The Economy

[Beebz]

Maybe this will shut Limbaugh up for a while:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...topnews&sub=AR

[AJF_41]

doubt it.

[Beebz]

Originally Posted by AJF_41

doubt it.

Yeah, me too.

Doubt this will come up, either:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081105864.html

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.

New data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation show that households earning more than $1 million a year would reap nearly $31 billion in tax breaks under the GOP plan in 2011, for an average tax cut per household of about $100,000.

Republicans are going to have a very, very hard time making the case that these need to be passed.

[zdaddy]

Reading Matt Taibbi articles makes me sick about the evil stooges that we cumpuslively elect to powerful positions.

[Nick@Night]

Originally Posted by bbianca1982

Yeah, me too.

Doubt this will come up, either:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081105864.html



Republicans are going to have a very, very hard time making the case that these need to be passed.

Their tax cut would be over twice what I even make in salary in a year? Boo.

[dmbinchicago]

Originally Posted by ShotgunDMB

People read Matt Taibbi? :ugh He's a left wing nutter. And he's opposed to both parties and also corporations. So edgy.

Obviously you don't read his work, and I knew you'd have a stupid comment like that. I don't care what you think of him personally, he makes good points and shows the hypocrisy and cynicism in Washington better than anyone else I've read. Actually, your uninformed opinion of his work is a pretty good example of how the people who run Washington are able to marginalize people who actually expose their BS.

[seekupchuck]

Originally Posted by dmbinchicago

Obviously you don't read his work, and I knew you'd have a stupid comment like that. I don't care what you think of him personally, he makes good points and shows the hypocrisy and cynicism in Washington better than anyone else I've read. Actually, your uninformed opinion of his work is a pretty good example of how the people who run Washington are able to marginalize people who actually expose their BS.

yyyyyyepp:thumbsup

[AJF_41]

Originally Posted by dmbinchicago

Obviously you don't read his work, and I knew you'd have a stupid comment like that. I don't care what you think of him personally, he makes good points and shows the hypocrisy and cynicism in Washington better than anyone else I've read. Actually, your uninformed opinion of his work is a pretty good example of how the people who run Washington are able to marginalize people who actually expose their BS.

ziiiingg!

[dmbinchicago]

Didn't mean to be so angry in my response - I really do think that if Shotgun read Taibbi's work he would enjoy it and agree with most of it. It just makes me mad when someone dismisses an issue based on their preconceived notion of the messenger. I don't care if Rush Limbaugh wrote the article - if he made the same points as Taibbi and criticized all sides equally, I would praise it just the same.

Everyone from Goldman Sachs to Bill Clinton to George Bush to Chris Dodd is responsible for this mess, and it just happens that Taibbi is one of the few people who say so without pulling punches on any individual or political party. It's a shame if that kind of honesty is seen as an attempt to be "edgy". It's what journalism should be. Plus he drops a few f-bombs and makes fun of people, as a bonus.

[seekupchuck]

Originally Posted by dmbinchicago

Didn't mean to be so angry in my response - I really do think that if Shotgun read Taibbi's work he would enjoy it and agree with most of it. It just makes me mad when someone dismisses an issue based on their preconceived notion of the messenger. I don't care if Rush Limbaugh wrote the article - if he made the same points as Taibbi and criticized all sides equally, I would praise it just the same.

Everyone from Goldman Sachs to Bill Clinton to George Bush to Chris Dodd is responsible for this mess, and it just happens that Taibbi is one of the few people who say so without pulling punches on any individual or political party. It's a shame if that kind of honesty is seen as an attempt to be "edgy". It's what journalism should be. Plus he drops a few f-bombs and makes fun of people, as a bonus.

You have to understand... to anyone that has invested so much of their identity into partisan politics and the system in general, as Shotty has, it is nearly impossible to break free to uninhibited thought.

[seekupchuck]

:lolI read my own post above and my initial reaction was.."awww, that's mean"

[rconverse]

Surprise, surprise.

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2..._share_twitter

[robthomas]

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

Well, Ford has certainly benefited greatly - though they didn't actually take any money. And GM seems to be on the right path, though we'll know more after the IPO. At this point, I'd say the Auto bailout was definitely the right thing for the economy.

Ford isn't GM. Ford didn't need money from the gov't like GM & Chrysler b/c there were a much better run corporation. I said GM and Chrysler were companies that deserved to fail b/c they were run like shit. I never disagreed that it would have been a bad time to let them fail.

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

To the bolded - Not necessarily - this would be double counting. You can only attribute the increase to either G or I or some combo of the two

For example, say G caused I to increase by 10.
Let's also assume the change in G caused a decrease of 4 in output in other parts of private industry due to the crowding out effect and other negative effects from increases in gov't spending.

