Pentax/Camera Marketplace |
Pentax Items for Sale |
Wanted Pentax Items |
Pentax Deals |
Deal Finder & Price Alerts |
Price Watch Forum |
My Marketplace Activity |
List a New Item |
Get seller access! |
Pentax Stores |
Pentax Retailer Map |
Pentax Photos |
Sample Photo Search |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Today's Photos |
Free Photo Storage |
Member Photo Albums |
User Photo Gallery |
Exclusive Gallery |
Photo Community |
Photo Sharing Forum |
Critique Forum |
Official Photo Contests |
World Pentax Day Gallery |
World Pentax Day Photo Map |
Pentax Resources |
Articles and Tutorials |
Member-Submitted Articles |
Recommended Gear |
Firmware Update Guide |
Firmware Updates |
Pentax News |
Pentax Lens Databases |
Pentax Lens Reviews |
Pentax Lens Search |
Third-Party Lens Reviews |
Lens Compatibility |
Pentax Serial Number Database |
In-Depth Reviews |
SLR Lens Forum |
Sample Photo Archive |
Forum Discussions |
New Posts |
Today's Threads |
Photo Threads |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Recent Updates |
Today's Photos |
Quick Searches |
Unanswered Threads |
Recently Liked Posts |
Forum RSS Feed |
Go to Page... |
|
Search this Thread |
12-01-2012, 12:46 AM | #31 |
Oddly enough A somewhat related "simulation" of my theory.............. Quote: The US empirical data to date has displayed a similar pattern, though with a much sharper increase in bank reserves as shown in Figure 11. A very similar pattern to the empirical data is evident in the model when the US policy of increasing bank reserves is simulated (Figure 12). The simulation of Australian household-oriented policies generates a very different dynamic: reserves still rise dramatically during the credit crunch, but their increase is not further augmented by the policy intervention. Instead, firm and worker deposits rise substantially (see Figure 13), whereas they fall in the bank-oriented rescue. This higher level of money in circulation in the household-oriented policy intervention is the cause of the dramatic difference in the outcomes of the two policy interventions: the household-oriented approach has a far more immediate and substantial impact upon employment (Figure 14). Contrary to the expectations of President Obama and his mainstream economic advisers, there is far more “bang for your buck” out of a household rescue than out of a bank rescue. Of course you may not want employment.. It does usually increase the cost of labor................. There.. more "support" for my basic idea....though technically ..paying the banks via pass through payments to the mortgages kind of ties the 2 together doesn't it I know you don't accept Keens analysis.. not my problem.. Oh wait I guess it is my problem.. BTW: Just to eliminate any look of a vested iterest.. Our mortgages and properties are paid on time or paid for........ so I'm not asking for a hand out for me.. just a better world. Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-01-2012 at 12:52 AM. | |
12-01-2012, 09:19 AM | #32 |
Medicare pt D.. "us libs"?? bush tax cuts "us libs"? CDO's "us libs" ??? Deregulaing banking?? "Us libs" (well IF you want to pin that on Clinton.. go ahead.. if it will make you feel better to condemn deregulation ) Did "US LIBS" tell Moodys et. al.to rate junk as AAA did "us libs" tell Goldman Sacs to Fudge Greeces paper??? no you can't see the enemy.............it is not "us libs"............ Oh and some of "us libs" i.e myself.........believe this: Quote: Aside from reversing the trade deficit into a trade surplus, the only way to end the austerity death spiral is to increase the deficit, via federal spending increases and/or reduced taxes. Republicans want to maintain “low” taxes and to decrease federal spending. Democrats want to increase some taxes and to decrease some spending. Either approach will lead to an economic death spiral. Maybe I'm a neo-liberal.. cut taxes increase spending (in the CORRECT places) no conservs ar not THE "problem" either.. just REALLY BAD ideas... that favor the few.. and if "they" get the peons to squabble amongst themselves.. all the better.. Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-01-2012 at 09:27 AM. | |
12-01-2012, 10:15 AM | #33 |
Oh and by the way.. ask any good capitalist if they WANT a "debt crisis" ...you may be surprised w/ the answer..... Banks RUN on debt.. and if you "believe" thet "capitalism;' will control debt.. THAT is the biggest joke told today......... it's not how big your debt is but how much can you pay and are we going to make a profit.. using odds and worst case best case.. THAT my friend is Capitalism.. certainly not worried if you can pay it all.. only if you can pay enough to make a profit.. | |
