How is austerity doing in Europe

[RKMBrown]

We're talking about crimes that make the Cosa Nostra look like amatuer hour. We'd also be doing society a favor by breaking up these too big too fail entities. I work for an Italian bank, pretty high up the food chain, so this has nothing to do with your suggestion that I hate companies. I hate criminals and criminal enterprises. That's what a large portion of these banks have become.

Ah.. ok fair enough. I also dislike the criminal enterprises and agree we should break up the CEO oligopoly on executive pay, and the criminal activities of CEOs and corporations. Rule of law, ok sure I'm all for that.

Finally, we agree on something.

We'd probably agree on a lot of things were we to be using the same basis for the discussions. Alas we all enter these discussions with our own backgrounds and our own emphasis bias. Break up the monopolies and oligopolies! But save the right of a person to build and own his own company... that would be a matter of property rights. That said, most companies are run by executives that did not build the company and are not the primary owner of the company. Nope, but they do operate as if they are. This is wrong, they work for the legal owners, in this case the shareholders. The shareholders should have rights. Esp. the right to set the executive pay structures.

 

[bripat9643]

Securities fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, extortion, and acts of terrorism (financial terrorism, yet terrorism nonetheless).

Well, maybe the first one and perhaps the second, but I'm not sure about the rest.

So is your argument that they are heads of criminal enterprises?

Yeah, that would be the general idea. The DOJ would have go full tilt. Ultimately, you would want to destroy the CEOs - both legally and financially - and make an example of them with life sentences. This is the only way to have some semblance of justice for the destruction these people caused for millions of people.

If they committed actual crimes, then why aren't the already in prison? The fact is they have not broken any laws. All they've done is piss off commies like you by retaining their jobs and incomes.

If destruction of people's lives was the standard, then every member of Congress should be in prison. Congress is nothing more than an organized gang of criminals.

 

[Rshermr]

Well, maybe the first one and perhaps the second, but I'm not sure about the rest.

So is your argument that they are heads of criminal enterprises?

Yeah, that would be the general idea. The DOJ would have go full tilt. Ultimately, you would want to destroy the CEOs - both legally and financially - and make an example of them with life sentences. This is the only way to have some semblance of justice for the destruction these people caused for millions of people.

If they committed actual crimes, then why aren't the already in prison? The fact is they have not broken any laws. All they've done is piss off commies like you by retaining their jobs and incomes.

If destruction of people's lives was the standard, then every member of Congress should be in prison. Congress is nothing more than an organized gang of criminals.

The real question is why are you not locked up. And the answer is that there is no place to put you. Obviously you are nuts, but there is no law against that. And no help available. So, what can be said except you are clinically nuts. Which is not your fault. Just bad luck.

 

[Kimura]

Well, maybe the first one and perhaps the second, but I'm not sure about the rest.

So is your argument that they are heads of criminal enterprises?

Yeah, that would be the general idea. The DOJ would have go full tilt. Ultimately, you would want to destroy the CEOs - both legally and financially - and make an example of them with life sentences. This is the only way to have some semblance of justice for the destruction these people caused for millions of people.

If they committed actual crimes, then why aren't the already in prison? The fact is they have not broken any laws. All they've done is piss off commies like you by retaining their jobs and incomes.

If destruction of people's lives was the standard, then every member of Congress should be in prison. Congress is nothing more than an organized gang of criminals.

They've committed massive financial fraud and numerous SEC violations. The DOJ has admitted they don't want to prosecute. Holder basically said they're above the law if you read between the lines. I find it ironic you would call me a commie for suggesting we prosecute criminals and criminal enterprises.

Holder’s remarks on banks ‘too large’ to prosecute reignites controversy

 

[Toro]

Again, I don't know how you do it. To prove that the investment banks are inherently criminal enterprises is quite a stretch, especially when they have been fairly unsuccessful in their prosecutions thus far. FFS, they're going after SAC for failing to supervise properly. If that's all you can get that firm on, no way can you make a RICO charge stick against a Goldman.

 

[Kimura]

Again, I don't know how you do it. To prove that the investment banks are inherently criminal enterprises is quite a stretch, especially when they have been fairly unsuccessful in their prosecutions thus far. FFS, they're going after SAC for failing to supervise properly. If that's all you can get that firm on, no way can you make a RICO charge stick against a Goldman.

