patrick.net

Strategist says

Does anyone know why gold dropped $20 today?

Says Yellen's Upbeat assessment of the economy and Putin blinks
http://www.kitco.com/news/2014-05-07/Gold-Sells-Off-on-Yellen-s-Upbeat-Assessment-of-US-Economy-and-as-Putin-Blinks.html

smaulgld says

check the internet 92 million people are not working, the laboar participation rate is at a 34 year low. The Fed admits the unemployment rate no longer is an accurate reflection of the state of the labor market

Perhaps you failed to read my initial response. Are there people unemployed? Yes. How many are unemployed now? A LOT less than at the peak of the recession. Would there be more or less people unemployed had nothing been done- which was essentially what the government did immediately after the crash of 29'- to shore things up on account of the fed? Take a wild guess.smaulgld says

Even if one accepts the necessity of the original bailout- was QE1, 2, 3, 4 + necessary?

Like I said... if some of you think you're these informed geniuses then I'm sure there are future careers working within the inner circle of the Fed and US government in which you could show all those people just how smart you really are.

Strategist says

Does anyone know why gold dropped $20 today?

ah ha! there we go! I knew it was a matter of time before gold was mentioned...

edvard2 says

Like I said... if some of you think you're these informed geniuses then I'm
sure there are future careers working within the inner circle of the Fed and US
government in which you could show all those people just how smart you really
are.

Are you implying the majority of people working in the Fed and US government are informed geniuses?

Analyzer says

Are you implying the majority of people working in the Fed and US government are informed geniuses?

I implied nothing. Simply put its really easy to play armchair economist and claim that doing such and such or not doing such and such would solve major problems.

I just find it funny that some people I've talked to over the years who on one hand claim they know alllllll about running the US economy are also the ones who also sometimes push weird conspiracies, gold, or whatnot. Somehow these two are not exactly parallel.

But anyway, I gather that from what I hear from a few people it would have been better if everyone had simply sat back and done jack shit and let the cards fall where they lay, right? OK... so I can buy a differing opinion, that's fair. So if that's the case well let's hear why such a plan is so amazing and what the economic reasoning would be...

Analyzer says

edvard2 says

Like I said... if some of you think you're these informed geniuses then I'm

sure there are future careers working within the inner circle of the Fed and US

government in which you could show all those people just how smart you really

are.

Are you implying the majority of people working in the Fed and US government are informed geniuses?

Here is what passes for government genius from Meterologist Janet Yellen today

Case in point: Yellen today

The economy paused in Q1 but clearer skies ahead!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/05/07/yellen-economy-paused-in-q1-but-clearer-skies-ahead/

“I see that pause as mostly reflecting transitory factors, including the effects of the unusually cold and snowy winter weather,”

“With the harsh winter behind us, many recent indicators suggest that a rebound in spending and production is already under way, putting the overall economy on track for solid growth in the current quarter.”

smaulgld says

Here is what passes for government genius from Meterologist Janet Yellen today

Case in point: Yellen today

Are you trying to make a point? You simply posted the comments of the Fed chair. If your point is that you disagree then you don't have a point to begin with...

edvard2 says

smaulgld says

Here is what passes for government genius from Meterologist Janet Yellen today

Case in point: Yellen today

Are you trying to make a point? You simply posted the comments of the Fed chair. If your point is that you disagree then you don't have a point to begin with...

the point is for all her supposed economic knowledge she blames the weather for the fed's failed policies and predicts with no basis that things will get better

smaulgld says

Here is what passes for government genius from Meterologist Janet Yellen
today

Case in point: Yellen today

The economy paused in Q1 but clearer skies ahead!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/05/07/yellen-economy-paused-in-q1-but-clearer-skies-ahead/

“I see that pause as mostly reflecting transitory factors, including the
effects of the unusually cold and snowy winter weather,”

“With the harsh winter behind us, many recent indicators suggest that a
rebound in spending and production is already under way, putting the overall
economy on track for solid growth in the current quarter.”

What do you suppose Obama's level of economic intellect is?

Analyzer says

What do you suppose Obama's level of economic intellect is?

none, his only concern re the economy is wealth inequality and his solution is simple redistribution.

his area of supposed study was the constitution.

If you study FDR you'll realize he had no interest in economics. Indeed he really had no interest in public policy either -he was not an ideologue. He was simply using the Presidency and exerting his authority to try and fix things using the government.
It didn't work as the depression lasted 10 years but he was always trying! an amazing man but not suited to formulating economic policy- he himself would set the gold price!