12-01-2012, 10:47 AM | #34 |
No it wasn't "us libs" at all.............. Since Reagan there have been few "libs" in power.... Medicare pt D.. "us libs"?? bush tax cuts "us libs"? CDO's "us libs" ??? Deregulaing banking?? "Us libs" (well IF you want to pin that on Clinton.. go ahead.. if it will make you feel better to condemn deregulation ) Did "US LIBS" tell Moodys et. al.to rate junk as AAA did "us libs" tell Goldman Sacs to Fudge Greeces paper??? no you can't see the enemy.............it is not "us libs"............ Oh and some of "us libs" i.e myself.........believe this: –The arithmetic of austerity. It’s not a “fiscal cliff.” It’s a ?death spiral? Maybe I'm a neo-liberal.. cut taxes increase spending (in the CORRECT places) no conservs ar not THE "problem" either.. just REALLY BAD ideas... that favor the few.. and if "they" get the peons to squabble amongst themselves.. all the better.. deregulation actually started with Carter in 1980. APORN sued to get banks to make loans to people they knew couldn't pay it back. Bush tried 3 times get it? 3 TIMES to bring back regulation. Libs stopped it Barney Frank outright lied about the condition of Freddie and Fannie Reagan had a totally democratic house but he was able to work with them. House didn't turn Republican until 1996 with Newt athe Promise to America which led to the surplus everyone likes to credit Clinton with. If Clinton had a Democrat house we'd owe twice what we now do. Bush added the tax cuts to spur the economy after 9-11. We already have proof ala the "luxury" tax about what can and will happen by raising taxes on the "rich" | |
12-01-2012, 11:44 AM | #35 |
it's not a 50% "loss" except on paper.........banks would not lose money just not make as much as they would if th loan went "full term" considering millions might not even make it to the 50% mark.. It really isn't a bad idea. Quote: You ignore current history in favor of antique history..and try to tell people it is more factual than the observed reality... What is that statement "past performance is not indicative of future earnings.. I wonder if they go back to ROME... Quote: The "axiom" means you have to invest in things that will make you a return on that investment. It has nothing to do with mass spending or the Federal Reserve. Really just because you stamp "Fed printed money" does not change it all that much.. Plenty a businesses would disagree w/ you on multiple grounds.. Your mired in ideology.......... Quote: There is a fundamental problem with that argument. Greed has existed for as long as man has existed. Greed is not the "new" element to the economic equation. When you are looking for reasons for the bubble or the recession you need to look for things that have changed or new elements that have entered the equation. Like CDO's and CDS's....... Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-01-2012 at 12:02 PM. | |
12-01-2012, 11:47 AM | #36 |
Once again. deregulation actually started with Carter in 1980. APORN sued to get banks to make loans to people they knew couldn't pay it back. Bush tried 3 times get it? 3 TIMES to bring back regulation. Libs stopped it Barney Frank outright lied about the condition of Freddie and Fannie Reagan had a totally democratic house but he was able to work with them. House didn't turn Republican until 1996 with Newt athe Promise to America which led to the surplus everyone likes to credit Clinton with. If Clinton had a Democrat house we'd owe twice what we now do. Bush added the tax cuts to spur the economy after 9-11. We already have proof ala the "luxury" tax about what can and will happen by raising taxes on the "rich" Fre/FNM meme is garbage.. believe what you want....... Reagan.. the anti-capitalist???? The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan I dare you to call that a liberal site... Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-01-2012 at 12:16 PM. | |
12-01-2012, 11:49 AM | #37 |
so "lets cut income and increase spending (on TWO wars)".. and that makes SENSE to you???? Really???? see that actuallly makes sense to me EXCEPT.. and this is a BIG except.. the spending should have gone to help OUR COUNTRY.. not blow up another one.. lets cut income and increase spending sounds liberal.. lets cut income and increase spending lets cut income and increase spending lets cut income and increase spending and "luxury tax???? Quote: In the United States, luxury taxes have been levied frequently, especially in wartime, to raise revenue as well as to discourage the flow of essential resources into the production of items not related to the national effort. Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-01-2012 at 12:21 PM. | |
