« First « Previous Comments 59 - 64 of 64 Search these comments
Those seem like disparate activities--how do they all contribute to "clearing the market"?
Because they do, they create commerce. If a retailer has inventory he cannot sell he reduces the price by having a sale. If a company cannot pay its bills it declares bankruptcy. The only one who does not have to do this is the government or its cronies.
Because they do, they create commerce. If a retailer has inventory he cannot
sell he reduces the price by having a sale. If a company cannot pay its bills it
declares bankruptcy. The only one who does not have to do this is the government
or its cronies.
Yes, very good. So, how again does that relate to China having to strive for a stronger currency?
I don't think we're talking about China needing to create commerce.
Yes, very good. So, how again does that relate to China having to strive for a stronger currency?
Because the Chinese economy suffers from over investment. Consequently their economy is no longer growing.
I have had 2 serial long term GF's (plus a couple short-term ones in between) since 2008. They were very hot
Pics please!
No, it is not in the con business like Keynesians.
Keynesians (not that anyone has actually implemented what Keynes wrote)
What Keynes wrote had been implemented even before Keynes wrote it. Nazi Germany was on a massive Keynesian program, from building Autobahn to military buildup, before Keynes wrote his book. Italian Fascists did it even earlier.
and Austrians are both in a con game. Austrian translates into plutocratic oligopoly, Keynesian translates into welfare state.
Keynesianism leads to both oligopoly and welfare state. There is no contradiction between welfare and aristocracy . . . after all, it was Bismarck the consummate aristocrat who introduced the very first modern welfare state, in order to uphold the social status of the aristocrats and to tax / put down the upstarts in the market place.
Not when you have an epic sized trade deficit like we do!
As of fourth-quarter 2013, the trade deficit was a mere 2.2% of GDP. This is due to fracking/shale energy production, increased use of service (as opposed to manufactured) products by aging baby boomers, and increased consumption of onshore goods.
2.2% is quite low.
(Source: The Economist, January 4th issue)
« First « Previous Comments 59 - 64 of 64 Search these comments
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=25018