The FBI can use the same approach they used - and continue to use - against the Cosa Nostra.

You use available evidence (securities fraud and money laundering), then you use surveillance and multiple investigations to build cases. You can assemble a RICO case, especially with the LIBOR scandal. By the way, some people at the FED and Treasury will obviously be implicated at some point in some capacity. I'd go with the immediate securities fraud and money laundering. You can then assemble cases for embezzlement, bribery, etc. There's so many players involved, so many SEC violations, it would take YEARS to sift through.

We're talking about making strong examples of people who glorify this type of behavior and commit financial crimes.

 

[Toro]

Again, I don't know how you do it. To prove that the investment banks are inherently criminal enterprises is quite a stretch, especially when they have been fairly unsuccessful in their prosecutions thus far. FFS, they're going after SAC for failing to supervise properly. If that's all you can get that firm on, no way can you make a RICO charge stick against a Goldman.

The FBI can use the same approach they used - and continue to use - against the Cosa Nostra.

You use available evidence (securities fraud and money laundering), then you use surveillance and multiple investigations to build cases. You can assemble a RICO case, especially with the LIBOR scandal. By the way, some people at the FED and Treasury will obviously be implicated at some point in some capacity. I'd go with the immediate securities fraud and money laundering. You can then assemble cases for embezzlement, bribery, etc. There's so many players involved, so many SEC violations, it would take YEARS to sift through.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, you must prove that an organization is a criminal enterprise - meaning it is engaged in significant criminal activity and primarily lives off the avails of crime - and that individuals have committed multiple crimes. Again, not a lawyer, but the first step of proving that financial activity is primarily criminal activity seems like a really high bar.

Google FBI organized crime glossary.

 

[Kimura]

Again, I don't know how you do it. To prove that the investment banks are inherently criminal enterprises is quite a stretch, especially when they have been fairly unsuccessful in their prosecutions thus far. FFS, they're going after SAC for failing to supervise properly. If that's all you can get that firm on, no way can you make a RICO charge stick against a Goldman.

The FBI can use the same approach they used - and continue to use - against the Cosa Nostra.

You use available evidence (securities fraud and money laundering), then you use surveillance and multiple investigations to build cases. You can assemble a RICO case, especially with the LIBOR scandal. By the way, some people at the FED and Treasury will obviously be implicated at some point in some capacity. I'd go with the immediate securities fraud and money laundering. You can then assemble cases for embezzlement, bribery, etc. There's so many players involved, so many SEC violations, it would take YEARS to sift through.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, you must prove that an organization is a criminal enterprise - meaning it is engaged in significant criminal activity and primarily lives off the avails of crime - and that individuals have committed multiple crimes. Again, not a lawyer, but the first step of proving that financial activity is primarily criminal activity seems like a really high bar.

Google FBI organized crime glossary.

Same here, nor do I play one on television.

In order to implement RICO, all the DOJ and state prosecutors would have to do is file charges that are connected to crimes which were committed within a ten year period, as long as a single act is a component of said criminal enterprise which occurred within the past five years.

 

[AmazonTania]

Yup. Got it. The economy is getting worse. We are in a depression. Unemployment is not getting better, but rather it is getting worse. GM is failing and will need to be bailed out again. Got it.

The unemployment rate is lower and still decreasing. The unemployment situation is not getting any better, though. Labour Force participation is not growing, and record amount of people are still leaving the labour force. Aside from this, majority of the jobs created for this month are part-time. I don't see how this is an indicator of an economy which is synonymous with growth.

Perhaps, in your own words, if you can, maybe you would like to explain why you feel the economy is not experiencing a depression.

P.S: I thought you should also know that General Motors has recently recalled 239,000 Chervolet Cruze cars in the US due to brake defects. Considering that the company is 'supposedly' performing efficiently and better than it was during the restructuring process, this really isn't a good sign.

GM to recall nearly 300,000 Chevrolet Cruze cars - Aug. 16, 2013

So you disagree with the economic world in general. And they are all wrong. And your little team of 0 (that would be ZERO) analysts and trained economists have it right, and organizations like the cbo are all wrong.

