pedex
Login to Send PM
just what is not needed, more cheap or free money............what's worse, it is a well known failure, one could probably make a case that it was premeditated
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9ZzZquaXrR8/SP9lR7UMC1I/AAAAAAAACVM/nwm_xoHaRkU/s1600-h/WhyWellsFargo.jpg
historically countries that play these silly games with their currency do not survive financially or politically
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
pedex wrotehistorically countries that play these silly games with their currency do not survive financially or politically
I am not out of sympathy with this position, but I find historical comparisons to be very specious.
No other economy in history has been as service-oriented as ours. While monkeying around with money that is directly tied to commodity production has been trouble, I have to wonder if stimulating our virtual (service-based) economy with cash infusions is such a bad idea.
A.
Brent
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall wrotepedex wrotehistorically countries that play these silly games with their currency do not survive financially or politically
I am not out of sympathy with this position, but I find historical comparisons to be very specious.
No other economy in history has been as service-oriented as ours. While monkeying around with money that is directly tied to commodity production has been trouble, I have to wonder if stimulating our virtual (service-based) economy with cash infusions is such a bad idea.
A.
You all should be reading Krugman, he's killing on this. To make a long story short, we need to *spend* our way out of a recession. Reactionary moves like spending freezes and cuts will actually exasperate the problem. Study up on your Keynes here re: deficit spending. Part of the reason we need a stimulus NOW is because the one we did earlier this year was aimed inappropriately (generally because of a Yahoos in charge). Had it been aimed not only at straight money, but instead invested in works projects, job creation, etc, those things would be coming online right about now and we wouldn't require a 2nd stimulus. This second one should be aimed primarily at infrastructure improvements and doing our best to take the edge off those most vulnerable to the recession (food stamps, unemployment benefits, and the like).
In the long run, we're going to have to invest a ton of money in infrastructure. This will pay tremendous dividends long term because of job creation, economic improvements, etc. Additionally, a balanced budget is well and good if it's appropriate for the time. As for the deficit, it's pretty small historically compared to what our GDP is and is well with the "safe" range for a healthy economy. As for social security, it's generally acknowledged to be ok but medicare is the 800-lb pink elephant that nobody wants to talk about. More accurately, not medicare explicitly, but how much we spend on health care as a fraction of our GDP need to get fixed ASAP. That's what's going to drive us over the cliff.
pedex
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall wrotepedex wrotehistorically countries that play these silly games with their currency do not survive financially or politically
I am not out of sympathy with this position, but I find historical comparisons to be very specious.
No other economy in history has been as service-oriented as ours. While monkeying around with money that is directly tied to commodity production has been trouble, I have to wonder if stimulating our virtual (service-based) economy with cash infusions is such a bad idea.
A.
depends on whether you believe in keynesian econ or not I guess.........they tend to believe throwing money at the problem even in a situation where you have debt saturation and basically rampant financial bets failing left and right, this is despite the fact that problem(s) originated with throwing money at it........I doubt its the cure, never has been in the past
Most economies that have gotten anywhere near the unbalanced state of the US did not have the benefit of reserve currency and fiat currency with cooperation from many other countries...........these do not in any way make things more stable. Its a game of confidence, sentiment can and will change.
In the end you cannot force people to borrow money or banks to lend, this is the undoing and failing of the system, the massive deflation going on is something fractional reserve cannot cope with. We have gone from pennies per dollar to generate 1 dollar of GDP to up around $7 to make $1 of GDP in 35 years or so !! Done most of it by borrowing and abusing our currency and others as well in the process, it won't last, things like this that are this unstable never do. Because we gutted our manufacturing among other things just to have a relatively slow slide in standard of living since the 1970's doesn't mean it will keep working like that. Our so called service economy bleeds wealth except at the very top of the food chain, it costs more to run than it generates and its getting much worse and fast, it will fail at some point, methinks we are witnessing the beginnings of it. now.
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
Brent wroteAndrew Hall wrotepedex wrotehistorically countries that play these silly games with their currency do not survive financially or politically
I am not out of sympathy with this position, but I find historical comparisons to be very specious.
