Jay wrote:
Yes, better to have a permanent aristocracy you elitist High Tory jackass.Dilbert_X wrote:
You know what would be great? If every backstreet crackhead could sell foodstuffs to the general populace with no checks or balances.Jay wrote:
There are other aspects of the economy which were affected too, but that has more to do with the regulatory environment created by the government that forces businesses to request permission, in triplicate, before engaging in many actions. There were reports of microbrewery's having problems getting started because they needed a government functionary to sign off on their paperwork, and the crabbing industry requiring the same in order to start fishing. We've turned into a society where we must ask permission from our government before engaging in many activities, rather than a free society with innate rights. Government isn't required for 99% of every day life, but they've forced themselves to be required.
This is backwards. Progressivism flipped American law on its head and transformed our society from one where everything was legal until it was illegal, into a society where every aspect of life is regulated down to the tiniest detail, and where the implication is now that everything is illegal until permission is granted otherwise.
Please give up with your extremist free-market gibberish, its retarded and always has been.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/17/the-d … obamacare/
LOL, there were more people signed up on a petition website to tell Pringles that their can was too small for people to fit their hands into than there were people signing up for Obamacare.
LOL, there were more people signed up on a petition website to tell Pringles that their can was too small for people to fit their hands into than there were people signing up for Obamacare.
Quite a bit of apples to oranges going on there. Why would you compare websites that have been up for years to the initial fortnight of healthcare exchanges?
What does having sensible controls on who can make and sell food have to do with having an aristocracy?Jay wrote:
Yes, better to have a permanent aristocracy you elitist High Tory jackass.Dilbert_X wrote:
You know what would be great? If every backstreet crackhead could sell foodstuffs to the general populace with no checks or balances.
Please give up with your extremist free-market gibberish, its retarded and always has been.
If people can't plan their way through a little paperwork and mild regulation they probably can't plan a safe and reliable production system either.
Why can't 'Libertarians' ever come up with an intelligent or rational argument on anything?
Why does every argument descend into "If we have any govt at all we might as well be communist".
The argument that if a company kills a few people it will eventually be regulated by the market sounds more like Maoism than anything else, it doesn't matter if people die as long as the system perpetuates - Libertarianism Forever!
If you don't like living in a country with govt, taxes, regulation etc feel free to vote with your feet.
Oh wait, it makes for an efficient and productive economy, with a reasonable standard of living - and you do like money.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-10-19 18:54:05)
Fuck Israel
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/busin … wanted=allWASHINGTON — Inflation is widely reviled as a kind of tax on modern life, but as Federal Reserve policy makers prepare to meet this week, there is growing concern inside and outside the Fed that inflation is not rising fast enough.
Some economists say more inflation is just what the American economy needs to escape from a half-decade of sluggish growth and high unemployment.
The Fed has worked for decades to suppress inflation, but economists, including Janet Yellen, President Obama’s nominee to lead the Fed starting next year, have long argued that a little inflation is particularly valuable when the economy is weak. Rising prices help companies increase profits; rising wages help borrowers repay debts. Inflation also encourages people and businesses to borrow money and spend it more quickly.
The school board in Anchorage, Alaska, for example, is counting on inflation to keep a lid on teachers’ wages. Retailers including Costco and Walmart are hoping for higher inflation to increase profits. The federal government expects inflation to ease the burden of its debts. Yet by one measure, inflation rose at an annual pace of 1.2 percent in August, just above the lowest pace on record.
“Weighed against the political, social and economic risks of continued slow growth after a once-in-a-century financial crisis, a sustained burst of moderate inflation is not something to worry about,” Kenneth S. Rogoff, a Harvard economist, wrote recently. “It should be embraced.”
The Fed, in a break from its historic focus on suppressing inflation, has tried since the financial crisis to keep prices rising about 2 percent a year. Some Fed officials cite the slower pace of inflation as a reason, alongside reducing unemployment, to continue the central bank’s stimulus campaign.
Critics, including Professor Rogoff, say the Fed is being much too meek. He says that inflation should be pushed as high as 6 percent a year for a few years, a rate not seen since the early 1980s. And he compared the Fed’s caution to not swinging hard enough at a golf ball in a sand trap. “You need to hit it more firmly to get it up onto the grass,” he said. “As long as you’re in the sand trap, tapping it around is not enough.”
