Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 20 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, tatupu70 said:

    myob says

    Next, the banks get very cheap money, with which they invest into the markets, assets, and get to cover their previous bad bets. They get wealthy, staff get big bonuses, etc, they do great.

    That's actually not true. An analysis I saw showed that it's mostly foreign banks that are borrowing from the Fed. US banks aren't. If you have anything showing banks are taking loans from the Fed and investing that money into assets, please show it.

    myob says

    Meanwhile, the average person isn't seeing wages go up, their hours are being cut, while the cost of housing and energy are increasing, making their life harder. The increased costs due to asset price inflation are directly a result of inflationary monetary policy.

    Wage growth is low, but it obviously has nothing to do with anything the Fed is doing. Low wage growth is a 30 year trend.

    Increased asset costs are due to wealth inequality more than Fed policy, although in reality, Fed policy is due to inequality as well.

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, tatupu70 said:

    ja says

    Once is cheaper to hire, more employers will do it.

    Employers hire when there is demand and they need more employees to meet it.

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, tatupu70 said:

    myob says

    It transfers wealth from the people with earliest access to the money, at the cost of people who get it later

    Please explain this mechanism. How do people with "earliest access" get the money??

    This is pure BS along with mell's neo-crony nonsense.

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, tatupu70 said:

    mell says

    They do perform no better or worse in either scenario as long as both deflation and inflation are organically happening, they are necessary symptoms of the economy. There is no question that real wages perform piss-poor(er) in artificially created inflation, just look at the the past years.

    How do you determine organic inflation vs. artificially created inflation? Is there a test?

    Do you have any data to back your claim that real wages perform poorly in "artificially created" inflation? (more than 3 years)

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, tatupu70 said:

    @mell/deepcgi-

    Once again, I'll ask. Is there ANY evidence that REAL wages perform better under deflationary times vs. inflationary times???

    Once you answer this-I'll ask why do you think deflation is better than inflation?

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, tatupu70 said:

    bgamall4 says

    Inflation is a tax, unless wages keep pace which they have not since 1979

    That's ridiculous. Is deflation a tax if wages drop faster than goods and services?

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, tatupu70 said:

    bgamall4 says

    Yes, explosives were observed in the form of squibs shooting out of the towers floors below the collapse. The towers were undermined at the bottom but then timed to collapse in sections. That is different than WTC7 which came down from the bottom like a more traditional implosion Las Vegas style. The towers were quite sophisticated but the squibs were the evidence, and the perfectly sawed off bottom pillars. That is done in demolitions.

    I didn't ask what was observed. What is your theory for WHAT HAPPENED???

    bgamall4 says

    The theory is found in my ebook, False Flag Murdering Neocon Crazies. Cheney wanted a pipeline built by the Taliban (not Al Qaida), to the Caspian Sea where Halliburton oil fields were located. The pipeline was to go through the nation of Afghanistan. The Taliban went to Texas to provide incentive finalize the deal in 1997, but it never happened.

    When it didn't happen, Cheney had motive to be part of the government. The plan to attack Iraq and Afghanistan and to effect a false flag like Northwoods was hatched most likely in between 1997 and 2000 and the Republicans stole the election in order to pull it off.

    I didn't ask what the motives were. I asked WHAT HAPPENED??

    The rest of your post is all garbage.. I'm asking for a timeline--how 9/11 occurred. Were planes involved? Was it Al Qaeda? If there were explosives involved, who planted them and how? I don't want you to ask questions, I would like you to provide answers.

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, tatupu70 said:

    bgamall4 says

    If you see the pillars at the bottom sawed off cleanly at an angle, you know there were explosives.

    WTF do we have to do to make you see reality, Tatupu?

    A good start would be for you to lay out your theory for what happened.

    Am I to understand that you believe explosives took down the towers then?

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, tatupu70 said:

    bga/Professor--

    Here's the thing. Instead of posting ridiculous videos and links to crazy websites, why don't you simply post what DID happen on 9/11. Who organized it? Did planes fly into the towers? What caused the buildings to collapse?

    I'm tired of hearing what didn't happen. I'm tired of you nitpicking the official report. I'm tired of hearing about pancakes or fake tears.

    Just give me the real story of 9/11. What DID happen.

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, tatupu70 said:

    bgamall4 says

    They both show their idiocy: http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2008/08/in-2002-fema-said-wtc-7-collapsed.html

    Ah, I see. A website called "goon squad". I'm sure their reporting is impeccable and their opinions are completely unbiased.

