it effects the possibility of a disruption in supply. which again, is still part of supply and demand.
So basically a government can threaten another country in order to possibly modify the supply capacity and hence the price of oil? Wait, what was the definition of a free market already?
that is the dumbest analogy I've ever heard. cute though
Obviously, our whole way of life relies on this simple affirmation : demand and supply is a law. Except it's not, economics is nothing but theories, and not even in the scientific sense of the term. We have to hope it works because it's behind every political and economic law this last century, but hoping it works and actually working is not the same.
So basically a government can threaten another country in order to possibly modify the supply capacity and hence the price of oil? Wait, what was the definition of a free market already?
thats right. and people can buy and sell that commodity based on what they think might happen in the future to that particular commodity. the government doesn't decide the price. maybe thats what you'd like to see happen?
Obviously, our whole way of life relies on this simple affirmation : demand and supply is a law. Except it's not, economics is nothing but theories, and not even in the scientific sense of the term. We have to hope it works because it's behind every political and economic law this last century, but hoping it works and actually working is not the same.
but the law or theory does work in this case. Oil is a limited resource. its bought and sold based on the supply and based on the demand.
thats right. and people can buy and sell that commodity based on what they think might happen in the future to that particular commodity. the government doesn't decide the price. maybe thats what you'd like to see happen?
but the law or theory does work in this case. Oil is a limited resource. its bought and sold based on the supply and based on the demand.
What I'm saying is that a government, or a lobby, can easily decide the price for oil, through threats and speculation for instance (which I don't consider to be supply or demand but that's something else). And supply and demand doesn't seem to work, because at constant demand (in 6 month) with a higher supply (Saudi Arabia added 200 000 barrels/day recently) the prices still rose. But my point is, it's a matter of opinion, the main argument behind all our policies is based on something which has no scientific basis, it's just based on the opinion of some (not all) economists.
What I'm saying is that a government, or a lobby, can easily decide the price for oil, through threats and speculation for instance (which I don't consider to be supply or demand but that's something else). And supply and demand doesn't seem to work, because at constant demand (in 6 month) with a higher supply (Saudi Arabia added 200 000 barrels/day recently) the prices still rose. But my point is, it's a matter of opinion, the main argument behind all our policies is based on something which has no scientific basis, it's just based on the opinion of some (not all) economists.
but they cant decide the price. traders on the open market do. governments or lobbys are just one of many contributing factors like a hurricane.
Economists at the University of Michigan predict that 3.5 million jobs will be created in the next two years.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- There is no denying that the job market is weak.
The Department of Labor reported this morning that 432,000 people filed for unemployment benefits in the past week - making this the fifth straight week that jobless claims topped the 400,000 mark.
And so far this year, there has been a loss of 463,000 jobs.
Talkback: Will it be easier to find a job next year?
Yet, some are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel on the job front. Economists at the University of Michigan said in a report released yesterday that 900,000 jobs will be added next year and that 2.6 million more will be created in 2010.
Joan Crary, an economist with the University of Michigan, said that this forecast is based on a belief that the economy will finally begin to rebound in the second half of 2009.
Economists at the University of Michigan predict that 3.5 million jobs will be created in the next two years.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- There is no denying that the job market is weak.
The Department of Labor reported this morning that 432,000 people filed for unemployment benefits in the past week - making this the fifth straight week that jobless claims topped the 400,000 mark.
And so far this year, there has been a loss of 463,000 jobs.
Talkback: Will it be easier to find a job next year?
Yet, some are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel on the job front. Economists at the University of Michigan said in a report released yesterday that 900,000 jobs will be added next year and that 2.6 million more will be created in 2010.
Joan Crary, an economist with the University of Michigan, said that this forecast is based on a belief that the economy will finally begin to rebound in the second half of 2009.
No offense, but this sounds like feel good bullshit.
