What I love is how people still rely on the stock market as an indicator of how we are doing economically. Hey, the stock market is soaring, I must be doing better...right?
I'll be honest, I wish there was an outspoken economist on the Austrian side like Krugman. I think I pretty much disagree with Krugman on most issues, but I'll give him credit for engaging in the policy debate.... that's rare for economists.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'll be honest, I wish there was an outspoken economist on the Austrian side like Krugman. I think I pretty much disagree with Krugman on most issues, but I'll give him credit for engaging in the policy debate.... that's rare for economists.
Yup. For now. That's as good as we can get. And I love RP, but I don't think he's quite as articulate as he once was. His ideas are right on. But, unfortunately, in these cross-fire type situations, you need to be as articulate as possible. That's not saying Krugman is articulate either.... he stutters often, but I always think that's because he knows his policy suggestions are misguided and he may have trouble lying to people's faces.
What I love is how people still rely on the stock market as an indicator of how we are doing economically. Hey, the stock market is soaring, I must be doing better...right?
I totally "get" that the DJA is not a good indicator of how most people are doing. That said, I worked a lot of years, invested some money and was watching my nest egg slip away in late 2008. For what it's worth, I'm one non-rich guy who is very glad the DJA came back....
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
any of you guys read krugman's article on bernanke in the times?
Like Inlet, I SHRUG\WINCE at even the thought of this.
I'm not sure I can bring myself to read it.
It seems so ridiculous on the face.
PS. whomever said it, it is NOT rare for KRUGMAN to weigh in on a policy debate.
It's like his privately assigned REAL job ... to engage the PUBLIC in a policy debate, weighted to the side of what the establishment wants. Want Ron Paul crushed? Get Krugman to argue he is an idiot. Need more inflation? Have Krugman argue Bernake isn't creative enough. Economy absolute shit, but you want some positive spin? Get Krugman to argue against the naysayers. I mean, he is like fucking clockwork. I can't stand that ass clown.
I mean ... 7500 contract sell order worth 1.24 billion dollars TRIGGERS 10 SECOND SHUT OFF IN MARKET ... and within a few hours gold had absorbed the ENTIRE loss.
The large commercial banks are about to get their asses burned if they don't cut some of their shorts. Metals are still hot and primed, just waiting for some of this ridiculous manipulative activity to get out of its way.
Also, the Comex remains fairly close to default on delivery if current orders for delivery continue at this pace or accelerate (which they sure as fuck will if\when prices rise). Something like 6 months inventory of registered silver left at the exchange. JP Morgan recently pushing over 5million tons from "eligible" in order to "help out", i reckon.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
but I always think that's because he knows his policy suggestions are misguided and he may have trouble lying to people's faces.
i get this too.
This is one of the major difference i peg between Bernanke and Krugman.
I truly think Bernanke thinks he is doing gods work. You can see it in his responses before congress when Ron Paul tries to call him out. He may stutter because he is hard pressed to articulate the best & most polite response possible to loaded questions, but he seems to BELIEVE his answers. ("yes, sir. but our mandate says ... blah blah blah") ... KRUGMAN on the other hand, has this wily gleam in his eye, and he has this "lying to mama" face that drives me fucking nuts. His demeanor betrays that he knows he is a goddamn shill.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i don't really find it funny.
to me it is kind've sad, and deranged.
well ... it wasn't funny in a haha kinda way ... it was funny in a weird kinda way ... i just find it weird that you guys like to target "big gov't" as the problem when to me - the gov't whether big or small is simply the arm by which corporations control the nature of the game ... the economy is in a tank yet all the big boys are raking it in ... the game is fixed and it has nothing to do with the gov't ... well, not in the eyes of this treehugger ...
i don't really find it funny.
to me it is kind've sad, and deranged.
well ... it wasn't funny in a haha kinda way ... it was funny in a weird kinda way ... i just find it weird that you guys like to target "big gov't" as the problem when to me - the gov't whether big or small is simply the arm by which corporations control the nature of the game ... the economy is in a tank yet all the big boys are raking it in ... the game is fixed and it has nothing to do with the gov't ... well, not in the eyes of this treehugger ...
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think corporations are, in and of themselves, inherently evil (maybe not best word). In fact, I think they are good. Sure, certain people who run corporations are evil (again word choice). But, on a whole, they are a good thing. I mean evil people exist, whether they work for corporations or not. Corporations, on a whole, are good because they provide jobs and goods and services.
