Dow hits 4 year high, NASDAQ too. Yay Socialism!!

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

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?

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

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 ...

Obviously, we disagree.

polaris_x wrote:

why is it that the rich get richer when the economy is bad?

They don't....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/economy/recession-crimped-incomes-of-the-richest-americans.html

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

They don't....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/economy/recession-crimped-incomes-of-the-richest-americans.html

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? ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

They don't....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/economy/recession-crimped-incomes-of-the-richest-americans.html

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.

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

inlet13 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

They don't....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/economy/recession-crimped-incomes-of-the-richest-americans.html

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.

mikepegg44

inlet13 wrote:

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

unsung

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

inlet13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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.

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.

inlet13

mikepegg44 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

inlet13

unsung wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

polaris_x

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 ...

whygohome

inlet13 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

inlet13

whygohome wrote:

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.

whygohome

inlet13 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

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!!)

inlet13

whygohome wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

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.

whygohome

inlet13 wrote:

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.

inlet13

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....

...very bad.

DriftingByTheStorm

inlet13 wrote:

And volatility like that within the stock market, unfortunately, is typically....

...very bad.

Not for all the HFT-algorithms out there.

Wiki on HFT Page wrote:

By 2010 high-frequency trading accounted for over 70% of equity trades in the US

They're making a killing.
Assuming they've got good algorithms.

inlet13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

And volatility like that within the stock market, unfortunately, is typically....

...very bad.

Not for all the HFT-algorithms out there.

Wiki on HFT Page wrote:

By 2010 high-frequency trading accounted for over 70% of equity trades in the US

They're making a killing.
Assuming they've got good algorithms.

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.