Perhaps Obama has talents too but his understanding of the economy, like FDR's is next to zero.

smaulgld says

the point is for all her supposed economic knowledge she blames the weather for the fed's failed policies and predicts with no basis that things will get better

Ahhh... so it finally come out. Now it gets finally interesting. So let's think about this for one minute. So let's assume that you're wanting to buy a car. Its Snowing like mad outside. Either that or 13 feet of rain falls. Or there's a tornado or whatever. How many people would choose to go buy a car that day or wait until its not doing those said things? Point made.

Secondly, you mentioned the term: "Predict". Duh. Economics is ALL about predictions. Its about big data, crunching numbers, managing risks and making a calculated decision based on those. So are you saying that whatever you would suggest would not be predictions but would literally happen cuz' you said so?

smaulgld says

none, his only concern re the economy is wealth inequality and his solution is simple redistribution.

And with a statement like that now it allllll makes sense. Tinfoil hat sale!

edvard2 says

http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/05/07/yellen-economy-paused-in-q1-but-clearer-skies-ahead/

“I see that pause as mostly reflecting transitory factors, including the effects of the unusually cold and snowy winter weather,”

“With the harsh winter behind us, many recent indicators suggest that a rebound in spending and production is already under way, putting the overall economy on track for solid growth in the current quarter.”

How do you get tinfoil hat from mentioning what Obama himself says is his economic policy. Direct from the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9868843/Barack-Obama-calls-for-more-redistribution-of-wealth-to-Americas-working-poor.html

Most of government is involving in redistributing the wealth of its citizens-nothing tin foil about that. Taxes are collected and the revenues redistributed across society and overseas!

smaulgld says

Most of government is involving in redistributing the wealth of its citizens-nothing tin foil about that. Taxes are collected and the revenues redistributed across society and overseas!

Ohhh nooo! Its Wealth redistribution!

Yeah.. I've heard that who BS argument for years now. It was John McCain's last battle cry before he lost in 2008.

You want to know what's ironic? Its that those who tend to make those arguments are totally not even realizing that "redistribution" has been happening for over 30 years starting with Reagan and his ingenius "trickle-down" economics which over time has totally lop-sided the US in that now almost all of the wealth was in fact "redistributed" to the extreme upper top.

So... is that what you're trying to say? If so, I agree!

edvard2 says

smaulgld says

Most of government is involving in redistributing the wealth of its citizens-nothing tin foil about that. Taxes are collected and the revenues redistributed across society and overseas!

Ohhh nooo! Its Wealth- re-distri-butin'! ( using my Southern accent- and BTW, I am Southern anyway).

Yeah.. I've heard that who BS argument for years now. You want to know what's ironic? Its that those who tend to make those arguments are totally not even realizing that "redistribution" has been happening for over 30 years starting with Reagan and his ingenius "trickle-down" economics which over time has totally lop-sided the US in that now almost all of the wealth was in fact "redistributed" to the extreme upper top.

So... is that what you're trying to say? If so, I agree!

So, what's your opinion of Obama's economic intellect?

edvard2 says

Yeah.. I've heard that who BS argument for years now. You want to know what's ironic? Its that those who tend to make those arguments are totally not even realizing that "redistribution" has been happening for over 30 years starting with Reagan and his ingenius "trickle-down" economics which over time has totally lop-sided the US in that now almost all of the wealth was in fact "redistributed" to the extreme upper top.

So... is that what you're trying to say? If so, I agree!

Correct, ALL government does is redistribute wealth. Depending on who is in power determines who gets their "fair share"

The Fed redistributes it to the banks and pretends to rely on trickle down.
Rep and Dems redistribute it to their special interests.

An economy should not be based on how government can move money from one segment of the economy or from one group to the other. If you believe that is what government should do than you hire economists to justify your actions.
witness Reagan and Laffer and Obama and his merry troupe of Keynesians

Analyzer says

So, what's your opinion of Obama's economic intellect?

That it is sound and given that the GOP decided to sit on their hands and obstruct everything. Yet the economy improved.

smaulgld says

An economy should not be based on how government can move money from one segment of the economy or from one group to the other.

But that's called reality and the way in which the modern economy has always worked. Plain and simple. You name me one modern civilization that has functioned without the government having anything to do with the economy and you'll have a point.

edvard2 says

Analyzer says

So, what's your opinion of Obama's economic intellect?

That it is sound and given that the GOP decided to sit on their hands and obstruct everything. Yet the economy improved.

Its a misnomer that governments can generate economic growth.
Obama had no plan for the Republicans to obstruct.

Both sides rely on massive government spending promises to stay in power. It therefore requires more and more money to fullfill those promises little of which reaches the people who work for a living or to the truly disadvantaged.

The Federal government has never been a good steward of money. What ever happened to the social security money -al spent, and not saved for those that put in. $1 billion for the Ukraine, while Detroit has no street lights?

edvard2 says

But that's called reality and the way in which the modern economy has always worked. Plain and simple. You name me one modern civilization that has functioned without the government having anything to do with the economy and you'll have a point.