Meanwhile, I also don't think government is fundamentally evil. There's a role for government. But, I actually think govt has more power than corporations to be evil and create pervasive problems with "evil" throughout society. So, here it is... once government becomes too big in a "capitalistic-type society", I think it not only perpetuates corruption within government itself, but also perpetuates corruption through special interests to other players.... investors, corporations, etc. Of course, some would argue the "capitalistic-type society" is to blame... but, from my vantage point, as you move away from that capitalistic-type society the big government necessarily becomes more totalitarian (eats up more and more power and economic control), which is also bad.
Either way you look at it, big government = bad... and the root of the problem.
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think corporations are, in and of themselves, inherently evil (maybe not best word). In fact, I think they are good. Sure, certain people who run corporations are evil (again word choice). But, on a whole, they are a good thing. I mean evil people exist, whether they work for corporations or not. Corporations, on a whole, are good because they provide jobs and goods and services.
Meanwhile, I also don't think government is fundamentally evil. There's a role for government. But, I actually think govt has more power than corporations to be evil and create pervasive problems with "evil" throughout society. So, here it is... once government becomes too big in a "capitalistic-type society", I think it not only perpetuates corruption within government itself, but also perpetuates corruption through special interests to other players.... investors, corporations, etc. Of course, some would argue the "capitalistic-type society" is to blame... but, from my vantage point, as you move away from that capitalistic-type society the big government necessarily becomes more totalitarian (eats up more and more power and economic control), which is also bad.
Either way you look at it, big government = bad... and the root of the problem.
i should clarify that i don't think all corporations are bad ... and you are right - there are "evil" people in all aspects of life prone to selfish goals ... i just think that when we look at corporations, particularly the largest ones, there has been significant consolidation over the years ... and it is these large corporations that fund the campaigns of pretty much all the politicians that are exuding significant influence over gov't policy ... so, the inefficiencies you believe to be inherent in gov't - i believe to be intentional ... set up by the corporations in order to continue to maximize their profits ... why is it that the rich get richer when the economy is bad?
i should clarify that i don't think all corporations are bad ... and you are right - there are "evil" people in all aspects of life prone to selfish goals ... i just think that when we look at corporations, particularly the largest ones, there has been significant consolidation over the years ... and it is these large corporations that fund the campaigns of pretty much all the politicians that are exuding significant influence over gov't policy ... so, the inefficiencies you believe to be inherent in gov't - i believe to be intentional ... set up by the corporations in order to continue to maximize their profits ...
uhhh ... you're just looking at 08 to 09 ... where stocks (which mostly the rich own) fell drastically ... look at the overall trend on that line ... what is the line for everyone else look like? ...
uhhh ... you're just looking at 08 to 09 ... where stocks (which mostly the rich own) fell drastically ... look at the overall trend on that line ... what is the line for everyone else look like? ...
Average incomes were hit from 08-09 across the board - rich, middle class or poor. Although you said, that's not true for the "rich", and "the rich got richer"... this data proves you wrong. I don't have the data for the other brackets in front of me, but I'd bet the overall trend would be similar for any class - they trend down during recessions, up during expansions. The moral of the story is recessions hurt everyone - including the rich. According to most economic data (and the definition of recession), the recession ended in 2009.
So, for proof, look at when the average income for the top 1% dives in that chart... right at the point of "recessions" (91, 01, 08 - for example). This contradicts what you said about rich getting richer when the economy is bad.
Now, if you mean the speed or magnitude at which a income class turns down or up differs... I'd agree. That's because their income is funneled from different places - capital gains, etc.
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think corporations are, in and of themselves, inherently evil (maybe not best word). In fact, I think they are good. Sure, certain people who run corporations are evil (again word choice). But, on a whole, they are a good thing. I mean evil people exist, whether they work for corporations or not. Corporations, on a whole, are good because they provide jobs and goods and services.
Meanwhile, I also don't think government is fundamentally evil. There's a role for government. But, I actually think govt has more power than corporations to be evil and create pervasive problems with "evil" throughout society. So, here it is... once government becomes too big in a "capitalistic-type society", I think it not only perpetuates corruption within government itself, but also perpetuates corruption through special interests to other players.... investors, corporations, etc. Of course, some would argue the "capitalistic-type society" is to blame... but, from my vantage point, as you move away from that capitalistic-type society the big government necessarily becomes more totalitarian (eats up more and more power and economic control), which is also bad.
Either way you look at it, big government = bad... and the root of the problem.
i should clarify that i don't think all corporations are bad ... and you are right - there are "evil" people in all aspects of life prone to selfish goals ... i just think that when we look at corporations, particularly the largest ones, there has been significant consolidation over the years ... and it is these large corporations that fund the campaigns of pretty much all the politicians that are exuding significant influence over gov't policy ... so, the inefficiencies you believe to be inherent in gov't - i believe to be intentional ... set up by the corporations in order to continue to maximize their profits ... why is it that the rich get richer when the economy is bad?