Yes, I understand what zero means. I don't know why you would assume the financial community all have the same views on everything. If this is what you believe, then perhaps you don't understand as much as you believe you do.

Great. So we have TWO OPTIONS:
1. All of the above is true:
OR
2. You are simply a con tool posting dogma based on an agenda.

Got it.

Figured it would be impossible for you to have a discussion without your bias getting the better of you and spouting baseless accusations. Next time, just start off all of your responses this way so I won't have to waste time and move on to other post on the forum.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Tania, good you believe unemployment is getting worse. Rational folks know that is nonsense. So why would anyone want to bother addressing it AGAIN?


Relative to this little gem of a statement:

Perhaps, in your own words, if you can, maybe you would like to explain why you feel the economy is not experiencing a depression.

Maybe I just did not really want to make you look that stupid. I dislike working with non feedback organisms. And, apparently you did not read the piece from the economist that explains what a depression is. Because you do not know what it is, obviously. So, I am sure you will want to explain why we are in a depression. Now remember, me poor ignorant conservative, that a depression is a more serious downturn than a recession. And the latest recession ended in 2009. So, according to those that understand economics much better than you, we are not in as bad of shape as a recession requires. But go ahead. Oh, by the way those same economists say we never approached that level of downturn that a depression requires, EVER, except during the 1929 depression. But go ahead. You are at this point simply making a fool of yourself. And it should be interesting watching you try to prove we are in the second depression of our experience in the last 100 years..

Quote:

P.S: I thought you should also know that General Motors has recently recalled 239,000 Chervolet Cruze cars in the US due to brake defects. Considering that the company is 'supposedly' performing efficiently and better than it was during the restructuring process, this really isn't a good sign.

Yup They did. Always a problem, those recalls. So???
I have a toyota tundra. Just had to take it in for a recall. Should I worry that they are in trouble?? Really, you need to get a grip. And yes, me dear. Your agenda does indeed show. I like truth, which is why I provide sources. I do not provide unsupported opinion. That is your thing. Thing is, you are wasting everyone's time with BLATHER. And I like most do not appreciate BLATHER. Or, as I am more apt to say it, DOGMA. Really tiring.

 

[AmazonTania]

So, Tania, good you believe unemployment is getting worse. Rational folks know that is nonsense. So why would anyone want to bother addressing it AGAIN?

Most rational people understand that an improved unemployment rate is not synonymous with an improved unemployment situation.

Labour force participation rate is the lowest it's been since 1980, and unemployment was much higher then than it is now. So why exactly is the unemployment situation getting better?

Maybe I just did not really want to make you look that stupid. I dislike working with non feedback organisms.

You couldn't make me look stupid on my worse day. That's no exaggeration.

And, apparently you did not read the piece from the economist that explains what a depression is. Because you do not know what it is, obviously.

I didn't read it because I want you to explain it in your own words. If you supposedly know what you are talking about, but you can't bother to explain it in a concise manner, then how exactly are you so sure that you know what you are talking about?

So, I am sure you will want to explain why we are in a depression. Now remember, me poor ignorant conservative, that a depression is a more serious downturn than a recession. And the latest recession ended in 2009. So, according to those that understand economics much better than you, we are not in as bad of shape as a recession requires. But go ahead. Oh, by the way those same economists say we never approached that level of downturn that a depression requires, EVER, except during the 1929 depression. But go ahead. You are at this point simply making a fool of yourself. And it should be interesting watching you try to prove we are in the second depression of our experience in the last 100 years..

First of all, you're wrong about the definition of a depression. Many different economist define it in different ways. There is no universal agreement on what a depression is, because depressions are generally rare. Secondly, the only indicator which should that the recession ended is the GDP expansion in 2009. GDP is really not the only indicator for determining recessions. Third, many different economist disagree on the duration of a recession. I know I've probably said this already, but you really need to get this drilled in your head:

A depression is a sustained and severe recession. Where a recession is a normal part of the business cycle, lasting for a period of months, a depression is an extreme fall in economic activity lasting for a number of years. Economists disagree on the duration of depressions; some economists believe a depression encompasses only the period plagued by declining economic activity. Other economists, however, argue that the depression continues up until the point that most economic activity has returned to normal.

