Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 20, 2014, 09:23:08 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83732 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Political Economics
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] Print
Author Topic: Political Economics  (Read 224047 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #1550 on: October 15, 2014, 02:30:44 AM »

This is an important piece IMHO.  Sorry I can't cut and paste well from my phone.
http://m.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/278857171.html?section=opinion

Related: https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/two-pictures-that-perfectly-capture-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-welfare-state/
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 12:03:43 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #1551 on: October 22, 2014, 07:11:22 AM »

I really have to question if it has made health care any better since I am in that field.  So far it is no more than a game of numbers and I honestly don't believe much of what I read anymore.   Too many agendas.

This could go under technology but I thought this thread might be the most fitting place:

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21621237-digital-revolution-has-yet-fulfil-its-promise-higher-productivity-and-better
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #1552 on: November 10, 2014, 09:55:01 AM »

One more political economic lesson from the cartoon front:

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #1553 on: December 07, 2014, 12:38:16 PM »

Famous people caught reading the forum?  This has already been widely reported here.  No one is saying which direction the cause and effect arrow is pointing...

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120414-729164-income-inequality-is-greatest-in-the-most-liberal-states.htm

Income Inequality Is Greatest In the Most Liberal States

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #1554 on: December 10, 2014, 11:35:54 PM »

Refuting liberals is hard work - because their lips just keep moving.

Here is "Forward Progressives" pushing the idea that 5 charts demonstrate what a great economic success the Obama administration has been:
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/5-charts-proving-how-successful-president-obama-been/

(Read progressives as always in quotes.)

Unsurprisingly, there are flies in their ointment.

1.  Progressives compare minor upward results with the depths of the crash (that they caused), not with previously successful periods.

2.  They judge job growth as positive even when most of it was below the level required to break even.

3.  They call it unemployment falling when the real change is a rapidly declining workforce participation rate.  There are more people not working now than ever before.  Even with funny math, the stated unemployment rate is worse than when they took majority power in Washington.

4.  Progressives claim stock gains with the blatant hypocrisy that they would most certainly be criticizing these gains if it was someone else's policies sent the financial gains only to the wealthiest among us.  The rich and powerful gained while the middle declined.  Startup under Obama were like a Neal Young song; they "start off real slow and then fizzle out altogether".

5.  Progressives chart the highest debt added in history to look like a trend line down when in fact their own budgets and forecasts have it going right back up.

6.  Lastly, how do you say Chutzpah?  From the author of Audacity, they claim oil production in the US is way up under Obama!  Yes it is!  Is there one person smart enough to vote that doesn't know that Obama fought against oil production at every turn?

Take a close look at a liberal viewpoint and most often you will find a lie or deception in the first substantive point.  And here is no exception.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31833


« Reply #1555 on: Today at 11:14:05 AM »

Friday, December 19, 2014
Jaguar Inflation -- A Layman's Explanation of Government Intervention
By Robert Prechter, CMT

I am tired of hearing people insist that the Fed can expand credit all it wants. Sometimes an analogy clarifies a subject, so let's try one.

It may sound crazy, but suppose the government were to decide that the health of the nation depends upon producing Jaguar automobiles and providing them to as many people as possible. To facilitate that goal, it begins operating Jaguar plants all over the country, subsidizing production with tax money. To everyon'ís delight, it offers these luxury cars for sale at 50 percent off the old price. People flock to the showrooms and buy. Later, sales slow down, so the government cuts the price in half again. More people rush in and buy.

Sales again slow, so it lowers the price to $900 each. People return to the stores to buy two or three, or half a dozen. Why not? Look how cheap they are! Buyers give Jaguars to their kids and park an extra one on the lawn.

Finally, the country is awash in Jaguars. Alas, sales slow again, and the government panics. It must move more Jaguars, or, according to its theory -- ironically now made fact -- the economy will recede. People are working three days a week just to pay their taxes so the government can keep producing more Jaguars. If Jaguars stop moving, the economy will stop. So the government begins giving Jaguars away. A few more cars move out of the showrooms, but then it ends. Nobody wants any more Jaguars. They don't care if they're free. They can't find a use for them. Production of Jaguars ceases. It takes years to work through the overhanging supply of Jaguars. Tax collections collapse, the factories close, and unemployment soars. The economy is wrecked. People can't afford to buy gasoline, so many of the Jaguars rust away to worthlessness. The number of Jaguars -- at best -- returns to the level it was before the program began.

The same thing can happen with credit.

It may sound crazy, but suppose the government were to decide that the health of the nation depends upon producing credit and providing it to as many people as possible. To facilitate that goal, it begins operating credit-production plants all over the country, called Federal Reserve Banks. To everyone's delight, these banks offer the credit for sale at below market rates. People flock to the banks and buy. Later, sales slow down, so the banks cut the price again. More people rush in and buy. Sales again slow, so they lower the price to one percent. People return to the banks to buy even more credit. Why not? Look how cheap it is! Borrowers use credit to buy houses, boats and an extra Jaguar to park out on the lawn. Finally, the country is awash in credit.

Alas, sales slow again, and the banks panic. They must move more credit, or, according to its theory -- ironically now made fact -- the economy will recede. People are working three days a week just to pay the interest on their debt to the banks so the banks can keep offering more credit. If credit stops moving, the economy will stop. So the banks begin giving credit away, at zero percent interest. A few more loans move through the tellers' windows, but then it ends. Nobody wants any more credit. They don't care if it's free. They can't find a use for it. Production of credit ceases. It takes years to work through the overhanging supply of credit. Interest payments collapse, banks close, and unemployment soars. The economy is wrecked. People can't afford to pay interest on their debts, so many bonds deteriorate to worthlessness. The value of credit -- at best -- returns to the level it was before the program began.

See how it works?

Is the analogy perfect? No. The idea of pushing credit on people is far more dangerous than the idea of pushing Jaguars on them. In the credit scenario, debtors and even most creditors lose everything in the end. In the Jaguar scenario, at least everyone ends up with a garage full of cars. Of course, the Jaguar scenario is impossible, because the government can't produce value. It can, however, reduce values. A government that imposes a central bank monopoly, for example, can reduce the incremental value of credit. A monopoly credit system also allows for fraud and theft on a far bigger scale. Instead of government appropriating citizens' labor openly by having them produce cars, a monopoly banking system does so clandestinely by stealing stored labor from citizens' bank accounts by inflating the supply of credit, thereby reducing the value of their savings.
I hate to challenge mainstream 20th century macroeconomic theory, but the idea that a growing economy needs easy credit is a false theory. Credit should be supplied by the free market, in which case it will almost always be offered intelligently, primarily to producers, not consumers. Would lower levels of credit availability mean that fewer people would own a house or a car? Quite the opposite. Only the timeline would be different.

Initially it would take a few years longer for the same number of people to own houses and cars -- actually own them, not rent them from banks. Because banks would not be appropriating so much of everyone's labor and wealth, the economy would grow much faster. Eventually, the extent of home and car ownership -- actualownership -- would eclipse that in an easy-credit society. Moreover, people would keep their homes and cars because banks would not be foreclosing on them. As a bonus, there would be no devastating across-the-board collapse of the banking system, which, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, is inevitable under a central bank's fiat-credit monopoly.
Jaguars, anyone?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!