How do I know that Taylor doesn't contribute 10 to I and -4 to G (instead of a net 6 to G and 0 to I)

It wouldn't be double counting at all - I'm talking about regression analysis. Double counting doesn't come into play here at all. Through simple regression, the effect of G on I would be clear. There is a clear and simple difference between a dependent and independent variable.

[MDPrompter]

Originally Posted by robthomas

Ford isn't GM. Ford didn't need money from the gov't like GM & Chrysler b/c there were a much better run corporation. I said GM and Chrysler were companies that deserved to fail b/c they were run like shit. I never disagreed that it would have been a bad time to let them fail.



It wouldn't be double counting at all - I'm talking about regression analysis. Double counting doesn't come into play here at all. Through simple regression, the effect of G on I would be clear. There is a clear and simple difference between a dependent and independent variable.

To the first...so your stance is that GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to fail even though it would have further crushed our economy?

To the second, you are avoiding the question. You act like "regression" is some magical term...it's not dude. Zandi uses regressions in his model too. The result of the regression is totally dependent upon how you set up the problem. So please, just answer the question or don't respond at all.

[MDPrompter]

Also - ford was not in good shape. If GM and Chrysler would have failed, there's a pretty good chance Ford would have as well.

[ShotgunDMB]

Originally Posted by bbianca1982

Yeah, me too.

Doubt this will come up, either:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081105864.html



Republicans are going to have a very, very hard time making the case that these need to be passed.

Good. I like millionaires. Don't know many crackhead welfare recipients who create jobs and wealth.

[robthomas]

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

To the first...so your stance is that GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to fail even though it would have further crushed our economy?

I never said that. I said that saving the two was nothing but a postponement of the inevitable. Also, Ford was in good shape considering they weren't bankrupt and failing like the other two.

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

To the second, you are avoiding the question. You act like "regression" is some magical term...it's not dude. Zandi uses regressions in his model too. The result of the regression is totally dependent upon how you set up the problem. So please, just answer the question or don't respond at all.

I haven't avoid any question. You said some bullshit about double counting and you are wrong, which is what i said. What are you talking about by saying that I'm acting like regression analysis is magical? I'm not doing that at all. You need to go read the paper. The Blinder and Zandi working paper is about running policies through a model and he reports what the model says will happen. IT DOES NOT LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DATA. The Blinder and Zandi paper is a theory based paper, it is not empirical. Taylor is using empirical data in his presentation to congress.

[MDPrompter]

Buffett's inflation warning
Back in August 2009, Buffett wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times warning investors that lawmakers will be tempted to simply let the Fed print away the exploding national debt instead of making hard choices, i.e., some combination of raising taxes and reducing government spending.

In this context, Buffett's actions make perfect sense for two reasons:


Sure, the immediate risk we face is deflation, but the longer-term risk is, without a doubt, inflation. In that regard, Buffett isn't so much taking a contrarian view as he is taking the long-term view, which is exactly the perspective he has always adopted in his business and investment decision-making.


Within a system as complex as the national economy, Buffett knows that inflation doesn't pop up on appointment; the timing is completely unpredictable, and it could happen faster than the market currently anticipates.

[MDPrompter]

Originally Posted by robthomas

I never said that. I said that saving the two was nothing but a postponement of the inevitable. Also, Ford was in good shape considering they weren't bankrupt and failing like the other two.

GM's last two quarters beg to differ. You're using theory...not looking at the empirical evidence. ;)

Originally Posted by robthomas

I haven't avoid any question. You said some bullshit about double counting and you are wrong, which is what i said. What are you talking about by saying that I'm acting like regression analysis is magical? I'm not doing that at all. You need to go read the paper. The Blinder and Zandi working paper is about running policies through a model and he reports what the model says will happen. IT DOES NOT LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DATA. The Blinder and Zandi paper is a theory based paper, it is not empirical. Taylor is using empirical data in his presentation to congress.

:lol yes - he's looking at his own interpretation of data. You bought into his spin on the data. There is no data that states gov't spending had a negative impact on real GDP. That's Taylor's interpretation of actual data. And that's fine, my only question was did he account for the relationship between gov't stimulus and increased private sector investment...and you have been avoiding that question.

[robthomas]

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

Buffett's inflation warning
Back in August 2009, Buffett wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times warning investors that lawmakers will be tempted to simply let the Fed print away the exploding national debt instead of making hard choices, i.e., some combination of raising taxes and reducing government spending.

In this context, Buffett's actions make perfect sense for two reasons:


Sure, the immediate risk we face is deflation, but the longer-term risk is, without a doubt, inflation. In that regard, Buffett isn't so much taking a contrarian view as he is taking the long-term view, which is exactly the perspective he has always adopted in his business and investment decision-making.


Within a system as complex as the national economy, Buffett knows that inflation doesn't pop up on appointment; the timing is completely unpredictable, and it could happen faster than the market currently anticipates.

You're a fan of Yahoo Finance i presume?

