Economic policy in five words

[Flanders]

All of the talk about the economy is the most boring con job in the current campaign season. I work hard to keep the details out of my head. Thank God I never gave Herman Cain’s economic plan an iota of space in my thinking. Does anyone who did dive into the details remember anything Cain proposed? Ditto the rest of them who came and went. The headlines on thousands of articles told me everything I needed to know.

Bottom line: When it comes to the economy do not be fooled into believing there is a difference between Republican economic plans and Democrat economic plans. For all of the economic plans put out by politicians in both parties the federal government’s economic policy can be summed up in five words: Wall Street must not crash. Every economic decision, every scheme to lower retail prices, every tax increase, every bailout, every stimulus package, every increase in the debt ceiling, ensures obedience to those five words.

 

[DSGE]

How is the government allowing Lehman Brothers to fail consistent with your hypothesis?

 

[Truthmatters]

when you try to pretend something complicated is simple it means your simple

 

[Flanders]

How is the government allowing Lehman Brothers to fail consistent with your hypothesis?

To DSGE: Because of all of the other bailouts. Bailing out auto companies traded on the stock market is far more telling than is letting one or two Wall Street firms go under. And did you ever ask yourself if Lehman Brothers was so corrupt that bailing it out was not an option? In short: The government decided it was better to amputate a finger than lose an arm. The Bush Administration said as much with “Another Great Depression” scare tactic. From their perspective they were right. In no way does Lehman Brothers discredit my hypothesis.

when you try to pretend something complicated is simple it means your simple

To Truthmatters: When you try to complicate something that is simple that makes you a liar, and probably a crook or a lawyer. Note that the law is deliberately complicated by lawyers in order to generate income for their profession. Also note that the proverbial “fine print” in contracts, in insurance policies, etc., was invented to complicate not clarify. A government-controlled economy is no different in that it complicates for the benefit of the ruling class. Does seeing it for what it is make anyone simple? Answer: No.

Denying the obvious identifies the deniers as fools.

 

[DSGE]

How is the government allowing Lehman Brothers to fail consistent with your hypothesis?

To DSGE: Because of all of the other bailouts. Bailing out auto companies traded on the stock market is far more telling than is letting one or two Wall Street firms go under.

Ah no it's not. First off, auto companies aren't "Wall St", which is what your hypothesis is about. The entire motivation for the bailouts was the idea of systemic risk. That is, if one large bank goes under it'll cause more failures throughout the entire banking system. They bailed out Bear Sterns. They chose not to bail out Lehman, which was bigger than Bear. At the time it was the fourth biggest investment bank on Wall St. Lehman was allowed to go under and Wall St crashed. That contradicts your hypothesis.

And did you ever ask yourself if Lehman Brothers was so corrupt that bailing it out was not an option?

Oh okay so we're adding conditions now? WALL ST MUST NOT CRASH (unless preventing so would involve bailing out a corrupt company). Five words have now become fifteen.

 

[Truthmatters]

Make up your mind OP, do you hate caplitalism or democracy?

 

[uscitizen]

Cain is a quitter just like Palin.

He did do a good job of promoting sales of his book though.

 

[Truthmatters]

Neither one ever wanted high office.

They wanted high paychecks

 

[Flanders]

How is the government allowing Lehman Brothers to fail consistent with your hypothesis?

To DSGE: Because of all of the other bailouts. Bailing out auto companies traded on the stock market is far more telling than is letting one or two Wall Street firms go under.

Ah no it's not. First off, auto companies aren't "Wall St", which is what your hypothesis is about. The entire motivation for the bailouts was the idea of systemic risk. That is, if one large bank goes under it'll cause more failures throughout the entire banking system. They bailed out Bear Sterns. They chose not to bail out Lehman, which was bigger than Bear. At the time it was the fourth biggest investment bank on Wall St. Lehman was allowed to go under and Wall St crashed. That contradicts your hypothesis.

And did you ever ask yourself if Lehman Brothers was so corrupt that bailing it out was not an option?

Oh okay so we're adding conditions now? WALL ST MUST NOT CRASH (unless preventing so would involve bailing out a corrupt company). Five words have now become fifteen.