Depression Definition | Investopedia

Fourth and foremost, you've already had plenty of economist professing and categorizing the current economic climate as a depression. You've even had two noble laureates who wrote a book about the current depression, and outlined how it should be handled.

If you weren't so closed-minded, you'd probably be able to understand this better...

Yup They did. Always a problem, those recalls. So???
I have a toyota tundra. Just had to take it in for a recall. Should I worry that they are in trouble?? Really, you need to get a grip.

You do realise that if people want to purchase these cars, they will not be able to, correct? Reports of accidents and malfunctions hurt their bottom line and discourages future business. It's reasons like these people take these things seriously, except for you. You don't seem to understand. You're not really expected to.

And yes, me dear. Your agenda does indeed show.

Then what is my agenda? Presenting the facts in a concise manner? Can't have that, can we...

I like truth, which is why I provide sources. I do not provide unsupported opinion.

Correction. You like the truth when it supports your world view. That's not the truth. That's called intellectually dishonesty. You've had plenty of chances to explain what the truth is, but somehow, you can never explain it in your own words. Which is why you need to refer the opinions of other people.

That is your thing. Thing is, you are wasting everyone's time with BLATHER. And I like most do not appreciate BLATHER. Or, as I am more apt to say it, DOGMA. Really tiring.

It's really not my fault you can't present a decent argument and have to resort to unsubstantiated rhetoric. If your time is being wasted, move along. You're not exactly convincing anyone you are knowledgeable, or credible.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Tania, good you believe unemployment is getting worse. Rational folks know that is nonsense. So why would anyone want to bother addressing it AGAIN?

Most rational people understand that an improved unemployment rate is not synonymous with an improved unemployment situation.

Labour force participation rate is the lowest it's been since 1980, and unemployment was much higher then than it is now. So why exactly is the unemployment situation getting better?

Maybe I just did not really want to make you look that stupid. I dislike working with non feedback organisms.

You couldn't make me look stupid on my worse day. That's no exaggeration.



I didn't read it because I want you to explain it in your own words. If you supposedly know what you are talking about, but you can't bother to explain it in a concise manner, then how exactly are you so sure that you know what you are talking about?



First of all, you're wrong about the definition of a depression. Many different economist define it in different ways. There is no universal agreement on what a depression is, because depressions are generally rare. Secondly, the only indicator which should that the recession ended is the GDP expansion in 2009. GDP is really not the only indicator for determining recessions. Third, many different economist disagree on the duration of a recession. I know I've probably said this already, but you really need to get this drilled in your head:



Fourth and foremost, you've already had plenty of economist professing and categorizing the current economic climate as a depression. You've even had two noble laureates who wrote a book about the current depression, and outlined how it should be handled.

If you weren't so closed-minded, you'd probably be able to understand this better...



You do realise that if people want to purchase these cars, they will not be able to, correct? Reports of accidents and malfunctions hurt their bottom line and discourages future business. It's reasons like these people take these things seriously, except for you. You don't seem to understand. You're not really expected to.



Then what is my agenda? Presenting the facts in a concise manner? Can't have that, can we...

I like truth, which is why I provide sources. I do not provide unsupported opinion.

Correction. You like the truth when it supports your world view. That's not the truth. That's called intellectually dishonesty. You've had plenty of chances to explain what the truth is, but somehow, you can never explain it in your own words. Which is why you need to refer the opinions of other people.

That is your thing. Thing is, you are wasting everyone's time with BLATHER. And I like most do not appreciate BLATHER. Or, as I am more apt to say it, DOGMA. Really tiring.

It's really not my fault you can't present a decent argument and have to resort to unsubstantiated rhetoric. If your time is being wasted, move along. You're not exactly convincing anyone you are knowledgeable, or credible.

If you think that saying that we are in an economic depression is presenting a decent argument, great. I think anyone with any economic understanding would find that amusing. So, good for you. We all need to be amused.
Saying that there are plenty of economists saying that we just went through a depression is another of the really interesting statements. Lets see one. I can not find him or her. Find me a single impartial source. You know, like an economist not owned by the far right. Hell, even one of those is averse to making that accusation. You are the first I have seen trying that idea out. Good luck with that.