I agree with Buffett in the article that the guys @ Yahoo finance are referring to. Buffett is mainly saying that if congress doesn't so anything about the debt-to-GDP ratio, the country will be in bad shape. Stop spending.

[MDPrompter]

And Ford lost almost $15B...that's Billion....in 2008. Yeah - they were in great shape.

[MDPrompter]

Originally Posted by robthomas

You're a fan of Yahoo Finance i presume?

I agree with Buffett in the article that the guys @ Yahoo finance are referring to. Buffett is mainly saying that if congress doesn't so anything about the debt-to-GDP ratio, the country will be in bad shape. Stop spending.

Yeah - that's kind of what he's saying...over the long hall...and I agree. No one in washington has the spine to make touch choices - unfortunately.

I do like Yahoo Finance....they always seem to have the most up-to-date financial news.

[robthomas]

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

GM's last two quarters beg to differ. You're using theory...not looking at the empirical evidence. ;)

No, i'm not using theory. Not at all. What does the last 2 quarters have to do with what happened? They were BANKRUPT. Period. It's a fact.

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

:lol yes - he's looking at his own interpretation of data. You bought into his spin on the data. There is no data that states gov't spending had a negative impact on real GDP. That's Taylor's interpretation of actual data. And that's fine, my only question was did he account for the relationship between gov't stimulus and increased private sector investment...and you have been avoiding that question.

Man, you just don't get it. Stop wasting your time using emoticons and go read the Blinder&Zandi paper or what Taylor thinks is wrong with it: "First, I do not think the paper tells us anything about the impact of these policies. It simply runs the policies through a model (Zandi’s model) and reports what the model says would happen. It does not look at what actually happened, and it does not look at other models, only Zandi’s own model. Zandi is not using empirical data. Taylor is."

I haven't avoid any question. There is no doubt in my mind he for that. He is a leading economist. You're questioning the most simple and logical stuff. If an increase in I results in an increase in GDP, the coefficient will be positive. If an increase in G results in an increase in GDP, the coefficient will be positive. The increase of I is highly correlated to the increase in output. G shows little to no correlation. Again, if I is shown to be related to output, and G is causing I to increase, it would show up in the data and be easily detectable.

[robthomas]

Originally Posted by robthomas

Man, you just don't get it. Stop wasting your time using emoticons and go read the Blinder&Zandi paper or what Taylor thinks is wrong with it: "First, I do not think the paper tells us anything about the impact of these policies. It simply runs the policies through a model (Zandi’s model) and reports what the model says would happen. It does not look at what actually happened, and it does not look at other models, only Zandi’s own model." Zandi is not using empirical data. Taylor is.

I haven't avoid any question. There is no doubt in my mind he accounted for that. He is a leading economist. You're questioning the most simple and logical stuff. If an increase in I results in an increase in GDP, the coefficient will be positive. If an increase in G results in an increase in GDP, the coefficient will be positive. The increase of I is highly correlated to the increase in output. G shows little to no correlation. Again, if I is shown to be related to output, and G is causing I to increase, it would show up in the data and be easily detectable.

Fixed the quote in the top paragraph

[seekupchuck]

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

Buffett's inflation warning
Back in August 2009, Buffett wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times warning investors that lawmakers will be tempted to simply let the Fed print away the exploding national debt instead of making hard choices, i.e., some combination of raising taxes and reducing government spending.

In this context, Buffett's actions make perfect sense for two reasons:


Sure, the immediate risk we face is deflation, but the longer-term risk is, without a doubt, inflation. In that regard, Buffett isn't so much taking a contrarian view as he is taking the long-term view, which is exactly the perspective he has always adopted in his business and investment decision-making.


Within a system as complex as the national economy, Buffett knows that inflation doesn't pop up on appointment; the timing is completely unpredictable, and it could happen faster than the market currently anticipates.

Buffett, like Schiff dont know shit from shinola on this inflation stuff. In Bernanke we trust!

Originally Posted by robthomas

You're a fan of Yahoo Finance i presume?

I agree with Buffett in the article that the guys @ Yahoo finance are referring to. Buffett is mainly saying that if congress doesn't so anything about the debt-to-GDP ratio, the country will be in bad shape. Stop spending.

Now you are doing what you accused me of doing with Schiff:lol

[robthomas]

Originally Posted by seekupchuck

Buffett, like Schiff dont know shit from shinola on this inflation stuff. In Bernanke we trust!



Now you are doing what you accused me of doing with Schiff:lol

Wait, what? What am i doing?

[zajDmB1]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rea...0?pagenumber=1

Interesting.

[AJF_41]

reagan is a god.

amirite?

[dmbfan1000]

Originally Posted by bbianca1982

Fair point, but I should mention that many employers have cut overtime or made salaried workers put in more time.

Easy to say hard as fuck to prove.

[rconverse]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000....html?mod=e2tw

Just 61% of the adult population, age 20 or over, has any kind of job right now.

Staggering.