I think our feelings are the same, but our solutions are what is different.
why do the rich get richer? in terms of simple perception it is because they get bailed out. There mistakes become tax payer liabilities and for a double whammy the stimulus funds are distributed as tax credits and gov't grants and contracts that mainly benefit the wealthy. But as Inlet is shown...getting richer isn't necessarily what really happens...but they generally are the first to benefit from any sort of recovery.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
uhhh ... you're just looking at 08 to 09 ... where stocks (which mostly the rich own) fell drastically ... look at the overall trend on that line ... what is the line for everyone else look like? ...
Average incomes were hit from 08-09 across the board - rich, middle class or poor. Although you said, that's not true for the "rich", and "the rich got richer"... this data proves you wrong.
i don't think he was talking about "incomes".
we all know the top 1% aren't WAGE earners.
we also know that it is possible to be functionally wealthy but BOOK POOR (or at least not book mega-rich) via the ability to shelter their wealth inside of tax vehicles that are not, for tax purposes, "THEIR" wealth.
just playin' devils advocate here.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Yup. For now. That's as good as we can get. And I love RP, but I don't think he's quite as articulate as he once was. His ideas are right on. But, unfortunately, in these cross-fire type situations, you need to be as articulate as possible. That's not saying Krugman is articulate either.... he stutters often, but I always think that's because he knows his policy suggestions are misguided and he may have trouble lying to people's faces.
I do find it weird that a professor of economics makes less sense than someone with much less schooling and clout. Paul isn't articulate unfortunately, has a lot of great qualities, but articulation isn't one of them
I wish he were much easier to listen to in the interviews because he would appeal to more folks.
That is an interesting observation on Krugman's body language. I think I am going to start watching for that since he is seemingly the only economist tapped to discuss policy on any news outlets
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I wish he were much easier to listen to in the interviews because he would appeal to more folks.
Maybe it isn't him. I have no problem understanding what he is saying, maybe it is those folks that just don't get it. They are the same people that think more debt is the answer to getting out of debt.
we all know the top 1% aren't WAGE earners.
we also know that it is possible to be functionally wealthy but BOOK POOR (or at least not book mega-rich) via the ability to shelter their wealth inside of tax vehicles that are not, for tax purposes, "THEIR" wealth.
just playin' devils advocate here.
Well, I'd still argue that the "rich" did get hit. Both via incomes, which I just proved, and via investments and assets (i mean, let's not pretend that the stock market didn't tumble hard and that other assets -like mansions - values didn't decline). I don't think there's anyway to get around the fact that all classes suffer a setback in a recession. I know people like to focus on the inequality discussion... and I'm all for everyone making more money....
But, as I've stated a bunch of times before, once the highest numbers (or the rich) shrink (say rich average income shrinks from $1 million to $750K) and poor shrinks from ($20K to $10K) during a recession (equality improved - but media and general citizenry was focused on the recession not equality), now once the recovery sets in (even if it's a shit recovery), the expansion from $750K*10%=$825K (for rich) and poor $10K*10%=$11K, increases inequality... because we went from a gap of $740 to a gap of $824. The income inequality aspect is so ridiculous to measure because you could have gains across the board and it would be bad for inequality. And you could have losses across the board (which you could see above if I wanted to do the math) and it would be good for inequality.
This doesn't even get into the fact that the recovery was fueled by inflation (which acts as a tax on the poor).
Inflation is a bigger problem for the poor and middle class because it typically affects necessities (enegy, food first), and isn't as much of a problem for the wealthy....
...that... I totally, wholeheartedly support.
But, acting like the rich don't also get shot in the foot with recessions ( and deflationary scenarios) is naive.
Yup. For now. That's as good as we can get. And I love RP, but I don't think he's quite as articulate as he once was. His ideas are right on. But, unfortunately, in these cross-fire type situations, you need to be as articulate as possible. That's not saying Krugman is articulate either.... he stutters often, but I always think that's because he knows his policy suggestions are misguided and he may have trouble lying to people's faces.
I do find it weird that a professor of economics makes less sense than someone with much less schooling and clout. Paul isn't articulate unfortunately, has a lot of great qualities, but articulation isn't one of them
I wish he were much easier to listen to in the interviews because he would appeal to more folks.
That is an interesting observation on Krugman's body language. I think I am going to start watching for that since he is seemingly the only economist tapped to discuss policy on any news outlets
I'd recommend watching Krugman when he's on Meet the Press. That is a laugh-fest.