No other economy in history has been as service-oriented as ours. While monkeying around with money that is directly tied to commodity production has been trouble, I have to wonder if stimulating our virtual (service-based) economy with cash infusions is such a bad idea.
A.
You all should be reading Krugman, he's killing on this. To make a long story short, we need to *spend* our way out of a recession. Reactionary moves like spending freezes and cuts will actually exasperate the problem. Study up on your Keynes here re: deficit spending. Part of the reason we need a stimulus NOW is because the one we did earlier this year was aimed inappropriately (generally because of a Yahoos in charge). Had it been aimed not only at straight money, but instead invested in works projects, job creation, etc, those things would be coming online right about now and we wouldn't require a 2nd stimulus. This second one should be aimed primarily at infrastructure improvements and doing our best to take the edge off those most vulnerable to the recession (food stamps, unemployment benefits, and the like).
In the long run, we're going to have to invest a ton of money in infrastructure. This will pay tremendous dividends long term because of job creation, economic improvements, etc. Additionally, a balanced budget is well and good if it's appropriate for the time. As for the deficit, it's pretty small historically compared to what our GDP is and is well with the "safe" range for a healthy economy. As for social security, it's generally acknowledged to be ok but medicare is the 800-lb pink elephant that nobody wants to talk about. More accurately, not medicare explicitly, but how much we spend on health care as a fraction of our GDP need to get fixed ASAP. That's what's going to drive us over the cliff.
A high speed railcar in every pot!
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
pedex wroteAndrew Hall wrotepedex wrotehistorically countries that play these silly games with their currency do not survive financially or politically
I am not out of sympathy with this position, but I find historical comparisons to be very specious.
No other economy in history has been as service-oriented as ours. While monkeying around with money that is directly tied to commodity production has been trouble, I have to wonder if stimulating our virtual (service-based) economy with cash infusions is such a bad idea.
A.
depends on whether you believe in keynesian econ or not I guess.........they tend to believe throwing money at the problem even in a situation where you have debt saturation and basically rampant financial bets failing left and right, this is despite the fact that problem(s) originated with throwing money at it........I doubt its the cure, never has been in the past
...
Because we gutted our manufacturing among other things just to have a relatively slow slide in standard of living since the 1970's doesn't mean it will keep working like that. Our so called service economy bleeds wealth except at the very top of the food chain, it costs more to run than it generates and its getting much worse and fast, it will fail at some point, methinks we are witnessing the beginnings of it. now.
I cut out the middle of your argument because I'm trying to understand how you get from Point A to Point B here. One can be more than comfortable with a service-oriented economy and nevertheless not be a Keynesian economist; the two are unrelated. I'm no Keynesian; the shift away from Keynesianism toward Friedmanism after Carter ushered in one of the longest uninterrupted economic growth spurts in this country's history, and I don't think the basics of economic policy are any more complex now than they were then (though of course the devil is in the details, not the basics).
I lose you at whatever point this detour begins. Almost all our best jobs are service oriented now, and contrary to what you said about the service economy "bleeding wealth except at the very top," which I'll take to mean senior management, doctors, and lawyers, I'd challenge that assumption: middle managers, nurses, and paralegals can make pretty decent livings nowadays, as can college professors, software programmers, engineers, etc ... all of which are service jobs.
The real problem is that "service" is a completely generic term. Someone working a summer job selling clothes at Old Navy is in the service sector; so is the highest-priced cardiosurgeon in the city.
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
pedex wrotedepends on whether you believe in keynesian econ or not I guess.........they tend to believe throwing money at the problem even in a situation where you have debt saturation and basically rampant financial bets failing left and right, this is despite the fact that problem(s) originated with throwing money at it........I doubt its the cure, never has been in the past
.
If ellipses were dollars, we'd have no debt!
More seriously, I am not so sure we are at debt saturation or that failure is rampant. We aren't even close to the catastrophic levels of previous crises though the current level of information transparency is both a blessing and a curse in that regard.
I don't think that one can automatically translate a country's monetary situation with a company's, but it is very rare that a company contracts its way out of fiscal peril.
A.
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote The real problem is that "service" is a completely generic term. Someone working a summer job selling clothes at Old Navy is in the service sector; so is the highest-priced cardiosurgeon in the city.
That is the real rub, right?