And you see, I have no problem with what we actually went through. I know it was a recession. If it had been a depression, no issue from my viewpoint, as long as it was truly that. But only someone with an agenda would try to call the great 2008 recession a depression.
Tania, you are not presenting facts in a concise way. You are presenting what you want to present in a concise way. I missed those economists who you say call the 2008 recession a depression. For instance. And I am not making you look like a fool. You are doing that just fine. Depression. Jesus.

 

[AmazonTania]

If you think that saying that we are in an economic depression is presenting a decent argument, great. I think anyone with any economic understanding would find that amusing. So, good for you. We all need to be amused.

I haven't just said it, I've shown it. But it's good that you also Keynes amusing. Wasn't the biggest fan of his writing

"In particular, it is an outstanding characteristic of the economic system in which we live that, whilst it is subject to severe fluctuations in respect of output and employment, it is not violently unstable. Indeed it seems capable of remaining in a chronic condition of sub-normal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or complete collapse."

Keynes, John Maynard. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1964.

Sounds very much like what we are experiencing with the US economy today. The parallels are uncanny.

Saying that there are plenty of economists saying that we just went through a depression is another of the really interesting statements. Lets see one. I can not find him or her. Find me a single impartial source. You know, like an economist not owned by the far right. Hell, even one of those is averse to making that accusation. You are the first I have seen trying that idea out. Good luck with that.

End This Depression Now! - Paul Krugman - Google Books

You lose. Have fun.

And you see, I have no problem with what we actually went through. I know it was a recession. If it had been a depression, no issue from my viewpoint, as long as it was truly that. But only someone with an agenda would try to call the great 2008 recession a depression.

And only someone with an agenda actually believes the US isn't experiencing one. Such as basing the strength of the economy merely on the unemployment rate. Only someone with a bad education would make such an inane correlation, or probably someone who is teaching himself.

Tania, you are not presenting facts in a concise way. You are presenting what you want to present in a concise way. I missed those economists who you say call the 2008 recession a depression. For instance.

I am presenting what I want to present, which is relevant to the topic, which shows exactly what is going on. You can do so too if you wanted, provided that you actually understood the data.

And I am not making you look like a fool. You are doing that just fine. Depression. Jesus.

And yet, here you are: ground zero with a piss poor excuse of an argument with nothing less of baseless conjure. You sure showed me...

 

[AmazonTania]

You do realize that by your definition all financial investments including bonds, CD's, and savings accounts are Ponzi schemes?

CD's, Savings Accounts and Bonds are merely tools. The plan itself, social security, is the ponzi scheme. There is really nothing wrong with investing in a bond, and being paid with the reoccurring interest income. However, if I'm investing in a bond and my returns are merely earnings received from the money from other investments, why isn't that a ponzi scheme? It's not like the Government has an other legitimate forms of income.

The US Bond Market is just one giant ponzi scheme.

I fail to see how government bonds are "one giant Ponzi scheme" while other bonds, bearing risk premiums assigned by markets, are not. I think you are letting political cant get in the way of analysis. This antipathy to government financing is not only intellectually unsound, it is dangerous, as the only threat of default in the bond markets is this kind of political rhetoric. I thought you knew more about financial markets than to repeat this kind of blather and am disappointed.

The bonds themselves isn't the ponzi scheme. The manner of which the bonds are used is, in fact, the scheme. It's not just the method. It's the sentiment. Everyday, the government has obligations due, which is anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000,000 dollars. These types of bonds are maturing everyday. Many political pressure against increasing the debt ceiling or failure to borrow money means that the US government will default on a tiny 5 million dollar treasury. Which speaks volumes about a country which can't technically default.

I don't really care if the US Government is running a ponzi scheme or not. However, if those who are actually incharge believe it, that's all I really need to know.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Tania, gloating, says:

I haven't just said it, I've shown it. But it's good that you also Keynes amusing. Wasn't the biggest fan of his writing

No you have not. So far, you seem to not know what a depression is.
Then an attempt at Keynes:
Quote:
"In particular, it is an outstanding characteristic of the economic system in which we live that, whilst it is subject to severe fluctuations in respect of output and employment, it is not violently unstable. Indeed it seems capable of remaining in a chronic condition of sub-normal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or complete collapse."

Keynes, John Maynard. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1964.

Sounds very much like what we are experiencing with the US economy today. The parallels are uncanny.