I wish he were much easier to listen to in the interviews because he would appeal to more folks.
Maybe it isn't him. I have no problem understanding what he is saying, maybe it is those folks that just don't get it. They are the same people that think more debt is the answer to getting out of debt.
I understand him too, but I'm not going to act like he couldn't explain "malinvestment" without using a word that goes over every other person's head in the room. Half his job should be to explain in layman's terms why the Fed is bad. So, Joe the Plumber could get it. Moreover, I think he could be a bit more "political". Meaning, know when to reveal his thoughts on Iran and when not too. Kinda know the room....
...but, at the same time I say this, I realize the part I love about him is he's real. He's not into being a fake politician. He believes what he believes and he says it to the best of his ability.
it's not just income ... i mean ... a guy makes $1 million one year and only $900k the next ... sure, its a drop but it's not really ... it's also about debt and how the debt carried by the middle and lower class increase while the rich hardly have any ...
i don't know if there is a measure for it but let's say accumulation of wealth ... what are the charts on net worth? by income cohort? ... that's what i mean by the rich get richer ...
Yup. For now. That's as good as we can get. And I love RP, but I don't think he's quite as articulate as he once was. His ideas are right on. But, unfortunately, in these cross-fire type situations, you need to be as articulate as possible. That's not saying Krugman is articulate either.... he stutters often, but I always think that's because he knows his policy suggestions are misguided and he may have trouble lying to people's faces.
I do find it weird that a professor of economics makes less sense than someone with much less schooling and clout. Paul isn't articulate unfortunately, has a lot of great qualities, but articulation isn't one of them
I wish he were much easier to listen to in the interviews because he would appeal to more folks.
That is an interesting observation on Krugman's body language. I think I am going to start watching for that since he is seemingly the only economist tapped to discuss policy on any news outlets
I'd recommend watching Krugman when he's on Meet the Press. That is a laugh-fest.
I would have to disagree on the assessment of Krugman. At the suggestion of my friend, I started reading Krugman on a daily basis, and even when I was scratching my head on some of the things he said/proposed, later I saw that he was right on the money.
Just my take on it. Aren't Greenspan and Paulson free-market libertarians? it seems they had a difficult time watching their vision crumble, and they obviously had no serious remedy for turning the debris back into some type of foundation for a stable economy.
I would have to disagree on the assessment of Krugman. At the suggestion of my friend, I started reading Krugman on a daily basis, and even when I was scratching my head on some of the things he said/proposed, later I saw that he was right on the money.
Just my take on it. Aren't Greenspan and Paulson free-market libertarians? it seems they had a difficult time watching their vision crumble, and they obviously had no serious remedy for turning the debris back into some type of foundation for a stable economy.
Everyone's entitled to a take, that's for sure. But, I completely disagree on Krugman. I'm not going to say he's not smart; I'm sure he is. In fact, I'd bet he's so smart that he knows the policies he's advocating are complete BS. Yet, what we were discussing is his disposition when delivering his policy perscriptions. Reading Krugman doesn't get at that. You need to watch him or hear him speak. Then you'll see him squirm like a little rat... or atleast that's what I see.
On your other points, Greenspan caused the housing bubble (in my opinion) by keeping interest rates too low for too long. In other words, he used government to manipulate and manage markets. Does that sound like a free-market libertarian to you? Meanwhile, Paulson advocated the bailouts... umm... seriously? Undoubtedly Keynesian. And.. yeh I know Greenspan claimed to be a libertarian, but he was far far from it when actually put in place to "act" on it. He was, in fact, the opposite. He was a Keynesian. So, I would 100% totally disagree with your assertion that they were free-market libertarians. They were the complete and total opposite when it actually meant something.
I would have to disagree on the assessment of Krugman. At the suggestion of my friend, I started reading Krugman on a daily basis, and even when I was scratching my head on some of the things he said/proposed, later I saw that he was right on the money.
Just my take on it. Aren't Greenspan and Paulson free-market libertarians? it seems they had a difficult time watching their vision crumble, and they obviously had no serious remedy for turning the debris back into some type of foundation for a stable economy.
Everyone's entitled to a take, that's for sure. But, I completely disagree on Krugman. I'm not going to say he's not smart; I'm sure he is. In fact, I'd bet he's so smart that he knows the policies he's advocating are complete BS. Yet, what we were discussing is his disposition when delivering his policy perscriptions. Reading Krugman doesn't get at that. You need to watch him or hear him speak. Then you'll see him squirm like a little rat... or atleast that's what I see.