It is just not possible to model a worker's (surgeon to swabbie) production in terms of pure capital. Even within the Gap empire, the designer to advertiser to store manager to deckhand are all part of a chain which adds value to hunks of fabric.
I will be the first to admit I don't understand all of it. I do know that the ability to leverage debt (investment, more puckishly) has been raised beyond what could be reasonably expected in the traditional production model which is tied to commodities being related to material value.
If we come crashing down to that old model, we will all suffer horribly.
A.
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall wrotegramarye wrote The real problem is that "service" is a completely generic term. Someone working a summer job selling clothes at Old Navy is in the service sector; so is the highest-priced cardiosurgeon in the city.I will be the first to admit I don't understand all of it. I do know that the ability to leverage debt (investment, more puckishly) has been raised beyond what could be reasonably expected in the traditional production model which is tied to commodities being related to material value.
A.
This is definitely true. The real issue is whether that ability has been raised beyond what could reasonably be expected our modern production model, not the traditional one. The good thing is that because it's not tied to something solid, it can expand a lot faster than we can dig some price-standardizing commodity (like gold or silver) out of the ground. The bad thing is that because it's not tied to something solid, well, confidence alone is treacherous soil on which to build a castle.
All things considered, though, I'll take the pros and cons of our current system (even in today's environment, in which the cons are definitely making themselves felt) over the old way. Perfection is too high a standard against which to measure any human system.
Also, while deleveraging is painful, so is drug rehab ... and leverage and uppers have more similarities than one might think.
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote The good thing is that because it's not tied to something solid, it can expand a lot faster than we can dig some price-standardizing commodity (like gold or silver) out of the ground. The bad thing is that because it's not tied to something solid, well, confidence alone is treacherous soil on which to build a castle.All things considered, though, I'll take the pros and cons of our current system (even in today's environment, in which the cons are definitely making themselves felt) over the old way.
Somewhere, somehow, Ayn is weeping at your heresy.
Have a cig and she will forgive.
A.
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall wrotegramarye wrote The good thing is that because it's not tied to something solid, it can expand a lot faster than we can dig some price-standardizing commodity (like gold or silver) out of the ground. The bad thing is that because it's not tied to something solid, well, confidence alone is treacherous soil on which to build a castle.All things considered, though, I'll take the pros and cons of our current system (even in today's environment, in which the cons are definitely making themselves felt) over the old way.
Somewhere, somehow, Ayn is weeping at your heresy.
Have a cig and she will forgive.
A.
Hah! Well, I may be a heretic, but I'm not an apostate. You have to have been a believer at some point to be that. I'm a long, long way from Ayn Rand. My arguments with the objectivists at the Sentinel were pretty intense. We were at opposite ends of the spectrum on as many or more issues as we were aligned--and even those alignments were more alignments of ends rather than of alignments of principles.
pedex
Login to Send PM
Brent wroteAndrew Hall wrotepedex wrotehistorically countries that play these silly games with their currency do not survive financially or politically
I am not out of sympathy with this position, but I find historical comparisons to be very specious.
No other economy in history has been as service-oriented as ours. While monkeying around with money that is directly tied to commodity production has been trouble, I have to wonder if stimulating our virtual (service-based) economy with cash infusions is such a bad idea.
A.
You all should be reading Krugman, he's killing on this. To make a long story short, we need to *spend* our way out of a recession. Reactionary moves like spending freezes and cuts will actually exasperate the problem. Study up on your Keynes here re: deficit spending. Part of the reason we need a stimulus NOW is because the one we did earlier this year was aimed inappropriately (generally because of a Yahoos in charge). Had it been aimed not only at straight money, but instead invested in works projects, job creation, etc, those things would be coming online right about now and we wouldn't require a 2nd stimulus. This second one should be aimed primarily at infrastructure improvements and doing our best to take the edge off those most vulnerable to the recession (food stamps, unemployment benefits, and the like).