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, tatupu70 said:

    bgamall4 says

    Word has it that FEMA and the NIST are at odds over info relating to WTC7. They know they are caught red handed.

    Whose "word" is that?

  • On 18 Oct 2014 in Sandy Hook Hoax Parents with Dry Eyes and No Tears!, tatupu70 said:

    debyne says

    You're mentioning most of the dumb theories in order to associate the idea of a conspiracy as ludicrous...that's a predictable technique of someone who is biased and who hasn't done their own, deep-dive research.

    No, it's someone showing how far off the deep end you guys are.

  • On 18 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, tatupu70 said:

    bgamall4 says

    No, Bob is right that inflation adjusted it would be a higher price now. But clearly, it could be 40 bucks a barrel

    I'm not sure about that. The shale supply is expensive to produce---they put a floor on price. Probably $80/barrel or so.

  • On 17 Oct 2014 in Irony of the Day: Yellen Moans About Income Inequality; 7 Things that Cause Ineq, tatupu70 said:

    bgamall4 says

    Virtually every market is cornered today, so, what do you mean? Lets see how stocks do without stimulus. Lets see how commodities do as well. Oh, they took stimulus away to crush the Russians. But they can still take the oil market up or down as 1/@ the CME trades are fake based on reported articles. Wonder how many stock trades are fake?

    You realize that this whole Ebola nonsense is all fake, right? Did you see the nurse interviewed? NO TEARS!!!

    The guy from Liberia? NEVER EXISTED!!

    It's a Zionist plot to enrich some of W.'s friends in the pharmaceutical industry and get them $$$ to develop the vaccine for a disease that doesn't exist.

  • On 17 Oct 2014 in Irony of the Day: Yellen Moans About Income Inequality; 7 Things that Cause Ineq, tatupu70 said:

    bgamall4 says

    You all know that the Saudis warned the US that the investment banks were bidding up oil to $147. And guess what, we only were able to find out through Wikileaks.

    Didn't you listen to Mish?? The free market is GOOD. Investment banks bidding up oil? That's called price discovery.

    If the price crashes later--that's called market clearing.

    Both of those are good things! You just have to know how to view the world.

  • On 17 Oct 2014 in Irony of the Day: Yellen Moans About Income Inequality; 7 Things that Cause Ineq, tatupu70 said:

    bgamall4 says

    Whoever voted this article down is a pure retard.

    I didn't dislike it, but the article is about on par with the rest of Mish's nonsense. Let me sum up everything he writes on the economy.

    1. Government is bad
    2. The Fed is bad
    3. The free market is good.
    4. Therefore, any problem with the economy is due to too much Fed and government intervention and too little reliance on the free market.

    Nevermind that the last 70 years of history refute his theories-as long as he continues to say the same things over and over, people will believe him. (just look at this thread, for example)

  • On 17 Oct 2014 in Vote: is it Iwog or is it Indigenous or 'Call it Crazy', tatupu70 said:

    marcus says

    If that's the case, then most of the time, I reckon I would appear to be a real man.

    http://news.yahoo.com/us-jobless-claims-drop-lowest-level-14-years-140345746.html;_ylt=AwrBTzZQJkFUDowAqEFXNyoA

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/consumer-sentiment-climbs-highest-level-140350927.html

  • On 16 Oct 2014 in Vote: is it Iwog or is it Indigenous or 'Call it Crazy', tatupu70 said:

    spydah_hh says

    First of all the politicians have nothing to do with monetary policy, they gave that power to the FED.

    That is pretty much correct, but I wasn't talking about monetary policy.

    spydah_hh says

    They don't give it to anyone but their policies benefit those who have money allowing them to make more money eaiser than those who do not have money. Meaning the policy allows for the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer.

    Nope--they have no policies. The policies to which you refer are set by our lawmakers.

    spydah_hh says

    Ok so the whole debate between why the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer is because of FED action, so you're admitting to that now at least.

    Of course not. As I have repeatedly said, the Fed is at best a distraction. Have you read what I wrote?

    spydah_hh says

    Finally, the better alternative is to do nothing. As you know and I know that when money accumulates to the top and is stripped from the middle class, the economy is not sustainable. Therefore, printing more and more money and create more and more inequality is not sustainable but what's even worst is while all this is going on the dollar is losing value and at some point will crash

    That is only true if printing money were the cause of inequality which I have repeatedly argued is not the case. The extra money supply was the only thing keeping our economy from completely melting down.

    spydah_hh says

    I am sorry but QE was a failure and you know why? Because you cannot stop it.

