Financial topics

[vincecate]

Oh well. I predicted down day and it was an up day. So I have one right and one wrong. Just as good as monkey's throwing darts.

[gerald]

Hey!! Lets get the world economy going ---- How about something off the "deep end" or the "twilight zone" --- I am not saying this--- But it is interesting.

KRUGMAN:
"If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better –"

ROGOFF: And we need Orson Welles, is what you're saying.

KRUGMAN: No, there was a "Twilight Zone" episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time, we don't need it, we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s ... ive-defens

False flag anyone???

[aedens]

Here is a real one. My GD thought was by 2016 a shift will accur.
Search this site: Black Agenda Report

News, analysis and commentary from the black left

Yes, indeed, the time for being unrealistic and unreasonable is now. Those who bother to vote need to select candidates without a D or R after their names. Green Party, Independents, write-ins, whatever. Alternative candidates may not win now or 5 years from now. But the wheels must be put in motion to make them electable.

[richard5za]

Question for John

Dear John,
I have a question as to whether there is any generational influence upon socialisation of investment; by this I mean state ownership of key or strategic industries. We see ebbs and flows on this at various stages in history; sometimes extreme such as the communist Soviet Union, but generally focused upon a few key strategic functions. A good example of the ebbs and flows is the United Kingdom: The Labour party nationalises telecoms and years later the Conservatives privatises again, other industries too. When Zambia got independence in the early 60's they nationalised their copper mines only to sell them back to private enterprise 25 years later, at a small fraction of the price they paid, I might add. Etc
Any views?
Regards
Richard

[John]

Dear Richard,

> I have a question as to whether there is any generational
> influence upon socialisation of investment; by this I mean state
> ownership of key or strategic industries. We see ebbs and flows on
> this at various stages in history; sometimes extreme such as the
> communist Soviet Union, but generally focused upon a few key
> strategic functions. A good example of the ebbs and flows is the
> United Kingdom: The Labour party nationalises telecoms and years
> later the Conservatives privatises again, other industries
> too. When Zambia got independence in the early 60's they
> nationalised their copper mines only to sell them back to private
> enterprise 25 years later, at a small fraction of the price they
> paid, I might add. Etc

The U.S. is an interesting example as well. The American Civil War
turned America into a "free" country -- freedom for slaves and freedom
in business. By the 1890s, people were demanding some government
controls, and during the Great Depression, a great deal more
regulation became the norm.

Mao was going to make China a Communist model for the world. But the
Great Leap Forward not only failed, but killed tens of millions of
people. Mao was discredited, and today China has some marketplace
freedoms. After the next civil war (and world war), I would expect
China to adopt a model with a lot more market freedom.

I'm not familiar with the Zambia example, but I assume that there was
some economic model adopted during the crisis war, and that the
Awakening era began the process of discrediting it.

I've written a few articles about the Zimbabwe example -- kill off the
productive farms because they're run by whites -- and let everyone
starve.

In the end, every economic model gets discredited, because there are
always slums and poverty, no matter what the form of government.

John

[gerald]

Oh this is nice
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/mi ... ed-reasons

[OLD1953]

Gerald, what the newsbuster guy is doing is creating a mistaken equivalence between military spending and relief spending. For purposes of stimulating an economy, the most effective stimulus is one that does not satisfy any existing demand. For example, suppose the govt decided to completely replace its fleet of vehicles in order to stimulate the US auto makers. This causes an immediate stimulus and keeps workers employed for the period it takes for that number of vehicles to be manufactured, but when the program is complete the government will not buy any vehicles for several years, their demand is satisfied. This causes the stimulus to then go negative to the amount of normal replacement the government would have ordered over a given period, until that massive buy of vehicles wears out and has to be repeated.

A permanent increase in military strength, on the other hand, does not satisfy any normal demand in the economy. There is no civilian demand for tanks or other weapons, therefore the normal demands of the economy do not decrease as a result of the military buildup. This is what Germany did during the buildup to WWII, and they came out of the Great Depression as the powerhouse of Europe.

Relief spending does satisfy normal demands in the economy and therefore is not as effective as stimulus as military spending. If your stimulus simply causes spending to shift to government, and people put the money saved in their pockets and keep it rather than spending it, the economy is not going to grow as a result of the relief spending. Relief spending after a financial crisis doesn't do much for economic growth after the spending is over. The same can be said for most other spending, except for needed infrastructure spending (emphasis on needed, not bridges to places of no importance) which decreases production or transportation costs for goods delivered to market. Reducing costs for business is always a stimulus for growth in an economy, but the infrastructure spending might have been arranged by other means, and therefore you did drop civilian demand for that infrastructure (road, bridge, power line or whatever) after completion.

[aedens]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-1 ... tests.html

Fits the season as we trend.
Vin, I think a churning sideways drift. I think I stated step aside a few weeks
and Higg was a float sideways. I think we rent stocks for know as we conveyed some time back
in the forums. Best I can garner from so much noise.
http://pedrolains.typepad.com/Bernanke1983.pdf <----- page 8 and 19 for conclusion.
As posted, we are at rather so at this point.

As not to be misunderstood the effective thinking left and right will draw simlilarity's in this
hourglass economy to solution since guess what, they can think.
Since 2008 and before the Chinese understand the American economy.
They understand saturation points in markets since they built one just as we did
decades ago. They are poised for internal expansion. Once people figure out
we can bail out all we want but you still have to repair the boat.
If people are transfixed on the titanic just remember some never got on the
damn thing.
Mann is feeling the same way I am "The debt disaster we are looking at is beyond my comprehension."
Not very smart decisions for decades. Nothing new under the Sun.
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/20 ... ofile.html

[jdcpapa]

Mann is feeling the same way I am "The debt disaster we are looking at is beyond my comprehension."

An understatement after my review of the reports of the CBO, GAO and the US Financial Statement for the fiscal year 9/2010. As of this date the US is in debt in excess of 21 trillion. The debt ceiling does not account for all US debt.

Regards,

[RDRUNR]

Mann is feeling the same way I am "The debt disaster we are looking at is beyond my comprehension."

An understatement after my review of the reports of the CBO, GAO and the US Financial Statement for the fiscal year 9/2010. As of this date the US is in debt in excess of 21 trillion. The debt ceiling does not account for all US debt.

Regards,

This is way a big deflationary period is coming. Just this month over 4.5 Trillion has been lost in the world stock market (source: CNBC). (Which is more than Tarp, QE1 and QE2)