfied unless there's people dying. Psychopaths.
Defacer, America is the lone superpower. We have the chance to change the world for the better. Should we not try and do so? Another thing, I rewatched Obama's Nobel acceptance speech in light of the Michael Lewis article, and he made an excellent point. When any free democracy turns a blind eye to oppression in other countries, and the UN doesn't make an effort to punish those countries through sanctions or other means, it makes them complicit. War should always be a last resort, but it wouldn't occur as often if other nations stepped up to the plate and put pressure on these nation's governments to protect the safety, welfare and rights of their citizens. Basically, I agree that America has the capacity to improve the freedoms and rights of citizens globally. But they shouldn't be doing alone. Other countries can and should be taking responsibility instead of sticking it to America. Every. Single. Time. What? I thought I was disagreeing with you. Instead I'm trying to upvote your post even though this isn't reddit. I must have missed the context in what you were saying.
Defacer is our honorary liberal American. I'm thinking of proposing to him to make him officially one of us.
|
On September 16 2012 09:11 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2012 07:45 Defacer wrote:On September 16 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote:
Obama has openly said that he does not consider Egypt an enemy or ally at this point (until they show how they react to this). That's pretty harsh diplomacy. But I guess these crazy hawks are never satisfied unless there's people dying. Psychopaths.
Defacer, America is the lone superpower. We have the chance to change the world for the better. Should we not try and do so? Another thing, I rewatched Obama's Nobel acceptance speech in light of the Michael Lewis article, and he made an excellent point. When any free democracy turns a blind eye to oppression in other countries, and the UN doesn't make an effort to punish those countries through sanctions or other means, it makes them complicit. War should always be a last resort, but it wouldn't occur as often if other nations stepped up to the plate and put pressure on these nation's governments to protect the safety, welfare and rights of their citizens. Basically, I agree that America has the capacity to improve the freedoms and rights of citizens globally. But they shouldn't be doing alone. Other countries can and should be taking responsibility instead of sticking it to America. Every. Single. Time. What? I thought I was disagreeing with you. Instead I'm trying to upvote your post even though this isn't reddit. I must have missed the context in what you were saying. Defacer is our honorary liberal American. I'm thinking of proposing to him to make him officially one of us.
I didn't think that comprehensive interventionism (which is essentially what he's saying) was a particularly liberal stance. I guess as long as it's nonmilitary interventionism? I don't know. I've never figured out what's 'liberal' foreign policy. Still, I find people on both sides to be pretty all over the place on foreign policy. I mean the Libertarians and Ron Paul are more on the callously isolationist side, for instance. But the neocons are hawks.
|
On September 15 2012 15:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 15:14 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 15:03 aksfjh wrote:On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:29 Danglars wrote:And far away from Libya and Egypt, alarm comes at Bernanke's latest easing (QE).
Central bankers are “counterfeit money printers” and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should resign for messing up the U.S. economy so badly, Marc Faber, author of the Gloom, Doom and Boom, told CNBC on Friday.
He said Bernanke was one of the main proponents of an ultra-expansionist economic monetary policy that was to blame for the latest financial crisis.
“If I had messed up as badly as Bernanke I would for sure resign. The mandate of the Fed to boost asset prices and thereby create wealth is ludicrous — it doesn’t work that way. It’s a temporary boost followed by a crash,” Faber said.
Faber, who rose to prominence after predicting the 1987 financial crash report and dubbed "Dr Doom" for his negative predictions, said: “This unlimited QE (quantitative easing) , buying mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and continuing operation twist has the implication of simply having asset prices go up and the money flows down to the Mayfair economy,” Faber said.
A Mayfair economy is one which benefits the wealthier and better off in society. Faber said this latest round of QE would not help the “man on the street”.
“QE helps rich people whose asset prices go up and whose net worth then increases but it doesn’t flow to the man on the street who is faced with higher costs of living with price rises. You just have a small economy that is booming but the majority of the economy is damaged by QE,” he said.
Bernanke announced on Thursday that the Fed would buy $40 billion a month in MBS, giving the impression that this time around there would be no time limit to the program, which would only stop once a sustained uptick in employment is visible.
“The money printers are responsible for this crisis. If we continue with this expansionist monetary policy we won’t be facing a fiscal cliff it will be a fiscal grand canyon,” he added.
Mike Konczal, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute disagreed claiming that this latest round of QE — aggressive as it was — would expand the scope of Federal Reserve policy and was “great for main street”. Crucially, he said, it tackles the issue of employment which would underpin future wealth.
“If anything, monetary policy has been too tight in recent years. We’ve seen a collapse in GDP growth, no wage growth and huge rises in unemployment. Wealth is collapsing because of a collapse in the housing market and prolonged, mass unemployment ,” Konczal said.
Faber poured scorn on the notion that QE helps the economy, declaring that commentators like Konczal would have said the same in 2001 when low interest rates led to the biggest housing bubble in the United States. That in turn led to the financial crisis of 2008.