12-01-2012, 12:07 PM | #38 |
Last rehash of facts........ I'm done pounding my head against an ideological wall.......... Quote: The crisis can be attributed to a number of factors pervasive in both housing and credit markets, factors which emerged over a number of years. Causes proposed include the inability of homeowners to make their mortgage payments (due primarily to adjustable-rate mortgages resetting, borrowers overextending, predatory lending, and speculation), overbuilding during the boom period, risky mortgage products, increased power of mortgage originators, high personal and corporate debt levels, financial products that distributed and perhaps concealed the risk of mortgage default, bad monetary and housing policies, international trade imbalances, and inappropriate government regulation.[1][41][42][43][44] Three important catalysts of the subprime crisis were the influx of money from the private sector, the banks entering into the mortgage bond market and the predatory lending practices of the mortgage lenders, specifically the adjustable-rate mortgage, 2–28 loan, that mortgage lenders sold directly or indirectly via mortgage brokers.[45] On Wall Street and in the financial industry, moral hazard lay at the core of many of the causes.[46] In its "Declaration of the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy," dated 15 November 2008, leaders of the Group of 20 cited the following causes: During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions.[47] During May 2010, Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker separately described questionable assumptions or judgments underlying the U.S. financial and economic system that contributed to the crisis. These assumptions included: 1) Housing prices would not fall dramatically;[48] 2) Free and open financial markets supported by sophisticated financial engineering would most effectively support market efficiency and stability, directing funds to the most profitable and productive uses; 3) Concepts embedded in mathematics and physics could be directly adapted to markets, in the form of various financial models used to evaluate credit risk; 4) Economic imbalances, such as large trade deficits and low savings rates indicative of over-consumption, were sustainable; and 5) Stronger regulation of the shadow banking system and derivatives markets was not needed.[49] The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“[5 Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-01-2012 at 12:17 PM. | |
12-01-2012, 12:25 PM | #39 |
Quote: Free market Capitalism does control debt. The article that you posted talks about Greenspan artificially holding rates below 1% and the shift in investment that that caused. IF rates were free to move up as demand rose you would not have seen the bubble. We would not be in a credit crisis without the compounding of the problem through WS and their ilk.. we would not have much of a problem either..... your black and white thinking doesn't account for scale........ Nor as I stated earlier.. giving a man a gun does not allow him to shoot his neighbor.. I love how some people moralize (people shouldn't have bougt houses they couldn't afford) and then conveniently take it out when it suits (issueing bad paper, garbage rating and buying CDO's ect is just "business").... | |
12-01-2012, 12:46 PM | #40 |
And you are lost in fantasy. If we had people capable of doing what you want without disastrous effects we would not be in this position to begin with. | |
12-01-2012, 01:01 PM | #41 |
HR2990 C. Roche's disagreement w/ MMT hinges on that very premise "operational reality vs. the reality of the way it should operate.......... Changing the playing field w/ HR2990 pretty much changes the whole game. From my perspective one must first get the concept down and accepted before tacking the reality.. the clues are there.. w/ every statement like "cutting gov. spending will cause a recession"... 