On your other points, Greenspan caused the housing bubble (in my opinion) by keeping interest rates too low for too long. In other words, he used government to manipulate and manage markets. Does that sound like a free-market libertarian to you? Meanwhile, Paulson advocated the bailouts... umm... seriously? Undoubtedly Keynesian. And.. yeh I know Greenspan claimed to be a libertarian, but he was far far from it when actually put in place to "act" on it. He was, in fact, the opposite. He was a Keynesian. So, I would 100% totally disagree with your assertion that they were free-market libertarians. They were the complete and total opposite when it actually meant something.
I've seen Krugman on TV, and, yes, he doesn't have the best posture/body language, but that doesn't mean too much to me. How many of us would be comfortable on TV?
Greenspan forgot to take the punchbowl away. Absolutely. That is something I stress that to people when I talk about the crash. And, that is exactly what China did (at least that is what I have found). However, I disagree that they weren't free-market libs; they had to shift ideologies when it came to fixing a problem. Despite their solutions being Keynesian/big gov't, they still were, at heart, free-market libs; the thing is though, that their ideologies at heart didn't give them a way to quickly fix a problem.
My girlfriend is a vegetarian, but in an emergency, she's going to eat some grouper or chicken marsala.
(what a terrible analogy!!)
I would have to disagree on the assessment of Krugman. At the suggestion of my friend, I started reading Krugman on a daily basis, and even when I was scratching my head on some of the things he said/proposed, later I saw that he was right on the money.
Just my take on it. Aren't Greenspan and Paulson free-market libertarians? it seems they had a difficult time watching their vision crumble, and they obviously had no serious remedy for turning the debris back into some type of foundation for a stable economy.
Everyone's entitled to a take, that's for sure. But, I completely disagree on Krugman. I'm not going to say he's not smart; I'm sure he is. In fact, I'd bet he's so smart that he knows the policies he's advocating are complete BS. Yet, what we were discussing is his disposition when delivering his policy perscriptions. Reading Krugman doesn't get at that. You need to watch him or hear him speak. Then you'll see him squirm like a little rat... or atleast that's what I see.
On your other points, Greenspan caused the housing bubble (in my opinion) by keeping interest rates too low for too long. In other words, he used government to manipulate and manage markets. Does that sound like a free-market libertarian to you? Meanwhile, Paulson advocated the bailouts... umm... seriously? Undoubtedly Keynesian. And.. yeh I know Greenspan claimed to be a libertarian, but he was far far from it when actually put in place to "act" on it. He was, in fact, the opposite. He was a Keynesian. So, I would 100% totally disagree with your assertion that they were free-market libertarians. They were the complete and total opposite when it actually meant something.
I've seen Krugman on TV, and, yes, he doesn't have the best posture/body language, but that doesn't mean too much to me. How many of us would be comfortable on TV?
Greenspan forgot to take the punchbowl away. Absolutely. That is something I stress that to people when I talk about the crash. And, that is exactly what China did (at least that is what I have found). However, I disagree that they weren't free-market libs; they had to shift ideologies when it came to fixing a problem. Despite their solutions being Keynesian/big gov't, they still were, at heart, free-market libs; the thing is though, that their ideologies at heart didn't give them a way to quickly fix a problem.
My girlfriend is a vegetarian, but in an emergency, she's going to eat some grouper or chicken marsala.
(what a terrible analogy!!)
No offense, but it's a horrible analogy and (I'm not trying to be mean) but you're wrong about Greenspan and Paulson. First, a free-market libertarian wouldn't work for a Central Bank to begin with unless it was completely reshaped. Second, if they did, they certainly wouldn't advocate price controls
Third, the very nature of a libertarian is to not "fix problems" via government - that's what Keynesians do. Neither of them practiced what a free-market libertarian would... in fact, they did the complete opposite throughout their tenure in government. They practiced what a Keynesian would. Their legacy is a legacy of Keynes.
No offense, but it's a horrible analogy and (I'm not trying to be mean) but you're wrong about Greenspan and Paulson. OKay. We can leave it at that First, a free-market libertarian wouldn't work for a Central Bank of course he wouldto begin with unless it was completely reshaped. Second, if they did, they certainly wouldn't advocate price controls
Third, the very nature of a libertarian is to not "fix problems" via government - that's what Keynesians do. and this is what they were forced to do Neither of them practiced what a free-market libertarian would... in fact, they did the complete opposite throughout their tenure in governmentsee previous. They practiced what a Keynesian would. Their legacy is a legacy of Keynes.
