Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I keep paying attention to the Chinese who seem to be adhering to a far more stringent variation of monetarism. They intend to curb volatility and bubble formation by limiting capital formation at the commercial bank level.
If monetarism was the slave in service to the economy as Milton Friedman suggested it might be an extremely useful tool. But in a global capital market nobody operates in the requisite isolation.
I can't believe you are actually praising the Chinese system. Do you really hate this administration so much? The Chinese are able to control any goddamned thing they want. They are a quasi capitalist regime that has figured out how to rake in profits for the government, but which hardly extends to its citizens. China remains a Communist nation. Hello?
Unfuckingbelievable.
I love all the doomsday predictions by economy expert webnutters. Real experts of all persuasions are working diligently to come up with real solutions. These are the ones who, without political bias, aren't secretly hoping the US will crash.
Worse yet monetarism is simply an update of Fisher's 1910 paper that led to what he called in early 1929 "A permanent plateau of prosperity." We are entering South Sea bubble territory.I agree. Monetarism is the more dangerous discipline, and it is even stronger than it was before the "abyss impasse" of 08.
This is where the presence of Geithner and Bernanke will yield bad dividends.
I love all the doomsday predictions by economy expert webnutters. Real experts of all persuasions are working diligently to come up with real solutions. These are the ones who, without political bias, aren't secretly hoping the US will crash.
If it is the policy wonks or asterism, let's go with the wonks.
If it is the policy wonks or asterism, let's go with the wonks.
You have a right to that opinion. How many jobs did you create between January 2008 and now? How many has the government created?
I'm currently at net 5. It's not much, but it's 5 more than Bush/Obama/Pelosi/JakeStarkey have created. Now go ahead and make it more expensive to do it now and see how that works out.
I will check with the general manager on the phone, Asterism, and he will say we have added somewhere between 30 and 40 people: new positions, not replacements. You have created only 1/6 at the best of what we have.
You have no idea about national economics or or tax policy on this matter clearly, based on your criteria above.
If it is the policy wonks or asterism, let's go with the wonks.
You have a right to that opinion. How many jobs did you create between January 2008 and now? How many has the government created?
I'm currently at net 5. It's not much, but it's 5 more than Bush/Obama/Pelosi/JakeStarkey have created. Now go ahead and make it more expensive to do it now and see how that works out.
As long as you continue to have your head completely buried in sand, there's no point in discussing this with you any longer. How much more proof do you need that (a) it was acknowledged at the outset that it would be a long slog before the economy picked up again, (b) that the stimulus money DID provide jobs AND tax cuts for businesses AND a start on many highway projects heretofore in limbo, (c) all market indicators EXCEPT unemployment are showing marked improvement.
But noooooooooooooo, according to you, the apocalypse has already happened. I have great sympathy for such negativity. You're attitude contributes to the problem, not the solution.
I will check with the general manager on the phone, Asterism, and he will say we have added somewhere between 30 and 40 people: new positions, not replacements. You have created only 1/6 at the best of what we have.
You have no idea about national economics or or tax policy on this matter clearly, based on your criteria above.
I didn't say it was much.
But if you created these jobs how can you not know how many? The general manager works for your right?
The problem is that working economists do not publish much because most of what they do is proprietary and published economists are generally academics who either passed on or were passed on by employers in private industry. Just as architects are judged by the buildings they have designed and built economists are judged by the fortunes, not necessarily their own, that they have designed and built.Worse yet monetarism is simply an update of Fisher's 1910 paper that led to what he called in early 1929 "A permanent plateau of prosperity." We are entering South Sea bubble territory.
I love all the doomsday predictions by economy expert webnutters. Real experts of all persuasions are working diligently to come up with real solutions. These are the ones who, without political bias, aren't secretly hoping the US will crash.
The sad part isn't that you believe that nonsense, it's that you still believe it after it has been tried and failed miserably. You seem to think that policy wonks are the ones who can help and those of us doing the actual business should just shut up and follow them over another cliff.
The best solution now would be to put a Governor, two housewives and two entrepreneurs in charge of managing government inflows and outflows as basic resources. That would be true effective compromise.
I will check with the general manager on the phone, Asterism, and he will say we have added somewhere between 30 and 40 people: new positions, not replacements. You have created only 1/6 at the best of what we have.
You have no idea about national economics or or tax policy on this matter clearly, based on your criteria above.
I didn't say it was much.
But if you created these jobs how can you not know how many? The general manager works for your right?
Asterism, that business is one of several in which I am involved in ownership and or partnership, and in that one I am not involved in the daily operations. That's why I have a general manager, and why he has answered my forthwith. The growth was 34 jobs created.
Now, to the point.
All indicators, with the exception of unemployment, have turned in the right direction. The employment figure has stabilized, but it does need to go down to spurt dynamic economic growth.