'Raising taxes will cause a recession" i am also aware (as many historically have been) of the difficulty of changing the present to match facts.... Every worthy pursuit starts as someones "fantasy".. which is completely different from ignoring reality. Now you are just talking to talk with out saying anything. Nice vague terms like "handle-able" "elements", and "greed". Apparently it was not handleable for the people at the FED or in DC, because if it was we would not be in this mess. The fact that they were not competent enough to handle it the first time means they probably aren't competent enough to make the right decision now. They would not be competent enough to implement a "debt jubilee" program without destroying what is left of the economy and the value of the dollar. If we had people capable of doing what you want without disastrous effects we would not be in this position to begin with. or 2)don't believe in enough is a recipe for failure.. granted.. Between the 2 of us.. who do you think has more faith in their fellow man????? "Arrgghhh let ye gods of commerce dictate the direction of the winds.. it is always good"..... Solving the Paradox of Monetary Profits — Economics E-Journal There must be a major flaw in this.. point it out........... succinctly... and please point to where I said ANYONE in DC (or the Fed) is "capable"????? I'm pretty sure that, despite quoting Krugman" who as I already said is only marginally valid.. I don't have much faith in DC. mostly There "interest" ie. loyalties are NOT to the 'people" though they may believe they are... and the few .. like Kuchinic.. marginalized (opposite coin of Paul) nor considered newsworthy.. (You never did comment on HR2990, not worth your intellect???) Quote: To create a full employment economy as a matter of national economic defense; to provide for public investment in capital infrastructure; to provide for reducing the cost of public investment; to retire public debt; to stabilize the Social Security retirement system; to restore the authority of Congress to create and regulate money, modernize and provide stability for the monetary system of the United States; and for other public purposes This does not de-facto disqualify them from saying "important stuff"... My fight is loooooooonnnnnnnnnnnggggg but goes on.. you may not like to believe it but you are just a status-quo supporter........ no more no less I see the status -quo as an immense failure.. and the problems arose in the status quo.. There was no "outside the box" thinking.. R and D's alike wanted public debt..so did commerce.. so did global industry.. and they will do it again.. maybe this time w/ their own money.. that they create.. (something odd sounding about that.. ) Now tell me how would YOU increase the value of money??? Maybe I missed it but you seem to have offered NO solutions.. only criticism..... Oh and to put it bluntly.. yes I'd prefer a purge of DC.......... bring in some smart people.. "richest country ever in existence UNDER PERFORMING on a massive scale.. a travesty to human thought............ Quote: Nearly 14,000,000 Americans are currently 7 unemployed, another 12,000,000 estimated Ameri8 cans are underemployed, wages are stagnant and 9 millions of Americans are being asked to take pay 10 cuts. 11 (2) Over 43,000,000 Americans live below the 12 poverty line, 49,000,000 of Americans go to bed 13 hungry at night, and an estimated 3,000,000 Ameri14 cans are homeless. 15......ect.............. Or is just "the way it should be" for the good of the economy you understand............ Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-01-2012 at 01:24 PM. | |
12-03-2012, 10:46 AM | #42 |
My "gut" feeling tells me most of the mass media is left leaning. The facts bear that out. Most people can't tell news from entertainment. It's a "gut" feeling I have. Again facts seem to verify that. Quote: Go ahead fill me in on your own answer........... Is it like the do-nothing Repub. answer to health care?? | |
|
Bookmarks |
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
actions, approaches, deficits, evidence, models, people, views |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentax LXd / Sony A99 - better than D600 - which is already very very good. | spade111 | Photographic Industry and Professionals | 12 | 09-30-2012 04:29 PM |
Very very weird Pentax ME Super light meter readings, please help! | Carlota_Nonnumquam | Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras | 7 | 03-18-2012 06:34 PM |
Very happy to have my new pentax | oahutodd | Pentax DSLR Discussion | 8 | 02-07-2011 03:57 AM |
Newbie to Pentax - K20D - Very, very serioius problem.... | Javaslinger | Pentax DSLR Discussion | 19 | 03-04-2009 01:50 PM |
Very, Very, Very Large Format Camera Available | shutterdrone | General Talk | 22 | 03-22-2008 10:43 AM |