To DSGE: I am content to let those who might be following this thread decide for themselves.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4&feature=player_detailpage]Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube[/ame]

Make up your mind OP, do you hate caplitalism or democracy?

To Truthmatters: How clever of you. The loaded question!

For your edification see this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/210061-democracy-building.html

For your further edification. I love:

laissez faire also laisser faire (noun)

1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.

 

[DSGE]

To DSGE: I am content to let those who might be following this thread decide for themselves.

Well they were always going to anyway. Does that stop you from addressing the contradiction to your hypothesis?

 

[editec]

All of the talk about the economy is the most boring con job in the current campaign season. I work hard to keep the details out of my head. Thank God I never gave Herman Cain’s economic plan an iota of space in my thinking. Does anyone who did dive into the details remember anything Cain proposed? Ditto the rest of them who came and went. The headlines on thousands of articles told me everything I needed to know.

Bottom line: When it comes to the economy do not be fooled into believing there is a difference between Republican economic plans and Democrat economic plans. For all of the economic plans put out by politicians in both parties the federal government’s economic policy can be summed up in five words: Wall Street must not crash. Every economic decision, every scheme to lower retail prices, every tax increase, every bailout, every stimulus package, every increase in the debt ceiling, ensures obedience to those five words.

Oh WALL STREET can crash, alright.

And whenever it serves the interests of the MASTERS OF FINANCE it does crash, too.

Remember than when the street goes down, there are SOME PEOPLE who make a huge amount of money on it.

ESPECIALLY those who, either through insider trading or dumb luck, those who were prepared for the crash.

Now please don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, folks.

Or if you think I don't go read some economic history.

Creating bubbles and then popping them is a tried and true system for fleecing the public.

 

[Flanders]

Oh WALL STREET can crash, alright.

To editec: A crash is not the worst thing in the world when it is dictated by market forces; i.e., laissez faire economics.

The government allows Wall Street to do anything it has to do to keep the market from collapsing. Supply and demand no longer play a part in economic policy. Hence, never allowing retail prices to find their own level based on supply and demand is the essential ingredient in propping up Wall Street. Bailouts are secondary to controlling retail prices when it comes to preventing a market crash. Should retail prices come down stock prices must follow; whereas, denying a bailout or two may, or may not, affect retail prices across the board.

NOTE: Gasoline prices fluctuate. Even there the trend is toward a permanent higher retail price.

Creating bubbles and then popping them is a tried and true system for fleecing the public.

To editec: It’s not fleecing. It’s called the house percentage.

I’ve got a betting system

Every system works. The worst betting system ever invented will payoff once in awhile. The best system in the world won't payoff enough times to beat the house percentage. This is true with horses, roulette, and speculating on Wall Street.

The stock market is a gambling enterprise. They like to call it investing, but it is gambling pure and simple. Don’t get me wrong. I’ve no objections to gambling.

To me, the best form of gambling is betting on the gee-gees. Even if a race is fixed the punters have as much chance of cashing a ticket on a boat race as they have when they bet on a race that is on the up and up. It doesn't matter to the true gambler. What does matter is that you get paid when you do win. Private sector working people never get paid in Wall Street’s casinos. They lose even when they do not place a bet.

Betting on horses or the galloping dominoes or buying stocks is gambling. That is why I think the SEC should be shutdown. The SEC has never been anything but a cloak of respectability for Wall Street anyway. I would go even further and prohibit lawsuits when Wall Street rips you off. Ditto gambling casinos. In short: Don't holler cop when you lose.

It is the jerks who read the Daily Racing Form and the Wall Street Journal trying to predict the future who holler "Rape" the loudest when the house percentage bites them on the ass. How dumb do you have to be to try and predict the future of a stock price when you cannot predict what the house always does?

One final observation: Republican wannabes tell us all about their economic plans and how conservative they are, but did you ever hear one of them say how he will bring down retail prices for food, clothing, and utilities, the very things necessary to everyone as well as the very things Wall Street controls the most. Throughout this economic crisis prices on necessary items have been rising faster than unemployment.