    You can stop it when you change the fiscal policy and fix the inequality problem. And I think you can probably stop it now--economic data out today was actually pretty good comparatively.

  • On 15 Oct 2014 in Vote: is it Iwog or is it Indigenous or 'Call it Crazy', tatupu70 said:

    spydah_hh says

    The FED admits they print the money and they admit the money get distributed to the wealthy, yet you and other clowns don't see that the problem lies within the FED because you believe they're not the ones causing the problem. If that's the case why not have the FED print the money and distributed it to the middle class via mail or bank accounts? Skip the 10% all together.

    I'm all for that. Let's vote in some politicians that will make this happen. Because it's the lawmakers, not the Fed that have this control. Somehow you can't see this...

    spydah_hh says

    They won't because their policies directly benefits the ones who are first in line which are the wealthy and politicians who are now days also wealthy too.

    Actually, it's, you know, against the law. The Fed doesn't actually print money and give it anyone.spydah_hh says

    If the system doesn't work as intended then why continue?

    Because it's better than the alternative of doing nothing.

    spydah_hh says

    If they see and realize that the money they print goes to only in the hands of the few why continue with the policy?

    Because it doesn't go ONLY to the few--it just predominantly goes to the 1%. Again--it's better than the alternative of doing nothing.

    spydah_hh says

    I mean doing something over and over again that has failed is the very definition of insanity. Something you seem to approve of.

    If you look dispassionately at the results, you'll see it wasn't a failure at all. Just not nearly as effective as it could have been with different fiscal policy and labor laws.

  • On 15 Oct 2014 in Vote: is it Iwog or is it Indigenous or 'Call it Crazy', tatupu70 said:

    spydah_hh says

    They just admitted that they're the cause of wealth distribution

    They did?? Only in your mind. Because it's nowhere in their quotes...
    spydah_hh says

    So what if it doesn't go as planned the fact is they know we know but you for some reason don't know that they're the cause of wealth distribution. basically in simple terms the FED prints the money for it to happen.

    lol--I think you need to do a little more research on the matter.

    Printing money doesn't cause wealth inequality. It depends on how it gets allocated.

    Low interest rates ABSOLUTELY benefit the average American more than the 1%. The average American is a debtor and the 1% is a saver. Low rates hurt savers and benefit debtors.

    I know you are in the Fed boogeyman cult, but take a step back and try to look objectively at our current problems.

  • On 14 Oct 2014 in Elizabeth Warren says "market is broken", tatupu70 said:

    The Fed broke it.

  • On 14 Oct 2014 in If you're a real STEM person, think about the Navy Nuclear program, tatupu70 said:

    Rin says

    Here's the point ... let's say you get a BS in engineering, give your life to let's say Dow Chemical and 15 years later, your job is in Asia. Then, you find yourself competing against younger kids for similar lower level support tasks. You see, that's STEM work in America.

    On the other hand, if you're are a Navy personality and can forge bonds with fellow enlisted and officers, then you can apply the same dedication to being a Navy Nuke, get promoted, and have a retirement package.

    You may want to take into account the living conditions of Navy nukes as a large percentage are on subs. I almost went into the program out of school until they few us out to San Diego and showed us what life was like on a sub. I fully respect anyone who does it--but it's certainly not for everyone.

  • On 14 Oct 2014 in Vote: is it Iwog or is it Indigenous or 'Call it Crazy', tatupu70 said:

    spydah_hh says

    Whats funny is all the FED chairmen (except for Yellen?) have said in the present and or past that the FED is responsible for wealth in-equality. Its amazing how people either ignore that or refuse to acknowledge it.

    Refuse to acknowledge it? How about actually understand what they're saying.

    What the two people you quoted are trying to tell you is that the Fed can inject new money, but they can't control where it goes. That is determined by fiscal policy, strength of labor vs. capital, labor laws, et al. Both are decrying that the current state favors capital so much that new money isn't very effective as it is all flowing towards capital (the 1%) rather than to labor.

    Their point is that we need fundamental change in our policies and laws to reverse this long trend.

  • On 12 Oct 2014 in Ebola patient died, tatupu70 said:

    FortWayne says

    We are supposed to work to eradicate this disease now, not wait till it's everywhere and costs are astronomical.

    Who says we're not?

  • On 12 Oct 2014 in Ebola patient died, tatupu70 said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    BenghazebolaHusseinCabronObama says

    That dead guy in Dallas lied his way into the country. How would stricter measures have stopped him?

    Quarantine passengers on all inbound flights from Ebola countries.

    He came from Brussels.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 5329 milliseconds to create.