Again, we can leave it at "you're wrong about Greenspan and Paulson." I'm fine with it. I also thought that Pearl Jam's next release after self-titled/Avocado would be more like No Code. We all saw how that turned out.
So, this post was created on May 1. Today is May 4...
...and the Dow is down about 250 points now since the original post.
I know the OP said they had a different agenda (which I now understand), but for all others tracking the stock market and posting about anything less than 1-2% daily changes is crazy in this day and age. It can completely reverse two, three days later. This thread is proof. And volatility like that within the stock market, unfortunately, is typically....
Market Performance and Volatility There is a strong relationship between volatility and market performance. Volatility tends to decline as the stock market rises and increase as the stock market falls. When volatility increases, risk increases and returns decrease. Risk is represented by the dispersion of returns around the mean. The greater the dispersion of returns around the mean, the larger the drop in the compound return.
In a 2011 report, Crestmont Research examined the historical relationship between stock market performance and the volatility of the market. For this analysis, Crestmont used the average range for each day to measure the volatility of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (S&P 500) index. Their research tells us that higher volatility corresponds to a higher probability of a declining market. Lower volatility corresponds to a higher probability of a rising market.
Comments
I think this is as close as you are going to get
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Yup. For now. That's as good as we can get. And I love RP, but I don't think he's quite as articulate as he once was. His ideas are right on. But, unfortunately, in these cross-fire type situations, you need to be as articulate as possible. That's not saying Krugman is articulate either.... he stutters often, but I always think that's because he knows his policy suggestions are misguided and he may have trouble lying to people's faces.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I totally "get" that the DJA is not a good indicator of how most people are doing. That said, I worked a lot of years, invested some money and was watching my nest egg slip away in late 2008. For what it's worth, I'm one non-rich guy who is very glad the DJA came back....
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Like Inlet, I SHRUG\WINCE at even the thought of this.
I'm not sure I can bring myself to read it.
It seems so ridiculous on the face.
PS. whomever said it, it is NOT rare for KRUGMAN to weigh in on a policy debate.
It's like his privately assigned REAL job ... to engage the PUBLIC in a policy debate, weighted to the side of what the establishment wants. Want Ron Paul crushed? Get Krugman to argue he is an idiot. Need more inflation? Have Krugman argue Bernake isn't creative enough. Economy absolute shit, but you want some positive spin? Get Krugman to argue against the naysayers. I mean, he is like fucking clockwork. I can't stand that ass clown.
I know this is probably humor, but NOT gonna HAPPEN.
Gold just TOOK IT ON THE CHIN on the 30th
(gold shakes off 1.24 billion dollar "Fat Finger" trade)
I mean ... 7500 contract sell order worth 1.24 billion dollars TRIGGERS 10 SECOND SHUT OFF IN MARKET ... and within a few hours gold had absorbed the ENTIRE loss.
The large commercial banks are about to get their asses burned if they don't cut some of their shorts. Metals are still hot and primed, just waiting for some of this ridiculous manipulative activity to get out of its way.
Also, the Comex remains fairly close to default on delivery if current orders for delivery continue at this pace or accelerate (which they sure as fuck will if\when prices rise). Something like 6 months inventory of registered silver left at the exchange. JP Morgan recently pushing over 5million tons from "eligible" in order to "help out", i reckon.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i get this too.
This is one of the major difference i peg between Bernanke and Krugman.
I truly think Bernanke thinks he is doing gods work. You can see it in his responses before congress when Ron Paul tries to call him out. He may stutter because he is hard pressed to articulate the best & most polite response possible to loaded questions, but he seems to BELIEVE his answers. ("yes, sir. but our mandate says ... blah blah blah") ... KRUGMAN on the other hand, has this wily gleam in his eye, and he has this "lying to mama" face that drives me fucking nuts. His demeanor betrays that he knows he is a goddamn shill.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i don't really find it funny.
to me it is kind've sad, and deranged.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
well ... it wasn't funny in a haha kinda way ... it was funny in a weird kinda way ... i just find it weird that you guys like to target "big gov't" as the problem when to me - the gov't whether big or small is simply the arm by which corporations control the nature of the game ... the economy is in a tank yet all the big boys are raking it in ... the game is fixed and it has nothing to do with the gov't ... well, not in the eyes of this treehugger ...
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think corporations are, in and of themselves, inherently evil (maybe not best word). In fact, I think they are good. Sure, certain people who run corporations are evil (again word choice). But, on a whole, they are a good thing. I mean evil people exist, whether they work for corporations or not. Corporations, on a whole, are good because they provide jobs and goods and services.