 

[Truthmatters]

To DSGE: Because of all of the other bailouts. Bailing out auto companies traded on the stock market is far more telling than is letting one or two Wall Street firms go under.

Ah no it's not. First off, auto companies aren't "Wall St", which is what your hypothesis is about. The entire motivation for the bailouts was the idea of systemic risk. That is, if one large bank goes under it'll cause more failures throughout the entire banking system. They bailed out Bear Sterns. They chose not to bail out Lehman, which was bigger than Bear. At the time it was the fourth biggest investment bank on Wall St. Lehman was allowed to go under and Wall St crashed. That contradicts your hypothesis.



Oh okay so we're adding conditions now? WALL ST MUST NOT CRASH (unless preventing so would involve bailing out a corrupt company). Five words have now become fifteen.

To DSGE: I am content to let those who might be following this thread decide for themselves.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4&feature=player_detailpage]Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube[/ame]

Make up your mind OP, do you hate caplitalism or democracy?

To Truthmatters: How clever of you. The loaded question!

For your edification see this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/210061-democracy-building.html

For your further edification. I love:

laissez faire also laisser faire (noun)

1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.

Which has NEVER in history produced what the proponents of it has claimed it will produce.


You are amoung a group of people who have no idea of which you speak.

Not one time in the history of man has laissez faire produced anything I would want to live under.

 

[Flanders]

Which has NEVER in history produced what the proponents of it has claimed it will produce.


You are amoung a group of people who have no idea of which you speak.

Not one time in the history of man has laissez faire produced anything I would want to live under.

To Truthmatters: You obviously do not know that laissez faire requires limited government in order to work to perfection. Nor do you seem to know the two built this country by giving the most people the most freedoms —— not to mention the highest standard of living ever seen. None of those things would have been possible in a collectivist society. Indeed, the parasite class put an end to limited government and laissez faire economics.

You made it clear that you are happy living under the collectivist society the parasites gave you. Do not let your willing servility convince you that you know what you are talking about.

 

[Flanders]

Hussein’s Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu made my case. Economic policy is irrevocably determined by Wall Street. So long as retail prices rise the market goes up. Nothing raises prices across the board faster than gasoline prices. Every company traded on Wall Street that uses oil for transportation and manufacturing can justify higher retail prices whenever the price of oil goes up. Even small businesses get to raise their prices by blaming it on the cost of gasoline at the pump.

And does anybody really believe that Hussein & Company want to get America off of fossil fuels? The green energy thing is a scam; an opportunity to send billions to crooks. Transforming this country to alternate energy technology is the most effective lie ever told. Only fools believe it; only government stooges tell it. The world runs on oil and will likely do so for at least the next three centuries. Even if America could stop using oil it would be the only country that did so. Everybody else would lap up the oil this country does not use.

Energy Secretary Chu Admits Administration OK with High Gas Prices
By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Wed, Feb 29, 201

Energy Secretary Chu Admits Administration OK with High Gas Prices - Yahoo! News

 

[uspatriot1776]

Economic policy in 5 words:

Vote Ron Paul in 2012!

But seriously, here's another bumper sticker for you:

Just build it in America.

Our problem is we don't make things. We are competing with currency manipulators and export subsidisers. We need to put everyone on the same level through laissez-faire economics, then American ingenuity will take over and keep us as the number one economic force in the World.

 

[uspatriot1776]

one more 5 word economic policy:

Move to the Gold Standard!

 

[Flanders]

Economic policy in 5 words:

Vote Ron Paul in 2012!

But seriously, here's another bumper sticker for you:

Just build it in America.

Our problem is we don't make things. We are competing with currency manipulators and export subsidisers. We need to put everyone on the same level through laissez-faire economics, then American ingenuity will take over and keep us as the number one economic force in the World.

To uspatriot1776: Go figure. According to Socialists —— socialism is laissez faire capitalism!

one more 5 word economic policy:

Move to the Gold Standard!

To uspatriot1776: A few years ago I suggested paying off America’s debt with the gold in Fort Knox —— then buy it back when the price drops as it inevitably will.