You have offered nothing but a cooked chart that sky was not falling. Put something solid out there that the great majority of economists will say, "Yep, that's right." You don't have it, do you?
The problem is that working economists do not publish much because most of what they do is proprietary and published economists are generally academics who either passed on or were passed on by employers in private industry. Just as architects are judged by the buildings they have designed and built economists are judged by the fortunes, not necessarily their own, that they have designed and built.I love all the doomsday predictions by economy expert webnutters. Real experts of all persuasions are working diligently to come up with real solutions. These are the ones who, without political bias, aren't secretly hoping the US will crash.
The sad part isn't that you believe that nonsense, it's that you still believe it after it has been tried and failed miserably. You seem to think that policy wonks are the ones who can help and those of us doing the actual business should just shut up and follow them over another cliff.
The best solution now would be to put a Governor, two housewives and two entrepreneurs in charge of managing government inflows and outflows as basic resources. That would be true effective compromise.
The late perennial LP presidential candidate, Harry S. Browne, is noted in portfolio theory for his asset allocation model which produces the highest risk adjusted returns of any yet tested. Scholes of Black and Scholes fame and LTCM infamy is a high rolling gambler who always lands on his feet. Krugman, Geithner and Bernancke are not noted for getting anyone seriously rich yet they are treated as experts. I find it bizarre that liberal posters do not quote Soros and Buffet much at all in this crisis. They are afterall liberal economists of note and achievement and even though it is quite possible to disagree strongly with their political goals they are not asshats. But they are rarely quoted or cited by liberals in these economic debates.
I didn't say it was much.
But if you created these jobs how can you not know how many? The general manager works for your right?
Asterism, that business is one of several in which I am involved in ownership and or partnership, and in that one I am not involved in the daily operations. That's why I have a general manager, and why he has answered my forthwith. The growth was 34 jobs created.
Now, to the point.
All indicators, with the exception of unemployment, have turned in the right direction. The employment figure has stabilized, but it does need to go down to spurt dynamic economic growth.
You have offered nothing but a cooked chart that sky was not falling. Put something solid out there that the great majority of economists will say, "Yep, that's right." You don't have it, do you?
Thank you for the clarification. I'm glad your increased business has been better than mine.
I didn't "cook" any chart. I added the red line to the one that the Council of Economic Advisors released, that's all. We obviously differ on our conclusions about the direction of this economy, but 2 years later the only results are "indicators" that have "turned in the right direction." That's just spin for "it's not working but it's getting worse at a slower pace" in my opinion.
Asterism, that business is one of several in which I am involved in ownership and or partnership, and in that one I am not involved in the daily operations. That's why I have a general manager, and why he has answered my forthwith. The growth was 34 jobs created.
Now, to the point.
All indicators, with the exception of unemployment, have turned in the right direction. The employment figure has stabilized, but it does need to go down to spurt dynamic economic growth.
You have offered nothing but a cooked chart that sky was not falling. Put something solid out there that the great majority of economists will say, "Yep, that's right." You don't have it, do you?
Thank you for the clarification. I'm glad your increased business has been better than mine.
I didn't "cook" any chart. I added the red line to the one that the Council of Economic Advisors released, that's all. We obviously differ on our conclusions about the direction of this economy, but 2 years later the only results are "indicators" that have "turned in the right direction." That's just spin for "it's not working but it's getting worse at a slower pace" in my opinion.
I disagree. That we grew more expansively than yours may merely be that we are in "growth" fields and that we are diversified in a number of fields. I congratulate you on your work ethic.
The problem is that working economists do not publish much because most of what they do is proprietary and published economists are generally academics who either passed on or were passed on by employers in private industry. Just as architects are judged by the buildings they have designed and built economists are judged by the fortunes, not necessarily their own, that they have designed and built.I love all the doomsday predictions by economy expert webnutters. Real experts of all persuasions are working diligently to come up with real solutions. These are the ones who, without political bias, aren't secretly hoping the US will crash.
The sad part isn't that you believe that nonsense, it's that you still believe it after it has been tried and failed miserably. You seem to think that policy wonks are the ones who can help and those of us doing the actual business should just shut up and follow them over another cliff.
The best solution now would be to put a Governor, two housewives and two entrepreneurs in charge of managing government inflows and outflows as basic resources. That would be true effective compromise.
The late perennial LP presidential candidate, Harry S. Browne, is noted in portfolio theory for his asset allocation model which produces the highest risk adjusted returns of any yet tested. Scholes of Black and Scholes fame and LTCM infamy is a high rolling gambler who always lands on his feet. Krugman, Geithner and Bernancke are not noted for getting anyone seriously rich yet they are treated as experts. I find it bizarre that liberal posters do not quote Soros and Buffet much at all in this crisis. They are afterall liberal economists of note and achievement and even though it is quite possible to disagree strongly with their political goals they are not asshats. But they are rarely quoted or cited by liberals in these economic debates.