Uh, you are nuts. He said nothing about the state of economics he was discussing being a depression. Maybe a little honesty would help.

Then, really wanting to waste everyone's time, she tries krugman.

End This Depression Now! - Paul Krugman - Google Books

You lose. Have fun.

You know, instead of just googling for a word (depression in this case) you should actually see what is being said. In that book, Krugman never tried to say the then current economic condition was a depression. The title is tongue in cheek. You should actually read it. You may actually learn something. Though I am not a big fan of the guy. Funny, there is that you loose crap again. You really need to grow up.

And yet, here you are: ground zero with a piss poor excuse of an argument with nothing less of baseless conjure. You sure showed me...

If it were 5 card stud, then I would have aces, me poor ignorant con. But go ahead. Call it a depression. Not my concern if you want to be an idiot.

By the way, still waiting for that economist who actually called the recession of 2008 a Depression.

 

[AmazonTania]

No you have not. So far, you seem to not know what a depression is.

If I refer to your definition, then you are probably right. Generally speaking, every economist has their opinion on what a depression is. You are free to go along with any assessment you choose, and I am free to do the same.

Uh, you are nuts. He said nothing about the state of economics he was discussing being a depression. Maybe a little honesty would help.

Exactly. He wrote the book in 1935 and it was published in 1936. This economic era is known as the Great Depression. You should really get your eyes checked.

"In particular, it is an outstanding characteristic of the economic system in which we live that, whilst it is subject to severe fluctuations in respect of output and employment, it is not violently unstable. Indeed it seems capable of remaining in a chronic condition of sub-normal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or complete collapse."

That is today's US economy, in a nutshell.

You know, instead of just googling for a word (depression in this case) you should actually see what is being said. In that book, Krugman never tried to say the then current economic condition was a depression. The title is tongue in cheek. You should actually read it. You may actually learn something. Though I am not a big fan of the guy.

I have read it actually, and I own the physical copy of the book. I try to balance my economic library as much as I can possibly stand. And no, he isn't being tongue in check about it. He calls it 'A Lesser Depression.' You'd know this if you actually read the book, which you obviously did not. You are wrong, but that's a half decent spin you tried to put on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=0

You should really stop now. I'm running out of clever ways of making you look utterly clueless.

Funny, there is that you loose crap again. You really need to grow up.

What else can I possibly say to someone really believes he is honest enough to admit his own mistakes? Regardless, you're the last person who should be telling anyone else to 'grow up' around here.

If it were 5 card stud, then I would have aces, me poor ignorant con. But go ahead. Call it a depression. Not my concern if you want to be an idiot.

Maybe if you were the dealer or hiding aces up your sleeve. I can't see any other way of you legitimately getting the better of me. But more Ad hominems, please. It almost conceals the fact that you are very ill-informed and very wrong.

By the way, still waiting for that economist who actually called the recession of 2008 a Depression.

I've already shown it to you, twice. If you want to be in denial, that is your problem. So much for 'integrity' and admitting when you're wrong and all that jazz you spout on other threads. 'Jesus!'

 

[Rshermr]

Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece. Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
"In fact, policy makers seem determined to perpetuate what I’ve taken to calling the Lesser Depression, the prolonged era of high unemployment that began with the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and continues to this day, more than two years after the recession supposedly ended."

From YOUR reference. dipshit. Not a recession, but "what he has taken to calling "the lesser depression." Nice try.

As for your quote from Keynes, he was describing a general condition of the capitalistic economy. Business cycles and all that. But not the then current depression. And no, me girl, the condition at that time was nothing like today. Sorry.

But the real problem with quoting Keynes is that you were looking for an economist who would say that we are currently in a depression. That was, of course, your statement. And, me girl, think about it for a bit. Keynes is and has been dead for some time. Now, it would be just a bit difficult for him to comment on today's economy. Do you suppose that is why he did not??
So, where is that economist that says we are in a depression, me girl. You seem to be failing. Keynes is dead, and could not have. and Krugman did not say it. Sorry. But in your vernacular, you loose. Though what it really means is that you are not able to get your dogma past me. Sorry. Anyone with a bit of economics knows that we are not in a depression. That is just really too stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, that would be the general idea. The DOJ would have go full tilt. Ultimately, you would want to destroy the CEOs - both legally and financially - and make an example of them with life sentences. This is the only way to have some semblance of justice for the destruction these people caused for millions of people.