Meanwhile, I also don't think government is fundamentally evil. There's a role for government. But, I actually think govt has more power than corporations to be evil and create pervasive problems with "evil" throughout society. So, here it is... once government becomes too big in a "capitalistic-type society", I think it not only perpetuates corruption within government itself, but also perpetuates corruption through special interests to other players.... investors, corporations, etc. Of course, some would argue the "capitalistic-type society" is to blame... but, from my vantage point, as you move away from that capitalistic-type society the big government necessarily becomes more totalitarian (eats up more and more power and economic control), which is also bad.
Either way you look at it, big government = bad... and the root of the problem.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i should clarify that i don't think all corporations are bad ... and you are right - there are "evil" people in all aspects of life prone to selfish goals ... i just think that when we look at corporations, particularly the largest ones, there has been significant consolidation over the years ... and it is these large corporations that fund the campaigns of pretty much all the politicians that are exuding significant influence over gov't policy ... so, the inefficiencies you believe to be inherent in gov't - i believe to be intentional ... set up by the corporations in order to continue to maximize their profits ... why is it that the rich get richer when the economy is bad?
Obviously, we disagree.
They don't....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/economy/recession-crimped-incomes-of-the-richest-americans.html
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
uhhh ... you're just looking at 08 to 09 ... where stocks (which mostly the rich own) fell drastically ... look at the overall trend on that line ... what is the line for everyone else look like? ...
Average incomes were hit from 08-09 across the board - rich, middle class or poor. Although you said, that's not true for the "rich", and "the rich got richer"... this data proves you wrong. I don't have the data for the other brackets in front of me, but I'd bet the overall trend would be similar for any class - they trend down during recessions, up during expansions. The moral of the story is recessions hurt everyone - including the rich. According to most economic data (and the definition of recession), the recession ended in 2009.
So, for proof, look at when the average income for the top 1% dives in that chart... right at the point of "recessions" (91, 01, 08 - for example). This contradicts what you said about rich getting richer when the economy is bad.
Now, if you mean the speed or magnitude at which a income class turns down or up differs... I'd agree. That's because their income is funneled from different places - capital gains, etc.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I think our feelings are the same, but our solutions are what is different.
why do the rich get richer? in terms of simple perception it is because they get bailed out. There mistakes become tax payer liabilities and for a double whammy the stimulus funds are distributed as tax credits and gov't grants and contracts that mainly benefit the wealthy. But as Inlet is shown...getting richer isn't necessarily what really happens...but they generally are the first to benefit from any sort of recovery.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i don't think he was talking about "incomes".
we all know the top 1% aren't WAGE earners.
we also know that it is possible to be functionally wealthy but BOOK POOR (or at least not book mega-rich) via the ability to shelter their wealth inside of tax vehicles that are not, for tax purposes, "THEIR" wealth.
just playin' devils advocate here.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I do find it weird that a professor of economics makes less sense than someone with much less schooling and clout. Paul isn't articulate unfortunately, has a lot of great qualities, but articulation isn't one of them
I wish he were much easier to listen to in the interviews because he would appeal to more folks.
That is an interesting observation on Krugman's body language. I think I am going to start watching for that since he is seemingly the only economist tapped to discuss policy on any news outlets
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Maybe it isn't him. I have no problem understanding what he is saying, maybe it is those folks that just don't get it. They are the same people that think more debt is the answer to getting out of debt.
Well, I'd still argue that the "rich" did get hit. Both via incomes, which I just proved, and via investments and assets (i mean, let's not pretend that the stock market didn't tumble hard and that other assets -like mansions - values didn't decline). I don't think there's anyway to get around the fact that all classes suffer a setback in a recession. I know people like to focus on the inequality discussion... and I'm all for everyone making more money....
But, as I've stated a bunch of times before, once the highest numbers (or the rich) shrink (say rich average income shrinks from $1 million to $750K) and poor shrinks from ($20K to $10K) during a recession (equality improved - but media and general citizenry was focused on the recession not equality), now once the recovery sets in (even if it's a shit recovery), the expansion from $750K*10%=$825K (for rich) and poor $10K*10%=$11K, increases inequality... because we went from a gap of $740 to a gap of $824. The income inequality aspect is so ridiculous to measure because you could have gains across the board and it would be bad for inequality. And you could have losses across the board (which you could see above if I wanted to do the math) and it would be good for inequality.
This doesn't even get into the fact that the recovery was fueled by inflation (which acts as a tax on the poor).
Inflation is a bigger problem for the poor and middle class because it typically affects necessities (enegy, food first), and isn't as much of a problem for the wealthy....
...that... I totally, wholeheartedly support.