In the long run, we're going to have to invest a ton of money in infrastructure. This will pay tremendous dividends long term because of job creation, economic improvements, etc. Additionally, a balanced budget is well and good if it's appropriate for the time. As for the deficit, it's pretty small historically compared to what our GDP is and is well with the "safe" range for a healthy economy. As for social security, it's generally acknowledged to be ok but medicare is the 800-lb pink elephant that nobody wants to talk about. More accurately, not medicare explicitly, but how much we spend on health care as a fraction of our GDP need to get fixed ASAP. That's what's going to drive us over the cliff.
this isn't an "ordinary" recession and growth for the sake of growth gets us nowhere unless you enjoy the continued slide downward in standard of living and the widening wealth gap..........the road to serfdom literally
if you want this situation we have now to get better then the bad debts have to be allowed to clear, people in serious debt need time to recover, and the housing bubble needs to be allowed to deflate..........you do not have housing prices double nationwide in just 8 years and overbuild everything related to it and expect that to last or be stable, doesn't work that way
you can't force people to borrow money
pedex
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall wrotegramarye wrote The good thing is that because it's not tied to something solid, it can expand a lot faster than we can dig some price-standardizing commodity (like gold or silver) out of the ground. The bad thing is that because it's not tied to something solid, well, confidence alone is treacherous soil on which to build a castle.All things considered, though, I'll take the pros and cons of our current system (even in today's environment, in which the cons are definitely making themselves felt) over the old way.
Somewhere, somehow, Ayn is weeping at your heresy.
Have a cig and she will forgive.
A.
currency is just a medium of exchange, nothing more, nothing less...........having it heavily manipulated is the problem. Fiat currency can be manipulated at will and it has been abused beyond belief.......some countries are now failing because of it, not the first time nor is it the last.
just like the latest actions by our govt and the banking cartel in essence do little to restore confidence in what is a confidence game, our currency is valued based on nothing more than confidence and things have happened which remove much of the confidence in it
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
pedex wroteAndrew Hall wrotegramarye wrote The good thing is that because it's not tied to something solid, it can expand a lot faster than we can dig some price-standardizing commodity (like gold or silver) out of the ground. The bad thing is that because it's not tied to something solid, well, confidence alone is treacherous soil on which to build a castle.All things considered, though, I'll take the pros and cons of our current system (even in today's environment, in which the cons are definitely making themselves felt) over the old way.
Somewhere, somehow, Ayn is weeping at your heresy.
Have a cig and she will forgive.
A.
currency is just a medium of exchange, nothing more, nothing less...........
Actually, it is indeed more than that. It's a medium of exchange, yes, but also a unit of account and store of value. Indeed, the primary argument of gold-standard advocates doesn't hinge on the medium of exchange characteristic of money--it focuses on its role as a store of value.
having it heavily manipulated is the problem. Fiat currency can be manipulated at will and it has been abused beyond belief.......some countries are now failing because of it, not the first time nor is it the last.
Yes, which shows that there is market discipline in fiat currency systems just as there is in so-called "hard money" systems.
The primary aims of most gold-standard advocates are political, not economic: they aim to sharply curtail all forms of government spending, especially domestic social spending but not limited to that. The anti-inflationary effects of a hard currency can be achieved by other means, including unilateral action by the Federal Reserve. With Congressional help, even stronger inflation-fighting measures would be possible without opening the gates of Fort Knox.
pedex
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrotepedex wroteAndrew Hall wrotegramarye wrote The good thing is that because it's not tied to something solid, it can expand a lot faster than we can dig some price-standardizing commodity (like gold or silver) out of the ground. The bad thing is that because it's not tied to something solid, well, confidence alone is treacherous soil on which to build a castle.All things considered, though, I'll take the pros and cons of our current system (even in today's environment, in which the cons are definitely making themselves felt) over the old way.
Somewhere, somehow, Ayn is weeping at your heresy.
Have a cig and she will forgive.
A.
currency is just a medium of exchange, nothing more, nothing less...........
Actually, it is indeed more than that. It's a medium of exchange, yes, but also a unit of account and store of value. Indeed, the primary argument of gold-standard advocates doesn't hinge on the medium of exchange characteristic of money--it focuses on its role as a store of value.
having it heavily manipulated is the problem. Fiat currency can be manipulated at will and it has been abused beyond belief.......some countries are now failing because of it, not the first time nor is it the last.Yes, which shows that there is market discipline in fiat currency systems just as there is in so-called "hard money" systems.
