patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

Wall Street made a "bet" on Obama and they lost!!!

So, do you agree then that even though he took their donations in 2008, he didn't do their bidding?

The article is stupid - that's all. While one might give Obama credit for slowing the spending GROWTH it does not nothing to help curb the runaway debt. Once you have a gazillion trillion $$ of debt and yearly spending has reached a similar ridiculously huge amount, a spending increase of just 0.01 % is a nightmare, esp. if there is no real GDP growth to counteract and pay off the interest, let alone the principal. Cut drastically (that means a significant percentage of spending DECREASE) for years to come, default, or hyper-inflate, 3 options.

david1 says

You go read some Krugman. Not just his NYT column. Try End this Depression Now. Or The Return of Depression Era Economics. If you really want to get deep in rigorous macoeconomic study try The Self Organizing Economy or Currency Crises.
Look at the numbers and get back to me.

David:

I've been at it much, much longer than you. I discovered Austrian Economics long before I discovered Ron Paul. Austrian Economics does not say when Hyper Inflation would be coming - nor does it say it would be "hyper". There aren't any Austrian Economists because it's impossible to operate as one on the Planet Earth since 1971. I haven't lost money over the past four years because, being a student of Austrian Economics, I sold my house, began renting, and bought heavily into gold when it was around 425/oz. Does your math background mean that you have studied derivatives? Because THAT is where the longevity of the debt-based society has arisen. If you have, as I have, you would know the risk to the world's liquidity and credit is mind-bogglingly ugly. Treasury yields say nothing, either. When demand is flagging, the Fed simply buys up the Treasuries itself - along with all of the bad debt, bad mortgages and bad securities it can get a hold of.

According to Paul Krugman, gold should NEVER have held up at 1600/oz for the past six months. Demand has fallen in ALL of the "traditional" gold buying markets, from India to right here at home, and yet the price holds up, because every dip is being bought into by China.

There is nowhere for the cheap money to come from, to drive any recovery, except from the further acquisition of bad debt by the Fed. Interest rates give us nothing and have zero effect. The raising of rates would bring destruction. Austrian Economists predicted the fall of the Tech Stocks, The Real Estate Market, and All of Europe. The Fed and the US Treasury are the only saviors who will be able to feed Europe. What do you think will happen there? Will Germany fund a European Central Bank? Will China? Will the US? Nope, i'll tell you what the plans are....derivatives. Derivatives where banks can lose 1000 times the money theoretically put-at-risk. Your faith in Krugman is based on your ignorance of Derivatives and the bad taste in your mouth in doubting the voracity and sheer bald-faced flaunting of illegal transactions on the part of the Federal Reserve.

Finally, remember that Obama did not give Krugman anywhere near what he believed was needed to prevent the "Depression" - a re-election is his only hope. Ironically, in terms of my investments, it is also mine. If Krugman gets his way, i'll make a fortune. It has nothing to do with his philosophy. He believes the wealth creation is made up for by the deflation and aquisition of bad debt. That wealth simply disappears (as far as he is concerned) and the Fed's aquisition of that bad paper is net zero and risk free.

Canada will Crash. Australia will Crash. Europe will panic. And Krugman wealth creation won't do a bloody thing. According to the Keynesians, gold should be at 650/oz by now. The investors are ice cold on it. The miners are ice cold. The traditional market is ice cold and falling, but we're still at 1600. I'd love to see a drop to 1200 or so, so i could buy some more.

Nixon did not have the power to destroy the value of gold in one night. "We are all Keynesians, now". Yep, that's was a true statement. And that is also why you can't find an economist that's an Austrian. Or that got Gold right.

deepcgi says

Canada will Crash. Australia will Crash.

LOL. Populations smaller than California sitting on continental wealth stores.

Your ideology is making you really, really stupid.

You've clearly got gold on the brain.

Bellingham Bill says

continental wealth stores

Continental wealth stores? You mean commodities? Leveraged to what? Against What? By whom? What is the change in debt load of the citizens versus the government vs. foreign entities? We know about the relationship of the European real estate markets to the US market. Why are those countries immune? Why are the resources of those places not supporting the growth in the real estate markets that the percentages would predict? If you haven't researched derivatives, you're guessing.

I'm making that prediction for the very reason that no-one else will dare. Ironically, you'll here about it first...and blow-by-blow right here at patrick.

Crazy--

To try to get back on topic. Do you agree with the following:

1. Obama is NOT in the banksters pockets (as evidenced by the fact that Wall St. isn't donating this year and realized they made a "bad bet" as you call it)

2. Romney IS in the banksters pockets (as evidenced by the fact that Wall St. IS donating heavily to his campaign)

If so, then you must agree that Romney and Obama are NOT the same.

deepcgi says

What is the change in debt load of the citizens versus the government vs. foreign entities?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9Ad

compares central gov't debt to GDP for US, Oz, and Canada.