But, acting like the rich don't also get shot in the foot with recessions ( and deflationary scenarios) is naive.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I'd recommend watching Krugman when he's on Meet the Press. That is a laugh-fest.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I understand him too, but I'm not going to act like he couldn't explain "malinvestment" without using a word that goes over every other person's head in the room. Half his job should be to explain in layman's terms why the Fed is bad. So, Joe the Plumber could get it. Moreover, I think he could be a bit more "political". Meaning, know when to reveal his thoughts on Iran and when not too. Kinda know the room....
...but, at the same time I say this, I realize the part I love about him is he's real. He's not into being a fake politician. He believes what he believes and he says it to the best of his ability.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i don't know if there is a measure for it but let's say accumulation of wealth ... what are the charts on net worth? by income cohort? ... that's what i mean by the rich get richer ...
I would have to disagree on the assessment of Krugman. At the suggestion of my friend, I started reading Krugman on a daily basis, and even when I was scratching my head on some of the things he said/proposed, later I saw that he was right on the money.
Just my take on it. Aren't Greenspan and Paulson free-market libertarians? it seems they had a difficult time watching their vision crumble, and they obviously had no serious remedy for turning the debris back into some type of foundation for a stable economy.
Everyone's entitled to a take, that's for sure. But, I completely disagree on Krugman. I'm not going to say he's not smart; I'm sure he is. In fact, I'd bet he's so smart that he knows the policies he's advocating are complete BS. Yet, what we were discussing is his disposition when delivering his policy perscriptions. Reading Krugman doesn't get at that. You need to watch him or hear him speak. Then you'll see him squirm like a little rat... or atleast that's what I see.
On your other points, Greenspan caused the housing bubble (in my opinion) by keeping interest rates too low for too long. In other words, he used government to manipulate and manage markets. Does that sound like a free-market libertarian to you? Meanwhile, Paulson advocated the bailouts... umm... seriously? Undoubtedly Keynesian. And.. yeh I know Greenspan claimed to be a libertarian, but he was far far from it when actually put in place to "act" on it. He was, in fact, the opposite. He was a Keynesian. So, I would 100% totally disagree with your assertion that they were free-market libertarians. They were the complete and total opposite when it actually meant something.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I've seen Krugman on TV, and, yes, he doesn't have the best posture/body language, but that doesn't mean too much to me. How many of us would be comfortable on TV?
Greenspan forgot to take the punchbowl away. Absolutely. That is something I stress that to people when I talk about the crash. And, that is exactly what China did (at least that is what I have found). However, I disagree that they weren't free-market libs; they had to shift ideologies when it came to fixing a problem. Despite their solutions being Keynesian/big gov't, they still were, at heart, free-market libs; the thing is though, that their ideologies at heart didn't give them a way to quickly fix a problem.
My girlfriend is a vegetarian, but in an emergency, she's going to eat some grouper or chicken marsala.
(what a terrible analogy!!)
No offense, but it's a horrible analogy
Third, the very nature of a libertarian is to not "fix problems" via government - that's what Keynesians do. Neither of them practiced what a free-market libertarian would... in fact, they did the complete opposite throughout their tenure in government. They practiced what a Keynesian would. Their legacy is a legacy of Keynes.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Again, we can leave it at "you're wrong about Greenspan and Paulson." I'm fine with it. I also thought that Pearl Jam's next release after self-titled/Avocado would be more like No Code. We all saw how that turned out.
...and the Dow is down about 250 points now since the original post.
I know the OP said they had a different agenda (which I now understand), but for all others tracking the stock market and posting about anything less than 1-2% daily changes is crazy in this day and age. It can completely reverse two, three days later. This thread is proof. And volatility like that within the stock market, unfortunately, is typically....
...very bad.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Not for all the HFT-algorithms out there.
They're making a killing.
Assuming they've got good algorithms.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'd respond look at VIX vs market performance. There's a reason people track the VIX.
Anyway, to further my point... from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fi ... z1tudSsbcJ
...
Market Performance and Volatility
There is a strong relationship between volatility and market performance. Volatility tends to decline as the stock market rises and increase as the stock market falls. When volatility increases, risk increases and returns decrease. Risk is represented by the dispersion of returns around the mean. The greater the dispersion of returns around the mean, the larger the drop in the compound return.
In a 2011 report, Crestmont Research examined the historical relationship between stock market performance and the volatility of the market. For this analysis, Crestmont used the average range for each day to measure the volatility of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (S&P 500) index. Their research tells us that higher volatility corresponds to a higher probability of a declining market. Lower volatility corresponds to a higher probability of a rising market.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="