patrick.net

The Chinese may be running a variant of this - lend huge sums, the American’s own money actually, by flooding them with goods and making them dependent on your supply, then at a key moment, stop buying debt and demand economic control.

What would they buy with a surplus of hundreds of billions of dollars from trade with the US?

Then, what will they do with the surplus of US dollars from trade with Germany, and Australia, and Japan, and every other country on earth that denominates trade in US Dollars.

But I also don't think very many people think US defense spending is the sole reason for the collapse of the USSR. In fact, I've never heard anybody say this was the sole reason.

shrekgrinch says

Whereas bob2356 at least knows what PPP is based on his question asked. Yes, differences in consumption tax rates is an identified weakness in PPP calculations, Bob. But in this case, for Europe is a clear cause of WHY PPP is lower in Europe than in America. Euroweenies can’t purchase as much compared to us if their governments are both taking more money from them at the front end (income earned) as well as at the tail end (at the cash register).

What about the fact that in Europe you don't pay 12-18k per year out of your take home pay for health care? Or 50-200k for a university degree. Or a lot of other social services that are paid by taxes in Europe and out of pocket in the US. Or medicare and nursing home costs for the elderly paid out of retirement or from adult children's earnings. That all pretty dramatically affects PPP. Yes I have more in my pocket in the US to buy things, but I have a lot higher expenses to pay off first that Europeans don't. That isn't included in the PPP calculations at all.

Wow you went on vacation to Europe a whole 6 times in 30 years. Very impressive. I've lived overseas almost 12 of the last 30 years and like to think I know a little about Europe after living there. Your PPP calculation just doesn't wash with the reality on the ground. It's a lot more complicated than how many trips you can make to wal mart per capita. Europeans have very different values and the vast majority are quite happy with them. If you think that consumerism is the be all end all of life then more power to you, but it doesn't mean everyone else agrees.

WTF does where muslims live have to do with anything?

wormwood says

Which definition do you want?

Some helpful links to get you started:

Dictionary definition of liberal:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

Dictionary definition of liberalism:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism

Wikipedia on liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Wikipedia on classical liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Wikipedia on shock conservative liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism

Wikipedia on economic liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

Wikipedia on social liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

I hope you find this helpful in your understanding of liberalism.

.
Ru proverb 'they pretend to pay us, we pretend to
work"
west gov's can pay prin, only int. U
+ > S total debts $200t twelve zero, 13c
gdp $14t/yr" prof says

I'm no historian, but I've heard it said by historians that around the time of the civil war, republicans were the liberals and the democrats were the conservatives. Even when I was a child, southern democrats were very conservative. In the senate they were often more conservative than some of the northern republican senators. The civil rights movement seems to coincide with a reorganization of the teams.

Since then or so I have observed a continual huge change in both parties, especially the republicans. They are no longer really conservative. But then it's true that both parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of the banks and the corporate world.

WWood - When you consider the change we have seen since 1975, it shouldn't really surprise you that Lincoln was a liberal.

One of the things that fascinates me is that people usually lock onto a team (their party) and don't change no matter what. It's sort of like tastes in food or music. They say after the age of 30 or so, many of these are locked in. I think it's the same with parties. People are loyal to their political party to a surprising degree.

Witness the republicans. Just how insane will they have to get, before we see many more moderate republicans saying adios ?

wtfcapinv says

What would they buy with a surplus of hundreds of billions of dollars from trade with the US?

They can and are buying assets from around the world: Coal Mines in Australia, High End Audio Makers in Germany, Oil Wells in Iran, Gold Mines in South Africa, and America's current top economic performers, Doughnut Shops and Porn Studios.

shrekgrinch says

Look who’s overreacting.

pot. kettle. black.

yawn.

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Republican?
I thought Lincoln was bipolar.

I don't think he ever explored the Arctic. His wife, on the other hand, nuttier than a fruitcake.

Formidable matin à tous,

Premièrement, offrez-moi la possibilité de vous démontrer mon appréciation pour toutes les très "à propos" informations que j'ai rencontrées sur cet excellent forum.

Je ne suis pas certaine d'être au bon endroit mais je n'en ai pas vu de meilleure .