I took the liberty of throwing in the $4T of trust fund debt into the US figure to make the comparison more apples-to-apples.

Why are those countries immune?

They can pay their own way in the world. The world needs them more than than they need the ROW.

Why are the resources of those places not supporting the growth in the real estate markets

That you would use the word "real estate market" provides the answer to that question, really. Real estate is 99% bullshit that sucks every free dollar from an economy that we allow. Both Oz and Canada have immense housing boom/bubbles going on now, in their desirable areas to live. This is due to sustained prosperity and people speculatively front-running future land value inflation.

Denmark has similar issues with land value speculation. They've over-leveraged themselves horribly chasing up land values in their crowded country.

If you haven't researched derivatives, you're guessing.

My thesis is nations running roughly balanced trading regimes aren't in bad straights right now.

Canada is doing very well, budgetary wise. Australia, OK.

Both of these nations are running a balanced economy, trade-wise:

"Australia reported a trade surplus equivalent to 9 Million AUD in June of 2012."

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/balance-of-trade

"Canada reported a trade deficit equivalent to 1.8 Million CAD in June of 2012."

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/balance-of-trade

The US, of course, has a trade deficit of $50B per month:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BOPGSTB

the over-arching reality here is that all western economies are fabulously more productive than the demand can take. Our economic problems are 100% the result of FIRE bullshit and allowing wealth and money to flow upwards too much, without sufficient downwards redistributions. We use debt extension from rich to poor to keep the system going.

Call it Crazy says

I also agree that they are NOT the same, however I also believe they BOTH suck!!

your job as a voter is to determine which alternative our electoral system is vending to you sucks less.

Good luck!

Call it Crazy says

I think it is more along the saying..."Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice....."

How do you figure? His campaign in 2008 was anti-Wall St. How were the banksters fooled exactly?

tatupu70 says

Call it Crazy says

Wall St didn't get what they wanted from Obama, so it's on to Romney.... Same shit, different monkey!!

No, obviously not the same shit. Obama didn't give them what they wanted, while Romney will. That should be sufficient reason to vote for Obama by itself.

Wall St. got exactly what they wanted from Obama. No reform on Wall St at all.

if Obama had persecuted Wall Street the Republicans would be just running on that.

damned if you do and damned if you don't.

barn doors and horses

the actual damage was done 1999-2007:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9Af

private sector debt / GDP ratio

Call it Crazy says

If the banksters knew ahead of time he was "anti-bankster", why did they donate so much money to him in 2008??

I posted it earlier, but I'll remind you again.

tatupu70 says

Wall St. gave money to Obama in 2008 because everyone knew he was going to win. And they wanted to at least show they were on the bandwagon.

lenar says

That's twice. You are persistent with that "son" line, you little bugger. Are you a priest? Liberal priest - that would explain illiteracy and lack of respect for trivial math.

Consider reading up on it, when you are not busy getting close and personal with altar boys.

So here's where we are so far:

Lenar: "Obama administration spends more than any other president. MORE than ANY."

Homeboy: "ALL the presidents on that chart spent more than any other president before him."

Lenar: "You said Obama spends less than his predecessors."

Homeboy: "No, I did not say that.

Lenar: "You are a homosexual child molester."

Wow man - you NAILED that argument. That is some ironclad logic there. Congratulations, you are a super classy guy. It's been an honor debating with you.

Call it Crazy says

Righttttttt.... "...show they were on the bandwagon"... REALLY??
If you believe that, then I guess you still believe in the Easter Bunny...

lol--you really are slow aren't you? Of course they give money to the front runner. Most years they give to both candidates. The fact that they aren't giving much to Obama this year is very telling--it means they know that it's a futile gesture. Again--that's a very good reason to vote for Obama, IMO

Real estate remains the primary collateral for the riskiest central bank gambles in history. Every bit of dirt worth a penny is owned simultaneously by fifty different organizations. The same goes for oil and gas. The income to mortgage payment ratio is worse in Australia and Canada than it ever was in the US. One place I can think of that had it worse was Spain - of course they are in wonderful shape. You all seem to be of the opinion that the Real Estate crash has already happened. How amusing. I believe that Canadian, Australian, German, and other unnamed collateral is holding the rest of the first-world's derivatives aloft. As the Canadian real estate bust progresses, watch the result in Seattle and New England. This is because the owners of those mortgages aren't in-on the high end gambling and are left with something called "jobs". The central bankers must have a lot of faith in the little guy, huh? They think joe will just continue to do all the driving, while they sit in the back and navigate.