Unemployment filings are largely expected to stay in their elevated range, and possibly even rise slightly over the next year. Unemployment as a percentage is being forecasted by many to be above six percent in short order.
forecast is based on a belief that the economy will finally begin to rebound in the second half of 2009
Well thats all great and dandy,
except these same experts were, as of the beginning of the first quarter of 2008 all spouting off at the mouth about this "limited recession" or "non-recession" and saying that the economy was expected to rebound by the second half of 2008.
So why the fuck should i trust any of this hocus-pokus forecasting now?!?
The problem with these feel good, "it will be over soon", forecasts is that they utterly fail to account for a WORSENING CREDIT ENVIRONMENT and a further deterioration in the housing market. They predicate all these claims based on unsubstantiated assumptions that the housing market is bottoming or will bottoming soon, and that the credit situation is at its worst and will get better soon.
Unfortunately that is simply not true. The truth is we probably aren't even half way through this mess yet. Housing prices will tumble further, and possibly substantialy further in some parts of the country. Banking is absolutely fucked on account of this and other problems, and thus the general credit situation in this country is bound to get worse. Significantly worse. Fannie and Freddie are going to zero in short order here. Inflation is going to the moon.
Here, you want historical context, right?
Go check out how long and how expensive the 1980's S&L "scandal" lasted and cost the tax payer. It extended for YEARS after the initial "bust". And i mean, right on in to 1991\1992 CLINTON was still dealing with legislation to bail out large players in that game.
And yet some how, these economists and academics are managing to predict that we are going to inflate our way out of a SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE situation (several TRILLION dollars WORSE) than the S&L crisis in less than HALF (or even a quarter) the time?
Sorry.
I don't buy it at ALL.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
seriously, do you just think things will be bad forever? I really think you need to lay out AJ for a little while. get fucked, go for a bike ride, something
seriously, do you just think things will be bad forever? I really think you need to lay out AJ for a little while. get fucked, go for a bike ride, something
I think on the more hopefull end of the spectrum, we could see the government inflate and bail its way out of this mess by 2010 or 2011.
I think, all things being equal until that time, that such a window ... 2-3 years of recovery would be a REASONABLE time frame for markets to adjust to the severely restricted credit conditions, historic inflationary pressures, and historic asset depreciations that we are currently witnessing.
I think, further, that ignoring such massively historic conditions is not only ignorant, but also idiotic.
The reply question would be,
so you think all this shit is just superficial, and that the market can somehow absorb multi TRILLION dollar asset evaporations and just move on its way in less than a years time? If you answer yes, then your understanding of how credit markets function must surely be limited.
On the more depressing end of that spectrum,
i think the sad reality is that the current institutional status quo is on the verge of collapse. Certainly like Abusketi said elsewhere, one should never underestimate the ability (or desire) of the US Government to inflate\bail its way out of such a mess and thus effectively POSTPONE a collapse by pushing back losses with loan guarantees, revised accounting rules, and distractionary\inflationary wars. However, the reality is that this situation is not only unprecedented in history, but also is very much straining the outer limits of market tolerance. The phrase "global economic meltdown" could become a reality.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Comments
good comeback. I know you are but what am I?
and a bad one at that.
i just wish you had a good, or fuck, even a valid, point to make here and there.
at least JLew put up a good fight, argued on rational ground.
you just fling insults and accuse people of being lunatics.
bravo.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Obviously, our whole way of life relies on this simple affirmation : demand and supply is a law. Except it's not, economics is nothing but theories, and not even in the scientific sense of the term. We have to hope it works because it's behind every political and economic law this last century, but hoping it works and actually working is not the same.
thats right. and people can buy and sell that commodity based on what they think might happen in the future to that particular commodity. the government doesn't decide the price. maybe thats what you'd like to see happen?
but the law or theory does work in this case. Oil is a limited resource. its bought and sold based on the supply and based on the demand.
but they cant decide the price. traders on the open market do. governments or lobbys are just one of many contributing factors like a hurricane.