If they committed actual crimes, then why aren't the already in prison? The fact is they have not broken any laws. All they've done is piss off commies like you by retaining their jobs and incomes.

If destruction of people's lives was the standard, then every member of Congress should be in prison. Congress is nothing more than an organized gang of criminals.

They've committed massive financial fraud and numerous SEC violations. The DOJ has admitted they don't want to prosecute. Holder basically said they're above the law if you read between the lines. I find it ironic you would call me a commie for suggesting we prosecute criminals and criminal enterprises.

Holder’s remarks on banks ‘too large’ to prosecute reignites controversy

Holder said he didn't want to prosecute banks. He wasn't talking about individuals. In fact, he even said it would be better to prosecute individuals. If that's the case, then were are the indictments? The fact is, he has no evidence to prosecute anyone with. You keep talking about fraud and FEC violations, but where's the beef? Who are the guilty parties? What crimes did they commit? You obviously can't name any or provide any specifics. That's because there are none.

What's ironic about calling you a commie? Every commie I've ever known thinks making a profit is a crime. Why wouldn't they want to prosecute bankers?

 

[AmazonTania]

Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece. Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
"In fact, policy makers seem determined to perpetuate what I’ve taken to calling the Lesser Depression, the prolonged era of high unemployment that began with the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and continues to this day, more than two years after the recession supposedly ended."

From YOUR reference. dipshit. Not a recession, but "what he has taken to calling "the lesser depression." Nice try.

He calls it a Lesser Depression. Regardless, Krugman already acknowledges that the US economy (in fact, the global economy) is experiencing a depression. You should have tried reading the next sentence which says, "Let’s talk for a moment about why our economies are (still) so depressed." You can interpret his words anyway you'd like, but his words are very clear.

As far as why he named it the way he did is really irrelevant. You asked for someone who believes the economy is depressed and you got one. You couldn't possibly believe that an economist would believe that the economy is experiencing a depression, much less an noble laureate. Now that you've seen one, you're trying desperately to move to goal post.

As for your quote from Keynes, he was describing a general condition of the capitalistic economy. Business cycles and all that. But not the then current depression. And no, me girl, the condition at that time was nothing like today. Sorry.

If that is what you want to believe. I've read the book that paragraph is on page 249-250 and he is describing the conditions about the economy, more specifically, the Great Depression. It's on Chapter 18: The General Theory of Employment Re-Estated. If you haven't read the book, you really should before you start lying and making things up.

But the real problem with quoting Keynes is that you were looking for an economist who would say that we are currently in a depression. That was, of course, your statement. And, me girl, think about it for a bit. Keynes is and has been dead for some time. Now, it would be just a bit difficult for him to comment on today's economy. Do you suppose that is why he did not??

I wasn't using Keynes to show that we are in a depression. I used a quote to show how economist define a depression. They're all different, as the investopdia explanation suggest.

So, where is that economist that says we are in a depression, me girl. You seem to be failing. Keynes is dead, and could not have. and Krugman did not say it. Sorry. But in your vernacular, you loose. Though what it really means is that you are not able to get your dogma past me. Sorry. Anyone with a bit of economics knows that we are not in a depression. That is just really too stupid.

You spelled 'lose' incorrectly, so you are using my vernacular wrong. You can ignore all you'd like that an economist referred to this economic downturn as a depression, because it reveals that you don't know as much as you think. The fact is, Krugman calls this downturn as a depression. As far as Krugman is concerned, as late as April 5th, 2013, the Depression hasn't ended.

Depression, Not Ended

So, a third example of your ignorance and your denial is inherent. I don't know how many different ways I can prove you wrong, but there really is no point in going on with you any further. You're just too intellectually dishonest and you are moving the goal post too many times. Don't waste your time responding to me, but if you are going to respond anyway, out of pity of your intellectual deficiencies you can still have the last word. Otherwise, we're done here.

Goodnight.

 

[Rshermr]

Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece. Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
"In fact, policy makers seem determined to perpetuate what I’ve taken to calling the Lesser Depression, the prolonged era of high unemployment that began with the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and continues to this day, more than two years after the recession supposedly ended."