There must not be any economists who've studied the history of evolution. The complex evolution of life on Earth is not a steady predictable sine wave, cyclical, continuous curve. It is a predictable, sine wave, cyclical continuous curve disrupted again and again and again and again by sweeping changes in extremely short periods of time. Punctuated equilibrium. We tend to think of long periods of time, in the economic sense, as being within our own lifetime at the longest. "I've been succeeding in investment for 40 years!" Oh really? Weren't investing before 1971 huh? Interesting.

At this point the trillions are measured and remeasured in microseconds.
"Oh yeah, TJ, I'm going looooonnnggg on paladium...until 2:00pm, after which I will be short until sometime tomorrow morning."

Punctuation. It has nothing to do with human behavior. It has everything to do with complexity. Real estate slides in Canada and Australia, new downturns in Washington State and New England, revolutions in Europe, more war in the Middle East, punctuated events in commodities for physical delivery. The last one is the big one. People don't realize the danger in overleveraging by use of fiat currency. 50-to-1 becomes 51-to-1 becomes 53-to-1. But then four of the 53 get together and show up demanding physical delivery - and shockingly, they are rich and powerful, not Joe the streetsweeper. It's a tiny, tiny, miniscule event, but that is an unpredictable full-stop.

Homeboy says

So here's where we are so far:

First imaginary conversations, then imaginary friends come. It's a dangerous path.
When you hear or read "go, Homeboy!" - it really is "go home, boy".
Go away. Adults are talking.

deepcgi says

I sold my house, began renting, and bought heavily into gold when it was around 425/oz

Gold hasn't been $425 in the past four years. In fact, you have to go back to the first quarter of 2005 to see it at that level.

There is a bit of a credibility gap there. When did you sell your house, in the past four years (when there has been massive increases in m2 & m3) or 2005?

Anyway I wouldn't touch gold with a 10 foot pole at these levels. We still haven't had inflation. Just a gold bubble.

The rest of what you said...yawn. You are a gold bug, I get it. Good luck with it. I think you'll be sorry if you have everything in gold but we will see.

lenar says

First imaginary conversations, then imaginary friends come. It's a dangerous path.
When you hear or read "go, Homeboy!" - it really is "go home, boy".
Go away. Adults are talking.

Riiiight.... now you're gonna pretend your big trump card wasn't to call me a homosexual child molester. Unfortunately for you, your words are already out there. One only needs to scroll back up the page.

You're all class, Lenar.

Homeboy says

lenar says

First imaginary conversations, then imaginary friends come. It's a dangerous path.

When you hear or read "go, Homeboy!" - it really is "go home, boy".

Go away. Adults are talking.

Riiiight.... now you're gonna pretend your big trump card wasn't to call me a homosexual child molester. Unfortunately for you, your words are already out there. One only needs to scroll back up the page.

You're all class, Lenar.

We all saw that type on the playground. The ones that poke you and then run screaming "wolf". Couldn't stand them as a kid, don't tolerate them much better as an adult.

Homeboy, you were the one who _started_ communication with me by making a personal derogatory comment, and then continued in the same manner. Anybody can scroll up, going back to the first page, and see for themselves. I was quite patient with you at first.

You are one of those sleazy bully types - the whining type. You may think that if you whine long enough it will all go away. It won't.

Go, Homeboy.

tatupu70 says

The fact that they aren't giving much to Obama this year is very telling--it means they know that it's a futile gesture. Again--that's a very good reason to vote for Obama, IMO

Good point.

lenar says

We all saw that type on the playground. The ones that poke you and then run screaming "wolf". Couldn't stand them as a kid, don't tolerate them much better as an adult.

Homeboy, you were the one who _started_ communication with me by making a personal derogatory comment, and then continued in the same manner. Anybody can scroll up, going back to the first page, and see for themselves. I was quite patient with you at first.

You are one of those sleazy bully types - the whining type. You may think that if you whine long enough it will all go away. It won't.

Go, Homeboy.

Well, you are anything but patient, but I didn't realize my first post hurt your feelings so much, so I apologize. Let me start over, then.

To say that the Obama administration spends "more than any" administration ignores a crucial point. ALL presidents spend more than the previous president. If you look at the chart in the article, you can see that NONE of the presidents on the chart spent less than the previous president.

So I would ask you, why do you criticize Obama IN PARTICULAR for simply doing what EVERY OTHER president has done, and arguably less so than the other presidents? Please explain why Obama is singled out for criticism when ALL presidents are guilty.

If you apologize - don't do it in a weasel form.
If you don't - don't make it seem like you do.
I don't care either way, frankly.

Obama is singled out for a simple reason - that the article is about Obama. If the article were about Bush (either one), and it said that Bush (either one) spends less than the predecessor, I'd call bull on that as well.