Actually many of the city states like Amsterdam, Venice, did quite well without government intervention What inevitably happens is the top companies then form an alliance with government and legalize their anticompetitive behavior and plunder.

It's holder's dilemma with the Fed's TBTF banks-he can't/won't prosecute even though they owe their existence to the tax payer

smaulgld says

witness Reagan and Laffer and Obama and his merry troupe of Keynesians

I would be happy to go back to Reagan's tax system where capital gains got charged the same tax rate as ordinary income. That would be anathema to current Obama-opponents because they are hypocrites (sort of like with the whole Affordable Care Act thing).

Check this out from the BLS web site.
You can see the participation rate starting from 1948. Click 1948 on the top, and click GO.
The participation rate was much much lower 50 years ago. It's just a matter of demographics.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Strategist says

Check this out from the BLS web site.

You can see the participation rate starting from 1948. Click 1948 on the top, and click GO.

The participation rate was much much lower 50 years ago. It's just a matter of demographics.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Oh God.
Try this.

Labor Force Participation Rate - Bureau of Labor Statistics ...
data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate. Type of data: Percent or rate. Age: 16 years and over.

Strategist says

The participation rate was much much lower 50 years ago. It's just a matter of demographics.

It was lower 50 years ago because fewer woman worked or had to work to support a family.

Now its lower because men and women who want to work can't find work or there are people who don't work and don't want to

smaulgld says

Strategist says

The participation rate was much much lower 50 years ago. It's just a matter of demographics.

It was lower 50 years ago because fewer woman worked or had to work to support a family.

Now its lower because men and women who want to work can't find work or there are people who don't work and don't want to

It's lower because of the aging population in addition to what you said.
Look at the rate from 2000 to 2008, the boom years - it declined then too.

Strategist says

It's lower because of the aging population in addition to what you said.

Look at the rate from 2000 to 2008, the boom years - it declined then too.

That is true too AND its lower because millennials are a large generation and they are not working as much as they should offset by older boomers who are still working because they can't retire

You can debate with professor Keyenes all day long but realestate prices only have one way to go

Edvard, you just changed the subject to make some point.

I said that other people doubt that the Federal Reserve's zero interest rate policy was required to keep banks solvent. Others doubt the need to bail out Citi and BoA also. I haven't much feeling either way about the subject.

GM could have gone through bankruptcy just fine, this is not so unusual. Continental Airlines did it. This is a process to restructure the company.

Obama decided to use TARP as a slush fund to bail out the UAW at GM. TARP was of course voted for by Congress as something completely different but that was quickly ignored.

The unemployed are 92 million out of workforce + 9 million plus unemployed, that's 100 million not working people.

Thank goodness the banks are smaller now, and the derivatives markets are transparent. And the prison sentences handed out to the criminal bankers serves as a warning going forward.

Blurtman says

Thank goodness the banks are smaller now, and the derivatives market is transparent. And the prison sentences handed out to the criminal bankers serves as a warning going forward.

Yes we have made enormous progress :-)

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

It's lower because of the aging population in addition to what you said.

Look at the rate from 2000 to 2008, the boom years - it declined then too.

That's the excuse that people use for the drop in the participation rate - that the older people or baby boomers retired.... That's not true.

That age group is actually up.. They are STILL working...

*

hmmmm. Ok, two points:
1. The graph refers to age 55+. Most people don't retire at age 55 or 60. The same graph at age 65+ might look a lot different.
2. When you have an aging population, some will continue working, which will show up on your graph, and some won't, which will show up on a non participating chart. They can both be headed upwards at the same time.

smaulgld says

Actually many of the city states like Amsterdam, Venice, did quite well without government intervention What inevitably happens is the top companies then form an alliance with government and legalize their anticompetitive behavior and plunder.

Those cities had/have governments.... right? As such those governments also require money in which to operate, correct? hence therefor regardless of your claim those governments did in fact intervene in economic affairs via the collection of taxes in which to run.

clambo says

I said that other people doubt that the Federal Reserve's zero interest rate policy was required to keep banks solvent. Others doubt the need to bail out Citi and BoA also. I haven't much feeling either way about the subject.

You know what they say: Opinions are like assholes: Everyone has one. So far the only competing arguments Ive heard is that " everything would have been fine" had nothing been done and everything would have been allowed to fail, followed with no supporting data or reasoning as to why... its just because they say so and that's not really a hypothesis.clambo says

GM could have gone through bankruptcy just fine, this is not so unusual. Continental Airlines did it. This is a process to restructure the company.

Apparently you didn't understand what I mentioned with GM. GM and all of the businesses attached to it represented millions of workers all of whom would have had to shut their doors come a GM default. That result would have been far more damaging than bailing them out.

