Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-12-15 18:41:47)
You're asking the world to accept a lower standard of living for intangible results. If even one country refuses the entire scheme breaks. Hence prisoner's dilemma.DrunkFace wrote:
If Jay can't see instant results there are no results.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-12-15 20:17:56)
Yeah, because that helps a lot when all the parts are made in China, shipped here, and we dig a hole in the ground to erect it. Really does a whole lot to help our economy. The few temporary jobs to build the sites, the even fewer jobs to maintain it. The tradeoff is just accepting a doubling of energy costsDilbert_X wrote:
Or a higher standard of living - advanced engineering of new technology requires qualified and skilled people whereas you can send any redneck out to drill a hole in the ground.
Retooling for new technology is a huge driver of progress whereas sitting on your ass isn't.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-12-15 20:34:29)
I am, and I don't have a problem with it. Just pointing out how stupid your logic is.Dilbert_X wrote:
So your drilling rigs, gas pipes, power station parts etc aren't made in China?
Don't buy everything in China, duh.
Anyway, you're the proponent of the 'increase our standard of living by buying everything from China and increasing world trade' nonsense.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-12-15 21:09:20)
He's was certainly against some tough competition in '12Macbeth wrote:
Ron Paul was the worst candidate in 08 and 12.
I found the flaw in your argument.Extra Medium wrote:
The guy has basically campaigned and won on the same platform for nearly 40 years.
Why would he have succeded? If the system worked as he wanted it too there would have been no reason to elect him or for him to run. If the senators and congressmen he served with felt the same way, the system would have been as previously mentioned.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
but he hasn't done anything meaningful to change the system he campaigns against. Maybe all his supporters are the true dumb dumbs because they keep voting him in despite him not doing much more than strenuously objecting to the system in place.
Plenty more here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-1 … atest-moveQE4
So what exactly is this new thin-air money printing program all about? Well, unlike any prior Quantitative Easing (QE) announcement, this one was tied to a fuzzy and quirky government statistic: the unemployment rate.The key point here is that the Fed is now actively running both monetary and fiscal policy because it will now be in the business of funding nearly 100% of all the new government deficit spending in 2013. And it is pumping a bit more than $1 trillion of hot, thin-air money into the economy as it does so.QE4 is Just-In-Time Fed Policy to Avoid Calamity
Dec 13, 2012
We got the most thunderous Just-In-Time monetary policy today that is a substitute for the absence of any degree of stimulative fiscal policy.
You might say that QE4 is now going to act as both monetary and fiscal stimulus– another $85 billion worth of Fed accumulations of Treasury bonds and mortgages- that is meant to keep stock prices moving higher and residential home sales climbing briskly.
The goal is to drive economic activity, especially residential home building, so that unemployment drops from 7.7% to 6.5%. The surprise move is meant to signal the Fed’s awareness of the softening economy; it sees the gritty numbers before we do.
Getting unemployment down to 6.5% without inflation rising to a level higher than 2.5% is not expected to happen until 2014 at the earliest. And it could go longer if there is no deal and we go over the cliff.
But, you should know that the only reason unemployment is 7.7% is because hundreds of thousands of males have dropped out of the search for regular work. A very depressing tale.
The odd thing here is that by tying their policy to the unemployment rate, we could be in for a very long wait for the stimulus to end. The reason is that the unemployment rate has a couple of moving pieces, one being the number of people who are unemployed, and the second consisting of people who have given up looking for work, which is tracked in something called the 'participation rate.'
As more people leave the labor force and the participation rate goes down, the unemployment rate goes down, too. Somewhat confusingly, as more jobs are created, the unemployment rate goes down, too. As you can see, these numbers work in opposition to each other because as more jobs become available, more people re-enter the work force.
Before the crisis struck, the participation rate was around 66.5%. But now it sits at just 63.6%, meaning that, at roughly 1.4 million jobs for each percent, a bit more than 4 million jobs would have to be created just to absorb the folks who left the labor force but presumably would like to work again. As those 4 million folks come back to work, the unemployment rate will not budge at all.
Last edited by Jay (2012-12-17 17:28:32)
Unless you call telling the truth about opponents "slinging shit."Extra Medium wrote:
When running for Pres. nods, was the only one not slinging shit everywhere about his competition.
I stand corrected.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unless you call telling the truth about opponents "slinging shit."Extra Medium wrote:
When running for Pres. nods, was the only one not slinging shit everywhere about his competition.