Job boom could be coming soon
Economists at the University of Michigan predict that 3.5 million jobs will be created in the next two years.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- There is no denying that the job market is weak.
The Department of Labor reported this morning that 432,000 people filed for unemployment benefits in the past week - making this the fifth straight week that jobless claims topped the 400,000 mark.
And so far this year, there has been a loss of 463,000 jobs.
Talkback: Will it be easier to find a job next year?
Yet, some are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel on the job front. Economists at the University of Michigan said in a report released yesterday that 900,000 jobs will be added next year and that 2.6 million more will be created in 2010.
Joan Crary, an economist with the University of Michigan, said that this forecast is based on a belief that the economy will finally begin to rebound in the second half of 2009.
H.J. Heinz profits soar 11%
The ketchup maker reports double-digit sales growth in North America and Europe, beats expectations.
No offense, but this sounds like feel good bullshit.
Unemployment filings are largely expected to stay in their elevated range, and possibly even rise slightly over the next year. Unemployment as a percentage is being forecasted by many to be above six percent in short order.
And the kicker in this article is the following:
Well thats all great and dandy,
except these same experts were, as of the beginning of the first quarter of 2008 all spouting off at the mouth about this "limited recession" or "non-recession" and saying that the economy was expected to rebound by the second half of 2008.
So why the fuck should i trust any of this hocus-pokus forecasting now?!?
The problem with these feel good, "it will be over soon", forecasts is that they utterly fail to account for a WORSENING CREDIT ENVIRONMENT and a further deterioration in the housing market. They predicate all these claims based on unsubstantiated assumptions that the housing market is bottoming or will bottoming soon, and that the credit situation is at its worst and will get better soon.
Unfortunately that is simply not true. The truth is we probably aren't even half way through this mess yet. Housing prices will tumble further, and possibly substantialy further in some parts of the country. Banking is absolutely fucked on account of this and other problems, and thus the general credit situation in this country is bound to get worse. Significantly worse. Fannie and Freddie are going to zero in short order here. Inflation is going to the moon.
Here, you want historical context, right?
Go check out how long and how expensive the 1980's S&L "scandal" lasted and cost the tax payer. It extended for YEARS after the initial "bust". And i mean, right on in to 1991\1992 CLINTON was still dealing with legislation to bail out large players in that game.
And yet some how, these economists and academics are managing to predict that we are going to inflate our way out of a SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE situation (several TRILLION dollars WORSE) than the S&L crisis in less than HALF (or even a quarter) the time?
Sorry.
I don't buy it at ALL.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
really? I'm shocked. I sent it to prison planet, maybe he'll link it. then it would become undeniable fact I'm sure.
I think on the more hopefull end of the spectrum, we could see the government inflate and bail its way out of this mess by 2010 or 2011.
I think, all things being equal until that time, that such a window ... 2-3 years of recovery would be a REASONABLE time frame for markets to adjust to the severely restricted credit conditions, historic inflationary pressures, and historic asset depreciations that we are currently witnessing.
I think, further, that ignoring such massively historic conditions is not only ignorant, but also idiotic.
The reply question would be,
so you think all this shit is just superficial, and that the market can somehow absorb multi TRILLION dollar asset evaporations and just move on its way in less than a years time? If you answer yes, then your understanding of how credit markets function must surely be limited.
On the more depressing end of that spectrum,
i think the sad reality is that the current institutional status quo is on the verge of collapse. Certainly like Abusketi said elsewhere, one should never underestimate the ability (or desire) of the US Government to inflate\bail its way out of such a mess and thus effectively POSTPONE a collapse by pushing back losses with loan guarantees, revised accounting rules, and distractionary\inflationary wars. However, the reality is that this situation is not only unprecedented in history, but also is very much straining the outer limits of market tolerance. The phrase "global economic meltdown" could become a reality.
If I opened it now would you not understand?