Either way, I can see this is really going nowhere. All I'll say is that I've done quite well for myself and I've done it not in buying gold, chasing the latest greatest stock, buying houses, or trying to otherwise outsmart the system or come up with strange economic theories. I simply work, save and invest in boring, ordinary stocks and mutual funds the same way as everyone else in my family who all will have comfortable, well-financed retirements.

Its stupid to debate about what should have been done versus what was done. What was done was done and the economy didn't fall into a depression.

edvard2 says

Those cities had/have governments.... right? As such those governments also require money in which to operate, correct? hence therefor regardless of your claim those governments did in fact intervene in economic affairs via the collection of taxes in which to run.

No.

The past was a golden time of near-perfect libertarian happiness. Cheerful non-union laborers built everything, usually singing (in four-part harmony) as they worked, in 70-hour weeks which promoted family togetherness because their children often worked alongside them.

There was no poverty, no abuse of power by bosses, and the free market ran like a watch, promoting near-universal happiness and good cheer. Economic crises were totally unknown, with the exception of the Panic of 1819, the Convulsion of 1825, the Conniption of 1837, the Prolapse of 1847, the Panics of 1857 and 1866, the Crisis of 1873, the depression of 1873-1896, the Stampede of 1884, the Heart Attack of 1890, the Seizure of 1893, and the Panic of 1907 - but all of these were due to government meddling, not the free market, so nobody please ever say that.

I know all this because I am a low-information voter who watches a lot of Disney movies, plus 'It's a Wonderful Life', which show how people were all basically good and hard-working back then. Also I read armchair economic theorists who hate everyone but the rich.

And then unions (boo!) and the Fed (hiss!) destroyed everything forever.

edvard2 says

" everything would have been fine" had nothing been done and everything would have been allowed to fail, followed with no supporting data or reasoning as to why... its just because they say so and that's not really a hypothesis

Noone will know but I question what gives a central bank the right to decide to just embark on a $4 trillion money printing scheme?edvard2 says

All I'll say is that I've done quite well for myself and I've done it not in buying gold, chasing the latest greatest stock, buying houses, or trying to otherwise outsmart the system or come up with strange economic theories. I simply work, save and invest in boring, ordinary stocks and mutual funds the same way as everyone else in my family who all will have comfortable, well-financed retirements.

Good approach

edvard2 says

hence therefor regardless of your claim those governments did in fact intervene in economic affairs via the collection of taxes in which to run.

there are degrees as you know from
1.no government-anarchy
2.small government minarchy
3.large government socialism
4. total government-communism
all provide varying degrees of "services" or none in the case of the first

Business has done well under the middle two for different reasons, very poorly under the fourth one and not really tried under the first (anarcho capitalism).

smaulgld says

there are degrees as you know from

1.no government-anarchy

2.small government minarchy

3.large government socialism

4. total government-communism

all provide varying degrees of "services" or none in the case of the first

How heartening to see a libertarian type acknowledge this! I didn't know they even acknowledge the possibility.

Maybe soon we'll see a libertarian refrain from characterizing a regulation, or a minor tax or fee, as outright Bolshevism.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

How heartening to see a libertarian type acknowledge this! I didn't know they even acknowledge the possibility.

How enlightening your generalizations are of "low information" voters and libertarians!

smaulgld says

How enlightening your generalizations are of "low information" voters and libertarians!

Got a better description of people who believe things about the Land Before 1913 that have no discernable correlation to historical fact?

Would you prefer stupid? Ignorant? How about pathetic?

Or maybe they're not stupid or ill-informed, in which case the word is "liar". How about that? Does "liar" work for you?

Gedvard2 says

So let's assume that you're wanting to buy a car. Its Snowing like mad outside. Either that or 13 feet of rain falls. Or there's a tornado or whatever. How many people would choose to go buy a car that day or wait until its not doing those said things? Point made.

This is nonsense. Harsh weather makes people buy many other things, such as snow tires, chains, or even 4x4. People would also buy plenty of other stuff. The Internet shopping would skyrocket.

Unlike some animals, humans don't go into hibernation during winter. Weather is a bogus argument against economic activity.

I took an International Econ course taught by Yellen back in 1988. She seemed like a pleasant person, in a munchkin grandmotherly sort of way. But she didn't seem that deep or profound. In fact, she was flat wrong in one of her positions, that is, that the US could no longer compete in the auto industry. Keep in mind that this was the late '80's, Japan was king, and Yellen was saying the US should get out of the auto industry. At least one student disagreed with her, and said, no, the USG could restructure the US auto industry, and get it back on its feet. Yellen is a recapitulator of dogma, and this is her shining moment, and last hurrah. Unfortunately, we are all in this movie.