All this talk has prompted dismay among economists who see little benefit in inflation, and who warn that the Fed could lose control of prices as the economy recovers. As inflation accelerates, economists agree that any benefits can be quickly outstripped by the disruptive consequences of people rushing to spend money as soon as possible. Rising inflation also punishes people living on fixed incomes, and it discourages lending and long-term investments, imposing an enduring restraint on economic growth even if the inflation subsides.
“The spectacle of American central bankers trying to press the inflation rate higher in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis is virtually without precedent,” Alan Greenspan, the former Fed chairman, wrote in a new book, “The Map and the Territory.” He said the effort could end in double-digit inflation.
The current generation of policy makers came of age in the 1970s, when a higher tolerance for inflation did not deliver the promised benefits. Instead, Western economies fell into “stagflation” — rising prices, little growth.
Lately, however, the 1970s have seemed a less relevant cautionary tale than the fate of Japan, where prices have been in general decline since the late 1990s. Kariya, a popular instant dinner of curry in a pouch that cost 120 yen in 2000, can now be found for 68 yen, according to the blog Yen for Living.
This enduring deflation, which policy makers are now trying to end, kept the economy in retreat as people hesitated to make purchases, because prices were falling, or to borrow money, because the cost of repayment was rising.
“Low inflation is not good for the economy because very low inflation increases the risks of deflation, which can cause an economy to stagnate,” the Fed’s chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, a student of Japan’s deflation, said in July. “The evidence is that falling and low inflation can be very bad for an economy.”
There is evidence that low inflation is hurting the American economy.
“I’ve always said that a little inflation is good,” Richard A. Galanti, Costco’s chief financial officer, said in December 2008. He explained that the retailer is generally able to expand its profit margins and its sales when prices are rising. This month, Mr. Galanti told analysts that sluggish inflation was one reason the company had reported its slowest revenue growth since the recession.
Executives at Walmart, Rent-A-Center and Spartan Stores, a Michigan grocery chain, have similarly bemoaned the lack of inflation in recent months.
Many households also have reason to miss higher inflation. Historically, higher prices have led to higher wages, allowing borrowers to repay fixed debts like mortgage loans more easily. Over the five years before 2008, inflation raised prices 10 percent. Over the last five years, prices rose 8 percent. At the current pace, prices would rise 6 percent over the next five years.
“Let me just remind everyone that inflation falling below our target of 2 percent is costly,” Charles L. Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, said in a speech in Madison, Wis., this month. “If inflation is lower than expected, then debt financing is more burdensome than borrowers expected. Problems of debt overhang become that much worse for the economy.”
Inflation also helps workers find jobs, according. to an influential 1996 paper by the economist George Akerlof and two co-authors. Rising prices allows companies to increase profit margins quietly, by not raising wages, which in turn makes it profitable for companies to hire additional workers. Lower rates of inflation have the opposite effect, making it harder to find work.
Companies could cut wages, of course. But there is ample evidence that even during economic downturns, companies are reluctant to do so. Federal data show a large spike since the recession in the share of workers reporting no change in wages, but a much smaller increase in workers reporting wage cuts, according to an analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. There is, in practice, an invisible wall preventing pay cuts. The standard explanation is that employers fear that workers will be angry and therefore less productive.
“I want to be really careful about advocating for lower wages because I typically advocate for the other side of that equation,” said Jared Bernstein, a fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a former economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “But I think higher inflation would help.”
The Anchorage school board, facing pressure to cut costs because of a budget shortfall, began contract negotiations with its 3,500 teachers this year by proposing to freeze rather than cut wages. The final deal, completed last month, gives the teachers raises of 1 percent in each of the next three years.
Teachers, while not thrilled, described the deal as better than a pay cut. But it is likely, in effect, to cut the teachers’ pay. Economists expect prices to rise about 2 percent a year over the next three years, so even as the teachers take home more dollars, those dollars would have less value. Instead of a 1 percent annual increase, the teachers would fall behind by 1 percent a year.
