Whats the problem with the US Economy

[Kimura]

Of course it is, these banks are basically engaging in monopolistic behavior,

dear, monopoly means one, there are 1000's of banks in the country and 10's of thousands in the world.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

They control the majority of banking assets in the United States. No, monopoly doesn't mean one; the various definitions of monopoly are as follows:

1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3.

the exclusive possession or control of something.
4.

something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5.
a company or group that has such control.

Dear, no it doesn't,

monopoly does not mean one????????????????? see why we are sure a liberal will be slow????



as I said there are 1000's of banks in the US plus tons of foreign competition. There is less concentration and more competition than almost any other industry



too stupid but perfectly liberal. They were loaned millions and paid it all back.

They were given trillions not millions. I have no clue what planet you're on, come back to earth. And you're dead wrong, they haven't paid back all the bailout money. Not even close.

As you said silly goofy liberal: "they are zombie banks." They are not making much of a profit. So whats your concern???? You have never said?????????????

Yes, zombie banks, which are technically insolvent and being propped up by explicit guarantees from the government. Also, a vast majority of these banks a leveraged to the hilt with derivatives which can't be papered over.

but why when there is tons of international competition in the new globalized economy??? Hadn't you heard??


Please give up and realize that liberal means , slow.

What competition? Markets are largely rigged due to high-frequency trading - and the fact these banks own the vast majority of US banking assets while simultaneously receiving guarantees from the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I listen to this man

Economics and Politics by Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - NYTimes.com

The Conscience of a Liberal ​

Meanwhile, the CRFB features on its home page an op-ed by Jim Jones declaring that

"We are perilously close to trillion-dollar yearly interest payments, 7 percent yields on 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds, 10 percent home mortgage rates and 13 percent rates on car loans. For the good of the country, the parties must come together and not let this happen."

How does he know that we are “perilously close” to this outcome? Not from the markets; not from any kind of economic model. My guess is that Peggy Noonan told him.

You are listening to a man who changes his interpretation of the numbers based on which party is in the White House.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I listen to this man

Economics and Politics by Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - NYTimes.com

The Conscience of a Liberal ​

Meanwhile, the CRFB features on its home page an op-ed by Jim Jones declaring that

"We are perilously close to trillion-dollar yearly interest payments, 7 percent yields on 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds, 10 percent home mortgage rates and 13 percent rates on car loans. For the good of the country, the parties must come together and not let this happen."

How does he know that we are “perilously close” to this outcome? Not from the markets; not from any kind of economic model. My guess is that Peggy Noonan told him.

You are listening to a man who changes his interpretation of the numbers based on which party is in the White House.

ad hominem attacks will never win over an argument. Only attacking the source and not addressing or refuting any points at all, never wins an argument

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I listen to this man

Economics and Politics by Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - NYTimes.com

The Conscience of a Liberal ​

You are listening to a man who changes his interpretation of the numbers based on which party is in the White House.

ad hominem attacks will never win over an argument. Only attacking the source and not addressing or refuting any points at all, never wins an argument

Pointing out that Krugman is perfectly willing to spend numbers based on who is in office is not an ad hominem when it is an attack on his record, and I certainly didn't attack you.

Let me demonstrate what I mean.

In this column he shows why we should be encouraged by the job numbers under Obama. He makes a pretty good argument that, even though the numbers are not great, they are at least going in the right direction.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6334250

The interesting part about this is that just four years ago he called numbers that were actually better under Bush dismal and painted a picture of ultimate disaster if the trends continued.

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

The man is a hack.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Pick one. Dazzle us with your insight

Demand is low

 

[Rshermr]

You are listening to a man who changes his interpretation of the numbers based on which party is in the White House.

ad hominem attacks will never win over an argument. Only attacking the source and not addressing or refuting any points at all, never wins an argument

Pointing out that Krugman is perfectly willing to spend numbers based on who is in office is not an ad hominem when it is an attack on his record, and I certainly didn't attack you.

Let me demonstrate what I mean.

In this column he shows why we should be encouraged by the job numbers under Obama. He makes a pretty good argument that, even though the numbers are not great, they are at least going in the right direction.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6334250

The interesting part about this is that just four years ago he called numbers that were actually better under Bush dismal and painted a picture of ultimate disaster if the trends continued.

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

The man is a hack.

There does seem to be some sort of a hack in this conversation. Had you noticed that one instance (2004) had a decent economy that should have supported employment growth, and a different instance that was trying to recover from a serious recssion without any stimulus help coming from the republican party.

 

[Rshermr]

For the same reason he wanted to reduce the deficit yesterday.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ad hominem attacks will never win over an argument. Only attacking the source and not addressing or refuting any points at all, never wins an argument

Pointing out that Krugman is perfectly willing to spend numbers based on who is in office is not an ad hominem when it is an attack on his record, and I certainly didn't attack you.