“If we have an economic crisis in the Western world it’s because the government makes up 50 percent or more of the economy. This is a cancer that is taking away people’s freedom,” he said.
source: cnbcYeah, but making credit freely available can't have a harmful effect on the economy, can it? The man famous for his financial crash prediction nailed a few other biggies, including China's rise and current problems with the dollar. Maybe he's right today. "Doom" is a good term for what he sees as only the rich benefiting from a rise in asset prices when those less well-to-do have to cope with the inflated cost of living. One QE too far? Deserving of Obama ridicule for helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around. ![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=aHJ) That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves. That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions. Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising. I don't think you even know what inflation is or does in a modern understanding of economics. You're just yelling at numbers and lines and shouting nonsense. You might as well be linking pictures of giant red boxes and complaining about the shade of red being used. How about you respond with an argument instead of resorting to ad hominems? On September 15 2012 15:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:29 Danglars wrote:And far away from Libya and Egypt, alarm comes at Bernanke's latest easing (QE).
Central bankers are “counterfeit money printers” and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should resign for messing up the U.S. economy so badly, Marc Faber, author of the Gloom, Doom and Boom, told CNBC on Friday.
He said Bernanke was one of the main proponents of an ultra-expansionist economic monetary policy that was to blame for the latest financial crisis.
“If I had messed up as badly as Bernanke I would for sure resign. The mandate of the Fed to boost asset prices and thereby create wealth is ludicrous — it doesn’t work that way. It’s a temporary boost followed by a crash,” Faber said.
Faber, who rose to prominence after predicting the 1987 financial crash report and dubbed "Dr Doom" for his negative predictions, said: “This unlimited QE (quantitative easing) , buying mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and continuing operation twist has the implication of simply having asset prices go up and the money flows down to the Mayfair economy,” Faber said.
A Mayfair economy is one which benefits the wealthier and better off in society. Faber said this latest round of QE would not help the “man on the street”.
“QE helps rich people whose asset prices go up and whose net worth then increases but it doesn’t flow to the man on the street who is faced with higher costs of living with price rises. You just have a small economy that is booming but the majority of the economy is damaged by QE,” he said.
Bernanke announced on Thursday that the Fed would buy $40 billion a month in MBS, giving the impression that this time around there would be no time limit to the program, which would only stop once a sustained uptick in employment is visible.
“The money printers are responsible for this crisis. If we continue with this expansionist monetary policy we won’t be facing a fiscal cliff it will be a fiscal grand canyon,” he added.
Mike Konczal, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute disagreed claiming that this latest round of QE — aggressive as it was — would expand the scope of Federal Reserve policy and was “great for main street”. Crucially, he said, it tackles the issue of employment which would underpin future wealth.
“If anything, monetary policy has been too tight in recent years. We’ve seen a collapse in GDP growth, no wage growth and huge rises in unemployment. Wealth is collapsing because of a collapse in the housing market and prolonged, mass unemployment ,” Konczal said.
Faber poured scorn on the notion that QE helps the economy, declaring that commentators like Konczal would have said the same in 2001 when low interest rates led to the biggest housing bubble in the United States. That in turn led to the financial crisis of 2008.
“If we have an economic crisis in the Western world it’s because the government makes up 50 percent or more of the economy. This is a cancer that is taking away people’s freedom,” he said.
source: cnbcYeah, but making credit freely available can't have a harmful effect on the economy, can it? The man famous for his financial crash prediction nailed a few other biggies, including China's rise and current problems with the dollar. Maybe he's right today. "Doom" is a good term for what he sees as only the rich benefiting from a rise in asset prices when those less well-to-do have to cope with the inflated cost of living. One QE too far? Deserving of Obama ridicule for helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around. That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves. That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions. Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising. lol 1% is huge? Yes, food and fuel is impacted by global events that are outside of the control of the Fed, so they are generally not caused by loose Fed policy and do not reflect economic fundamentals, that's one reason why they are usually stripped out of CPI. But the graph includes both CPI with food and fuel and without food and fuel, so that you can see that these are temporary fluctuations and that removing food and fuel accurately tracks core, underlying inflation. 1% inflation is too low. The Fed targets 2% inflation. This is a symmetric target, i.e, the Fed will use approximately as much effort to bring 1% inflation up to 2% inflation than it does to bring 3% inflation down to 2% inflation. The Australian central bank targets inflation in a 2%-3% range. Price stability does not mean 0% inflation. 0% inflation is bad, because it does not offer a buffer against deflation, it means that the Fed will more easily hit the ZLB in the case of a severe economic shock (like now) and it encourages hording money instead of investing money to promote economic growth. You misunderstand what that graph is showing. It's showing the rate of change from year to year. That means when it's at 2%, inflation was 2% higher than the year before. That doesn't mean inflation is 2% overall (when you're comparing to a dollar value in say 1950); it's even higher than that. So for the rate of inflation to increase by 1% every year is huge. I sincerely don't think you understand inflation. Inflation is in itself a rise in prices. If the inflation rate is at 2% for a year, it doesn't mean that "inflation [is] 2% higher than the year before". It means prices (i.e. the CPI) are 2% higher than the year before.