The primary aims of most gold-standard advocates are political, not economic: they aim to sharply curtail all forms of government spending, especially domestic social spending but not limited to that. The anti-inflationary effects of a hard currency can be achieved by other means, including unilateral action by the Federal Reserve. With Congressional help, even stronger inflation-fighting measures would be possible without opening the gates of Fort Knox.
as a store of value money has not done so well has it? here in the US it has lost its value at a rather alarming rate, no discipline to force it to maintain its value
as far as discipline goes? the situation we are in now is due to greed overwhelming any discipline LOL.........man by his very nature tends to do things like that, seems to me govt and its policies should be set up with this in mind, not set up so things can be abused, lied about, and cheated and originally by our own Constitution it was set up that way so cheating was difficult, nowadays its policy to cheat
inflation can be controlled up to a point, but fractional reserve by its very nature demands inflation or it fails, hence the frantic activities of late at fighting the world record deflation going on which using the methods they are using is doomed to fail............and they know this !!!
I am not so much an advocate for some sort of gold standard, but it is impossible IMO to deny that the current system is a failure on enough levels to seriously consider other options. The govt has failed miserably at controlling itself. The FED has failed miserably and on purpose in its primary mission(s) as advertised. Not surprising given the way it is set up. Being able to create money from thin air is an enormous power begging for abuse and it has been definitely abused.
I have seen some use the "growth" argument, ok, so what? From a standard of living standpoint what has that growth achieved? Its losing ground in the standard of living front and has also helped create the typical huge wealth gap where a select few own almost everything. That too is the nature of the system in place, it is designed to do this. Is there a better way? that is the ultimate question isn't it? Personally I think there is in an ideal world, no such ideal world exists though. In this world however ya there are some changes I would like to see, I will get back to that later, work is calling...............
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
David Brooks is underwhelmed by the stimulus package as currently conceived, especially from the perspective of revitalizing cities:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/opinion/09brooks.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
If you asked people in that age of go-go suburbia what they wanted in their new housing developments, they often said they wanted a golf course. But the culture has changed. If you ask people today what they want, they're more likely to say coffee shops, hiking trails and community centers.
...
Barack Obama has said that he would start an infrastructure project that will dwarf Dwight Eisenhower's highway program. If, indeed, we are going to have a once-in-a-half-century infrastructure investment, it would be great if the program would build on today's emerging patterns. It would be great if Obama's spending, instead of just dissolving into the maw of construction, would actually encourage the clustering and leave a legacy that would be visible and beloved 50 years from now.
To take advantage of the growing desire for community, the Obama plan would have to do two things. First, it would have to create new transportation patterns. The old metro design was based on a hub-and-spoke system - a series of highways that converged on an urban core. But in an age of multiple downtown nodes and complicated travel routes, it's better to have a complex web of roads and rail systems.
Second, the Obama stimulus plan could help localities create suburban town squares. Many communities are trying to build focal points. The stimulus plan could build charter schools, pre-K centers, national service centers and other such programs around new civic hubs.
...
But alas, there's no evidence so far that the Obama infrastructure plan is attached to any larger social vision. In fact, there is a real danger that the plan will retard innovation and entrench the past.
In a stimulus plan, the first job is to get money out the door quickly. That means you avoid anything that might require planning and creativity. You avoid anything that might require careful implementation or novel approaches. The quickest thing to do is simply throw money at things that already exist.
Coremodels
Really close to Explorer's Club.
Login to Send PM
Seems a little harsh to criticize the details of a stimulus package before you actually know the details of a stimulus package.
Coremodels
Really close to Explorer's Club.
Login to Send PM
Interesting turn yesterday. No republicans voting for it (although it passed still) could have some interesting repercussions if it works. Still think the Dems could have written a more bi-partisan bill in the first place, but Obama really courted those Rep votes and made some changes to get them...and still got zero.
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
Well, given that one of the major projects Ohio has in mind to possibly use this money for is to get our rail projects started... I would say that's a step for getting OUT of the old rut. I am guessing we're not the only state with some good forward thinking projects in planning that have been looking for some way to fund them.
(fair disclosure: my employer may benefit from some of this.)
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