“We feel like this contract still allows us to attract and retain quality educators,” said Ed Graff, the Anchorage school district superintendent.
In June, Caterpillar, the industrial equipment maker, persuaded several hundred workers at a Wisconsin factory to accept a six-year wage freeze. The company described the workers as overpaid, but it did not seek direct cuts.
The slow pace of inflation, however, minimizes the benefits. Seeking further savings, Caterpillar has since laid off almost half of the workers.
I can't believe that the NYT can peddle garbage like this on the front page and then pretend to care about 'the middle class'... ever. Inflation destroys savings by overwhelming the value of the money in the account. Inflation causes prices to rise, corporate profits to rise, and the value of every single workers wages to decrease.
They have printed this article because well, they still host Krugman, and because they're in New York City and the biggest beneficiaries of the Federal Reserves Quantitative Easing program have been people who live in New York City and work on Wall Street. The NYT knows who's paying the bills. They want Janet Yellen to keep the gravy train flowing, nevermind that the Fed has inflated a bubble far greater than the housing bubble ever was. Do you really think that the Dow reaching over 15k with negative earnings report after negative earnings report makes any sense?
I hope my liberal friends wake up at some point and realize how much their faith and trust in government has completely screwed them over.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You're saying you are outraged by media printing articles for vested interests? Wonders never cease!
They can print whatever they want. I just don't wanna hear anything about American liberals being pro-middle class ever again.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You've picked the wrong investments for a period of high inflation, its understandable you're pissed.
Fuck Israel
There haven't been any real liberals in power in the US for a long time.
The Republicans have moved so far right that Reagan, the patron saint of tax cuts for the rich , would never be nominated today.
This has pulled the Democrats for to the right as well. Don't forget that Clinton deregulated the US banks which worked out so well for everyone around the world.
The Republicans have moved so far right that Reagan, the patron saint of tax cuts for the rich , would never be nominated today.
This has pulled the Democrats for to the right as well. Don't forget that Clinton deregulated the US banks which worked out so well for everyone around the world.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
liberals? No. Progressives, yes. Both parties represent progressive ideals. Control, expansion of government, intervention in markets, security state etc. Progressives try to apply 'science' to government. Everything can be modeled, every problem can be solved, it just requires experts and charts. We can cure obesity if you only give us the power to regulate your every decision for you! Don't be blinded by the social conservatives that make so much noise in the Republican party, they are a very minor part (and the part that Democrats latch onto constantly for some reason), people like McCain, and Boehner, they went to the same colleges as the 'liberals' in our government. They have the same poli sci flunkies writing their legislation for them. They all want to 'help' us.Stubbee wrote:
There haven't been any real liberals in power in the US for a long time.
The Republicans have moved so far right that Reagan, the patron saint of tax cuts for the rich , would never be nominated today.
This has pulled the Democrats for to the right as well. Don't forget that Clinton deregulated the US banks which worked out so well for everyone around the world.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Don't discount the fiscal conservatives in the GOP. That want to shutdown the government to stop Obamacare.
They want the budget balanced.AussieReaper wrote:
Don't discount the fiscal conservatives in the GOP. That want to shutdown the government to stop Obamacare.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
reagan never balanced a budget. he also raised taxes when he realized his early cuts were keeping him from his star wars dream
pew pew
Really?RTHKI wrote:
reagan would be nominated if they could
They would nominate a guy who praised labor unions?
A guy who admitted to voting for FDR (*gasp*) 4 times (*OMG*)!
A man who legalized abortion in California?
Yeah he makes the list of Republican nominees all right in 2016.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
Love the Onion!! Better at news than FAUX NEWS
Last edited by Stubbee (2013-10-30 04:52:42)
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
No they don't, they want to be douchebags now and blow an even bigger hole in the budget when its their turn.Jay wrote:
They want the budget balanced.AussieReaper wrote:
Don't discount the fiscal conservatives in the GOP. That want to shutdown the government to stop Obamacare.
Fuck Israel
need to send your aunt to areas of drought
she could make millions
she could make millions
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
I knew Sochi was just a front. Now it's time for Russia's REAL Olympic events.
John Kerry on the situation developing between Russia and Ukraine:
I guess he forgot about Vietnam and Iraq.You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text.