Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the early 1920's we got out of a depression by cutting spending and taxes by 40 percent over 2 years. Unemployment went from over 12 to under 4 in that short period. But keep up with the misinformation. Big government really, really knows how to keep the economy lively.
You're following the wrong economists. They also told us to expect the crash before the Great Depression. It's much easier to predict with Fiat currency and political pressures poisoning the market imo.
I was following Eric Janszen of Itulip since 2004 and reviewed all the major schools more or less asserting that I view the best to be in the classical period with the only flaw being that in finance. So my question is why, like so many here at CD, do you make accusation that you cannot verify or have not verified? I will not forgive again and will humiliate such antics. It is in no way easy to predict when and how sovereigns will interfere with the market. What would you suppose would happen with demand for steak if a sovereign power decided to enslave a certain group of people? Fiat currency is political force.
Quote:
Credit Diverts Production written in 1946 was amended so housing would be discussed in the 1979 version. "The case against government-guaranteed loans and mortgages to private businesses and persons is almost as strong as, though less obvious than, the case against direct government loans and mortgages. The advocates of government-guaranteed mortgages also forget that what is being lent is ultimately real capital, which is limited in supply, and that they are helping identified B at the expense of some unidentified A. Government-guaranteed home mortgages, especially when a negligible down payment or no down payment whatever is required, inevitably mean more bad loans than otherwise. They force the general taxpayer to subsidize the bad risks and to defray the losses. They encourage people to “buy” houses that they cannot really afford. They tend eventually to bring about an oversupply of houses as compared with other things. They temporarily overstimulate building, raise the cost of building for everybody (including the buyers of the homes with the guaranteed mortgages), and may mislead the building industry into an eventually costly overexpansion. In brief in the long run they do not increase overall national production but encourage malinvestment."
They could have leveraged up again , albeit at the risk of a slave revolt. They found a better way and pretended to do something other than make the middle class pay for it.
So much for the silly theory that Obama was going to bankrupt us. As the economy continues it's slow but steady recovery, the deficit is falling rapidly and tax revenue has ALREADY risen beyond the pre-recession levels.
"The U.S. government posted a budget surplus in June, the latest sign of rapidly improving public finances that could reduce the urgency in Congress to strike a deal to raise the nation's limit on borrowing.
Rising tax revenues, public spending cuts and big payments to the Treasury from state-backed mortgage firms helped the government take in $117 billion more last month than it paid out, the U.S. Treasury said on Thursday.
Analysts polled by Reuters had expected a smaller surplus of $39.5 billion.
June's surplus was the largest for that month on record..."
Cause is a massive surge in bank credit that's why.
How many times do I have to post it before hearing the chorus of crickets that belies the failure to comprehend?
The money supply is composed of the national debt, and then the bank credit that is loaned out using that monetary base of fiat, IOU money printed with government deficits.
Had Americans not been willing to print money with their own promissory contracts to pay interest charges to rent money from banks, the economy would have tanked. So feed the vampire or die.
The only way to pay off the national debt is to take money that was borrowed from a bank , go back to a commodity standard or simply print money in the form of nominally debt free tokens and account for it as equity.
The reason Japan has such a huge national debt to GDP ratio is because they do not take on private debt. They grow their money supply by creating public debt instruments which the Japaneses buy up to which accounts for the high saving rate. That sound like a good idea? Pay off the national debt by pumping credit card money into the economy so Wall Street can rent out the entire money supply at 30%?
I was following Eric Janszen of Itulip since 2004 and reviewed all the major schools more or less asserting that I view the best to be in the classical period with the only flaw being that in finance. So my question is why, like so many here at CD, do you make accusation that you cannot verify or have not verified?
If they didn't tell you about the collapse from day one ~the time the Bush Administration put housing on steroids then YES you do follow the wrong economists. Hows that for backing it up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
I will not forgive again and will humiliate such antics. It is in no way easy to predict when and how sovereigns will interfere with the market.
Yes it is. As soon as Congress passed laws and regulations bypassing the free market and subsidizing housing with the free money concept. Same thing with the dot com bubble. BTW the econismists I follow told us about that collapse before it happened too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
What would you suppose would happen with demand for steak if a sovereign power decided to enslave a certain group of people? Fiat currency is political force.
I don't know what the first sentence means. Agree about Fiat currency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
They could have leveraged up again , albeit at the risk of a slave revolt. They found a better way and pretended to do something other than make the middle class pay for it.
There was a time, not long ago, when conservatives were part of the mainstream consensus on monetary policy. Here’s the Economic Report of the President from 2004 (pdf), presumably written by Greg Mankiw:
Quote:
Aggressive monetary policy can reduce the depth of a recession.
So, I just have to laugh reading their deriding fiat money. The dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The United States had fiat money since 1933, when FDR took us off the gold standard, which was a good thing.
I have yet to hear you explain how allowing people to keep their money, is harmful to the economy..
Because government spends other peoples money much more wisely than the individual does. Haven't you heard?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