You're right, which means prices are increasing exponentially. paralleluniverse understood my point if you look back several pages.
|
On September 16 2012 09:18 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 15:31 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 15:14 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 15:03 aksfjh wrote:On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:29 Danglars wrote:And far away from Libya and Egypt, alarm comes at Bernanke's latest easing (QE). [quote] source: cnbcYeah, but making credit freely available can't have a harmful effect on the economy, can it? The man famous for his financial crash prediction nailed a few other biggies, including China's rise and current problems with the dollar. Maybe he's right today. "Doom" is a good term for what he sees as only the rich benefiting from a rise in asset prices when those less well-to-do have to cope with the inflated cost of living. One QE too far? Deserving of Obama ridicule for helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around. That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves. That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions. Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising. I don't think you even know what inflation is or does in a modern understanding of economics. You're just yelling at numbers and lines and shouting nonsense. You might as well be linking pictures of giant red boxes and complaining about the shade of red being used. How about you respond with an argument instead of resorting to ad hominems? On September 15 2012 15:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:29 Danglars wrote:And far away from Libya and Egypt, alarm comes at Bernanke's latest easing (QE). [quote] source: cnbcYeah, but making credit freely available can't have a harmful effect on the economy, can it? The man famous for his financial crash prediction nailed a few other biggies, including China's rise and current problems with the dollar. Maybe he's right today. "Doom" is a good term for what he sees as only the rich benefiting from a rise in asset prices when those less well-to-do have to cope with the inflated cost of living. One QE too far? Deserving of Obama ridicule for helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around. That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves. That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions. Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising. lol 1% is huge? Yes, food and fuel is impacted by global events that are outside of the control of the Fed, so they are generally not caused by loose Fed policy and do not reflect economic fundamentals, that's one reason why they are usually stripped out of CPI. But the graph includes both CPI with food and fuel and without food and fuel, so that you can see that these are temporary fluctuations and that removing food and fuel accurately tracks core, underlying inflation. 1% inflation is too low. The Fed targets 2% inflation. This is a symmetric target, i.e, the Fed will use approximately as much effort to bring 1% inflation up to 2% inflation than it does to bring 3% inflation down to 2% inflation. The Australian central bank targets inflation in a 2%-3% range. Price stability does not mean 0% inflation. 0% inflation is bad, because it does not offer a buffer against deflation, it means that the Fed will more easily hit the ZLB in the case of a severe economic shock (like now) and it encourages hording money instead of investing money to promote economic growth. You misunderstand what that graph is showing. It's showing the rate of change from year to year. That means when it's at 2%, inflation was 2% higher than the year before. That doesn't mean inflation is 2% overall (when you're comparing to a dollar value in say 1950); it's even higher than that. So for the rate of inflation to increase by 1% every year is huge. I sincerely don't think you understand inflation. Inflation is in itself a rise in prices. If the inflation rate is at 2% for a year, it doesn't mean that "inflation [is] 2% higher than the year before". It means prices (i.e. the CPI) are 2% higher than the year before. You're right, which means prices are increasing exponentially. paralleluniverse understood my point if you look back several pages.
Oh I understood what you meant (and, as paralleluniverse explained, calling a rate of inflation of 1% "huge" is silly), but your use of the term "inflation" was wrong, which is what I was pointing out.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 16 2012 09:17 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 09:11 Souma wrote:On September 16 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2012 07:45 Defacer wrote:On September 16 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote:
Obama has openly said that he does not consider Egypt an enemy or ally at this point (until they show how they react to this). That's pretty harsh diplomacy. But I guess these crazy hawks are never satisfied unless there's people dying. Psychopaths.
Defacer, America is the lone superpower. We have the chance to change the world for the better. Should we not try and do so? Another thing, I rewatched Obama's Nobel acceptance speech in light of the Michael Lewis article, and he made an excellent point. When any free democracy turns a blind eye to oppression in other countries, and the UN doesn't make an effort to punish those countries through sanctions or other means, it makes them complicit. War should always be a last resort, but it wouldn't occur as often if other nations stepped up to the plate and put pressure on these nation's governments to protect the safety, welfare and rights of their citizens. Basically, I agree that America has the capacity to improve the freedoms and rights of citizens globally. But they shouldn't be doing alone. Other countries can and should be taking responsibility instead of sticking it to America. Every. Single. Time. What? I thought I was disagreeing with you. Instead I'm trying to upvote your post even though this isn't reddit. I must have missed the context in what you were saying. Defacer is our honorary liberal American. I'm thinking of proposing to him to make him officially one of us. I didn't think that comprehensive interventionism (which is essentially what he's saying) was a particularly liberal stance. I guess as long as it's nonmilitary interventionism? I don't know. I've never figured out what's 'liberal' foreign policy. Still, I find people on both sides to be pretty all over the place on foreign policy. I mean the Libertarians and Ron Paul are more on the callously isolationist side, for instance. But the neocons are hawks.
Actually, you're right. I have no idea what liberal foreign policy is. I just know this is what I agree with. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