From YOUR reference. dipshit. Not a recession, but "what he has taken to calling "the lesser depression." Nice try.

He calls it a Lesser Depression. Regardless, Krugman already acknowledges that the US economy (in fact, the global economy) is experiencing a depression. You should have tried reading the next sentence which says, "Let’s talk for a moment about why our economies are (still) so depressed." You can interpret his words anyway you'd like, but his words are very clear.

As far as why he named it the way he did is really irrelevant. You asked for someone who believes the economy is depressed and you got one. You couldn't possibly believe that an economist would believe that the economy is experiencing a depression, much less an noble laureate. Now that you've seen one, you're trying desperately to move to goal post.

As for your quote from Keynes, he was describing a general condition of the capitalistic economy. Business cycles and all that. But not the then current depression. And no, me girl, the condition at that time was nothing like today. Sorry.

If that is what you want to believe. I've read the book that paragraph is on page 249-250 and he is describing the conditions about the economy, more specifically, the Great Depression. It's on Chapter 18: The General Theory of Employment Re-Estated. If you haven't read the book, you really should before you start lying and making things up.

But the real problem with quoting Keynes is that you were looking for an economist who would say that we are currently in a depression. That was, of course, your statement. And, me girl, think about it for a bit. Keynes is and has been dead for some time. Now, it would be just a bit difficult for him to comment on today's economy. Do you suppose that is why he did not??

I wasn't using Keynes to show that we are in a depression. I used a quote to show how economist define a depression. They're all different, as the investopdia explanation suggest.

So, where is that economist that says we are in a depression, me girl. You seem to be failing. Keynes is dead, and could not have. and Krugman did not say it. Sorry. But in your vernacular, you loose. Though what it really means is that you are not able to get your dogma past me. Sorry. Anyone with a bit of economics knows that we are not in a depression. That is just really too stupid.

You spelled 'lose' incorrectly, so you are using my vernacular wrong. You can ignore all you'd like that an economist referred to this economic downturn as a depression, because it reveals that you don't know as much as you think. The fact is, Krugman calls this downturn as a depression. As far as Krugman is concerned, as late as April 5th, 2013, the Depression hasn't ended.

Depression, Not Ended

So, a third example of your ignorance and your denial is inherent. I don't know how many different ways I can prove you wrong, but there really is no point in going on with you any further. You're just too intellectually dishonest and you are moving the goal post too many times. Don't waste your time responding to me, but if you are going to respond anyway, out of pity of your intellectual deficiencies you can still have the last word. Otherwise, we're done here.

Goodnight.

So tania says:

He calls it a Lesser Depression. Regardless, Krugman already acknowledges that the US economy (in fact, the global economy) is experiencing a depression. You should have tried reading the next sentence which says, "Let’s talk for a moment about why our economies are (still) so depressed." You can interpret his words anyway you'd like, but his words are very clear.

As far as why he named it the way he did is really irrelevant. You asked for someone who believes the economy is depressed and you got one. You couldn't possibly believe that an economist would believe that the economy is experiencing a depression, much less an noble laureate. Now that you've seen one, you're trying desperately to move to goal post.

A short economics lesson, me girl. A depressed economy does not mean that we are in a depression. Just for your knowledge.
And we are not now. And we have not been except in the great depression, me girl. No other ime in the past century. Sorry about that. Trying to make a depression because an economist names something a Lesser Depression. There is no such thing, me girl, as a lesser depression.
Sorry about that also.

You spelled 'lose' incorrectly, so you are using my vernacular wrong. You can ignore all you'd like that an economist referred to this economic downturn as a depression, because it reveals that you don't know as much as you think. The fact is, Krugman calls this downturn as a depression. As far as Krugman is concerned, as late as April 5th, 2013, the Depression hasn't ended.

So, you call the Keynesian quote from 1936 when the ue rate was 16% proof that we are in a depression??? But he was not talking about todays economy, because he has been dead for a long, long time. But the economy was just like today, when the ue rate is half of then???
Then you try to use the Krugman quote of a lesser depression as proof we are in a depression??? Really. And you now count that as three economists saying we are now in a depression.

Here is the problem. As anyone reading this knows, you have found no economists who believe we are in a depression. Sorry. But I am happy to see you are done here. Because you are getting to be way too much of a joke.