As soon as you add a single dollar to already bloated budget - you spend more. Bottom line. Let's take a loan on a Kirby vacuum and add it to underwater home mortgage! It's only a vacuum, and the mortgage was taken long ago!

On the other hand, I can't help but notice that those big shots at Wall Street deserved their bailout-paid bonuses. Good for Obama to have sided with them. They meant well.

lenar says

If you apologize - don't do it in a weasel form.

If you don't - don't make it seem like you do.

I don't care either way, frankly.

O.K., fuck you then. You're a sniveling little whiner who can't come up with a better argument than calling people child molesters.

Obama is singled out for a simple reason - that the article is about Obama. If the article were about Bush (either one), and it said that Bush (either one) spends less than the predecessor, I'd call bull on that as well.

You are stating the obvious. ALL presidents spend more than their predecessor. Like I said before, you may as well point out that Obama breathes oxygen. If I could get this one point through that thick skull of yours, I would consider my time here well spent.

The article, if you even bothered to read it, is about how the right claims Obama is the biggest spender ever, and how in fact, the presidents before him increased spending MORE than he did.

As soon as you add a single dollar to already bloated budget - you spend more. Bottom line. Let's take a loan on a Kirby vacuum and add it to underwater home mortgage! It's only a vacuum, and the mortgage was taken long ago!

On the other hand, I can't help but notice that those big shots at Wall Street deserved their bailout-paid bonuses. Good for Obama to have sided with them. They meant well.

Now you're just blathering. You obviously don't have a point.

Homeboy says

O.K., fuck you then.

I wouldn't let anyone like you anywhere near my privates, boy. Not even if you can suck tennis ball through a garden hose.

Here, ladies and gentlemen of the left, is a prime example of who keeps you company.

It's not you, it's me, boy. You are not my type. Don't call.

lenar says

Homeboy says

O.K., fuck you then.

I wouldn't let anyone like you anywhere near my privates, boy. Not even if you can suck tennis ball through a garden hose.

Here, ladies and gentlemen of the left, is a prime example of who keeps you company.

It's not you, it's me, boy. You are not my type. Don't call.

More blather. Still no point.

LOL...

Call it Crazy says

Read your own sewage (...factcheck.org)

We also had a much smaller economy and much more brittle way of doing things.

Kinda dumb to be even talking about 100 years ago, really.

There are a few lessons to be learned, mostly about human nature (ie what Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressives were attempting to reform), not about macro economies per se.

Real GDP per worker, 2005 dollars

Bellingham Bill says

We didn't get into the current recession via Fed raising rates (even though they did), what happened was the free money from the housing bubble showering the middle quintiles ended abruptly in 2007.

Yes.

I have a simple and intuitive view that I can not prove. It goes like this.

Because of the timing of the computer technology blossoming in the 90s causing irrational exhuberance about the internet, and a natural expectations of great futuristic living and prosperity in the 21st century, we were very much set up for a severe global recession at the beginning of the last decade.

But these events (not necessarily planned for the purpose of postponing this recession/depression) postponed it:

1)Bush Tax cuts
2)Iraq war
3) artificaillly low interest rates
4)the housing boom

causing a 7 to 8 year postponement of the inevitable.

OF course there was the larger credit boom that started in the Reagan years, which is a massive boom bust cycle of which we are still in the early recovery stages (maybe).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave

Clearly there are economic cycles. I don't think that the Kondratiev cycle idea is very much accepted, but it's obviously true that long cycles occur. It's just that there isn't any uniformity to their length.

The question of what technologies, or economic or political changes or other big influences might drive the next cycle is an interesting one.

Call it Crazy says

Postponed it??? I guess I missed something...

Postponed the big recession/depression.

marcus says

we were very much set up for a severe global recession at the beginning of the last decade.

IT only started to kick in when we had 9/11, which was followed by stimulus, tax cuts and war. Again, not saying this was all a conspiracy to postpone the severe depression that would have otherwise occurred. But that was the effect.

But yes, technically we did have a few quarters of decreasing GDP in 2002 or so. Just a little tremor compared to what was brewing.

bob2356 says

I don't believe any of the rest of the new deal had any relevance.

LOL.

How about the fact that the velocity of money was dead prior to FDR presidency?

How about the fact that the dollar was devalued into gold ($20 to $35) to increase liquidity and get the economy moving again?

How about Emergency Relief appropriation act of 1935?

uomo_senza_nome says

How about the fact that the dollar was devalued into gold ($20 to $35) to increase liquidity and get the economy moving again?

WWII got the economy moving, not the new deal.

bob2356 says

WWII got the economy moving, not the new deal.

The money velocity was increased with the stroke of devaluation. This is a well-established fact.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says

End the communist takeover of the White House - vote Obama out.