Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-01-2012, 12:46 AM   #31
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
Oddly enough A somewhat related "simulation" of my theory..............
QuoteQuote:
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.
Solving the Paradox of Monetary Profits — Economics E-Journal

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
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
You libs pretty much put us in the spot we're in. So thank you very much. And the evidence that you choose to ignore has been posted by others recently and myself back in 2009.
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:

QuoteQuote:
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.
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/the-arithmetic-of-austerity-...-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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,617
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Capitalism EVERYTHING is negotiable.. contracts are not written on stone tablets..nor passed down by deities..
The "debt crisis" fueled mega profits.. you are arguing against capitalism...
People holding mortgages are holding real property as collateral. They can take the property and be better off than taking the 50% loss you are talking about. Yes there are some markets like Detroit and Las Vegas where a 50% loss is probably a good deal, but in most markets a 50% loss is not going to be negotiated, and if forced it would still trigger the CDO default.

QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
And to be honest it is up to the "board maker" i.e Fed to keep the rules up (you know beholden to "the people" not just 1% of the people).. Capitalism is amoral and beholden to no one but themselves.. Conserv. or Lib.. you will get no argument at the base level..
The FED does not enforce contract law which is what we are talking about.

QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
no each recession is not a "little different".. But even if so.. nobody's "fixed" anything yet.. nor apparently plans to.. too much profit involved... too much greed got us here.. not debt...per se..
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.


QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
how do you make the money more valuable for society in general?? tie it to gold?? We know that is wrong..
floating exchanges are just that floating and for good reasons..
Really? You have to ask this? It has nothing to do with gold. The FED controls the price and supply of money. Allowing prices to fall after a bubble offsets the contraction in economic activity. What the Fed chose to do was "stabilize" (keep prices artificially high) prices while the economy was contracting. This helps Wall St, but crushes those in the middle class and below.


QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
you know it's funny how "your guys" are always cutting on Japan.. yet the Yen remains strong and THAT is more of a problem to them than "debasement" or inflation..
Then the answer is the debt is internally financed.. well that only goes so far..
Nobody considers Japan's lost decade a good thing. Inflation is actually their biggest fear which is why they keep their Yen so strong. They have no choice. With Japan's debt load a 2% rise in inflation and the interest on the debt would be more than all of the governments annual revenue. You are correct in that the vast majority of their debt is owned by the Japanese, but this also means that inflation wipes out their own investments of their own population. You can use inflation to destroy debt if most of it is held by foreigners and not financially ruin your own population. But when the majority of your government debt is held by your own population, then inflation is a very bad thing.

QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
You ignore current history in favor of antique history..and try to tell people it is more factual than the observed reality...
LOL....

QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
WHAT IS that axiom of business" You need to spend money to make money" How easily we forget it because we attach FED to it...
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
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..
If the Fed Funds Rate was free to rise and fall with the demand we would not be in this mess. Yes... 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. There are a whole chain of events involved, and plenty of people in finance and mortgages that need to be in jail, but it starts with the Federal Reserve.
12-01-2012, 10:47 AM   #34
Senior Member
graphicgr8s's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 229
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
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..
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"

12-01-2012, 11:44 AM   #35
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
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.

QuoteQuote:
You ignore current history in favor of antique history..and try to tell people it is more factual than the observed reality...
Guess I should have added "current reality".... thought that was obvious though...........

What is that statement "past performance is not indicative of future earnings.. I wonder if they go back to ROME...


QuoteQuote:
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.
that is your biggest mistake.. Can you .. with a straight face.. tell me military spending does not add revenue to the Fed??? Are they all tax exempt including wages..

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..........
QuoteQuote:
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.......
even considering the mortgage bubble in a vacuum.. It was "handleable" until the newe lements took it down.. The greeed for these products started a chain of unaccountability...

Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-01-2012 at 12:02 PM.
12-01-2012, 11:47 AM   #36
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
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"
Whatever .. you can't see it.. Call it conservative blindness.. The "bush" too little too late meme is garbge
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
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
Bush added the tax cuts to spur the economy after 9-11.
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????

QuoteQuote:
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.
Put that way.. sounds patriotic doesn't it...............


Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-01-2012 at 12:21 PM.
12-01-2012, 12:07 PM   #38
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
Last rehash of facts........ I'm done pounding my head against an ideological wall..........

QuoteQuote:
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
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteQuote:
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,617
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Guess I should have added "current reality".... thought that was obvious though...........
Current reality is a problem for your reality.

QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
that is your biggest mistake.. Can you .. with a straight face.. tell me military spending does not add revenue to the Fed??? Are they all tax exempt including wages..
You keep talking as though you think the FED and the Treasury are the same thing. They are not and that is a very important fact of the current reality.

QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Your mired in ideology..........
And you are lost in fantasy.


QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
even considering the mortgage bubble in a vacuum.. It was "handleable" until the newe lements took it down.. The greeed for these products started a chain of unaccountability...
Now you are just talking to talk with out saying anything. Nice vague terms like "handleable" "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.
12-01-2012, 01:01 PM   #41
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Current reality is a problem for your reality.
You keep talking as though you think the FED and the Treasury are the same thing. They are not and that is a very important fact of the current reality.
I already stated my belief in the current system is WRONG and unconstitutional..
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....
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
And you are lost in fantasy.
Every worthy pursuit starts as someones "fantasy".. which is completely different from ignoring reality.
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
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.
Having people regulate a system that either 1)they really don't understand
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???)
QuoteQuote:
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
got my attention......

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............

QuoteQuote:
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..............
Go ahead fill me in on your own answer........... Is it like the do-nothing Repub. answer to health care??

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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 794
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Yes.. but is only because both intellectually and "gut feeling" tells me they are more "right".. I did quote Breibart(?) , Frum, and Fox from time to time.. When something makes sense..

Well like a broken clock even the liberal media is right on occasion. The broken clock at least is right 2 times a day.

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.

QuoteQuote:
Go ahead fill me in on your own answer........... Is it like the do-nothing Repub. answer to health care??
Actually many good plans have come from the Republicans. Liberals of course have shot them down.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
actions, approaches, deficits, evidence, models, people, views
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:50 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top