Let me demonstrate what I mean.

In this column he shows why we should be encouraged by the job numbers under Obama. He makes a pretty good argument that, even though the numbers are not great, they are at least going in the right direction.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6334250

The interesting part about this is that just four years ago he called numbers that were actually better under Bush dismal and painted a picture of ultimate disaster if the trends continued.

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

The man is a hack.

There does seem to be some sort of a hack in this conversation. Had you noticed that one instance (2004) had a decent economy that should have supported employment growth, and a different instance that was trying to recover from a serious recssion without any stimulus help coming from the republican party.

Good try at defending the hack.

By the way, did you ever get back to me with an actual defense of that study you like? Or did you just run away like the coward you are?

 

[Rshermr]

What is not wrong with the US Economy is the wealth of the rich. They have gotten much richer over the past few years. It is not corporate profits. They are at record levels. The market is doing well, almost back to where it was before the market crashed.
What is not back is employment levels, and the related unemployment rate. And the deficit will not really start declining until unemployment is back. Economic history shows this clearly. All economists know that employment is the last thing to recover after a major recession, or a depression.
So, the related problem is why. Why is the unemployment rate not moving down as fast as it should. And that makes looking at history useful. What worked to bring unemployment down in past recessions.
So, during the great depression, Americans watched unemployment rates move from under 5% to over 20% from late '28 to early '33. And it did not stop until stimulus spending started in earnest. During Reagan's administration, unemployment reached 10.8% in '82. Stimulus spending brought the rate down rather quickly. When Clinton took over a poor economy, stimulus spending brought the rate back into order. But in this really large recession, we have had very little stimulus. What we had, worked. But it was a small stimulus. And the republican party has absolutely blocked any additional stimulus. Because they have backed the source of revenue to support the stimulus, which of necessity needs to be additional tax revenue.
It is as simple as that.

 

[Rshermr]

Pointing out that Krugman is perfectly willing to spend numbers based on who is in office is not an ad hominem when it is an attack on his record, and I certainly didn't attack you.

Let me demonstrate what I mean.

In this column he shows why we should be encouraged by the job numbers under Obama. He makes a pretty good argument that, even though the numbers are not great, they are at least going in the right direction.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6334250

The interesting part about this is that just four years ago he called numbers that were actually better under Bush dismal and painted a picture of ultimate disaster if the trends continued.

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

The man is a hack.

There does seem to be some sort of a hack in this conversation. Had you noticed that one instance (2004) had a decent economy that should have supported employment growth, and a different instance that was trying to recover from a serious recssion without any stimulus help coming from the republican party.

Good try at defending the hack.

By the way, did you ever get back to me with an actual defense of that study you like? Or did you just run away like the coward you are?

Not a try, just the truth.


Relative to your question. No defense needed. it is what it is. Did you believe you said something to negate it in your mind???
All I saw was a series of lies about it coming from you. No tearing it up, as you promised. Cmon, me con tool, tear it up.
Then you can take on the other 30 or so out ther now. Problem is, they always come to the same conclusion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Pick one. Dazzle us with your insight

Demand is low

Yes, demand is low for your insight

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For the same reason he wanted to reduce the deficit yesterday.

Have you ever read what Krugman said about the Depression within the Depression in 1937?

 

[Toro]

[youtube]N8LmE5cfQKA[/youtube]

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I voted the 1% just for kicks.

Well.... Seeing as how Obama and all of the Senate are one percenters.....

 

[Two Thumbs]

Pick one. Dazzle us with your insight

Nothing!

obamanamics worked you rw lunatic!!

Can't you fucking tell?!?!?

The debt only doubled, b/c of Bush
Gas only doubled, b/c of Bush

and

and

your a doody head, b/c of Bush

And tell those 23 million jobless people to Shut The Fuck Up!! There is no fiscal cliff, that more RX Quackery!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

[youtube]N8LmE5cfQKA[/youtube]

And pontificate, Krugman does. Which is why he ruins his own hard earned credibility by opening his mouth on economic subjects he has shown time and time again to be way off on. WAY off. Then he makes it worse by instead of accepting he is wrong and sticking to his his area of expertise, he denies his own claims.

That's why he's a hack.

 

[Rshermr]

[youtube]N8LmE5cfQKA[/youtube]

And pontificate, Krugman does. Which is why he ruins his own hard earned credibility by opening his mouth on economic subjects he has shown time and time again to be way off on. WAY off. Then he makes it worse by instead of accepting he is wrong and sticking to his his area of expertise, he denies his own claims.

That's why he's a hack.

Damn. And as usual, your opinion is so well documented.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It is well documented.

There is a video of a conference above as just one slice of this well documented fact.

 

[usmcstinger]

Obama's use of Keynesian Economics. Soon we will be Greece!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obama's use of Keynesian Economics. Soon we will be Greece!

Does your social worker at the VA hospital know you're back on the internet?