Je réside à Shelburne, États-Unis. J'ai 37 ans et j'ai quatre très gentils enfants qui sont tous âgés entre 5 et 12 années (1 est adopté). J'adore beaucoup les animaux et j'essaie de leur présenter les items qui leur rendent la vie plus confortable.

Merci d'avance pour toutes les palpitantes débats à venir et je vous remercie de votre compassion pour mon français moins que parfait: ma langue de naissance est le portuguais et je tempte d'apprendre mais c'est très complexe !

A une autre fois

Arthru

google translate rocks:

Antohwb says

Antohwb

Befriend | Ignore
Posts: 0
Comments: 1

Thu, 23 Sep 2011 at 10:57 pm Link Top Bottom Quote Email Flag
Wonderful morning to all,

First, give me the opportunity to show my appreciation for all the great "about" information that I have encountered on this excellent forum.

I'm not sure to be the right place but I have not seen better.

I live in Shelburne, United States. I'm 37 and I have four very nice children who are all aged between 5 and 12 years (1 is adopted). I love animals very much and I try to present items that make life more comfortable.

Thank you in advance for all the exciting future debate and I thank you for your compassion for my less than perfect French: My native language is Portuguese and I tempt to learn but it's very complex!

At another time

The oil glut of the late 1980s was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes.

For some reason Reagan boosters tend to minimize how fucked up the Soviet economy had become by the time that Gorbachev took over. This is odd, since they profess to believe that socialism can't work, yet fail to identify it failing so conclusively with the USSR.

Of course, the USSR was indeed an evil empire and the Soviet brand of socialism was in fact a crock compared to our system. It wasn't Reaganism that did in the Soviets, it was their own failures to create a viable political, social, and economic system. This much is obvious, except to conservative Reagan worshippers.

Oil supply skyrocketed in the late 80s -- North Sea was peaking, Alaska North slope peaked, with most of that supply being shipped down to the west coast, pushing gas prices under $1 again. This indeed crippled the Soviet's hard-currency in-flows from its oil exports.

The US also caught a break with the PC tech boom of the 1980s, the soviets didn't have the economic chops to compete with the Japanese & US consumer electronics powerhouses that were changing the word, both improving productivity and standard of living.

austrian_man says

I am accusing the Fed to be the primary reason for bubbles.

I wouldn't argue the Fed doesn't share some responsibility, but it's not the primary cause. There have been as many, if not more, asset bubbles before the FED as after:

Tulips, South Sea Company, Railroads, etc.

austrian_man says

OK answer this question: Who is responsible for the housing bubble? I am asking for the root-cause. Not the peripheral people who took advantage and made the bubble worse.

The cause was clearly the ability of banks to sell mortgages no matter how crappy the loans. Lending standards went to hell. Low interest rates were probably a contributing factor, but not the main cause.

The democrats could come up with a winning platform now, and they need to. One that polls show to be popular. SOmething like what I heard Barbera Boxer say the other day:

1) End loopholes

2) End all wars

3) Raise tax rates way way up to Y2K levels

At least then they could say, "look at what the republicans were not willing to do."

Unfortunately too many democrats are either pussies or millionaires themselves (confict of interest).

I'm not giving that clown more money to squander then feign a befuddled state whilst his cronies chuckle.

You are only looking at this from your Liberal at the expense of Others point of view. You're loaded, so it's all good to you, if this administration wants to eviscerate the middle class.

The Republicans are only one side of the Vote, why are the Democrats willing to default, because they think the Republicans wont budge? Why should they? They are acting responsible at the behest and outpouring of 67% of the nation that believes in spite of his Usama rabbit trick, he is an ineffective president. We don't want more taxes, and more social services, money to be allocated to Government programs. Then once on the books, have the government spending be politicized to Outsourcing to make more Cronies rich, to laugh at us even louder during National addresses to the subjects, of his Majesty King Hussein Obama, explaining once again. Why his economic policies failed.
We're powerless to make him stop, only John Boehner and rag tag team of Freedom Fighters in Washington can protect us all from the Badman.

marcus says

The democrats could come up with a winning platform now, and they need to. One that polls show to be popular. SOmething like what I heard Barbera Boxer say the other day:
1) End loopholes
2) End all wars
3) Raise tax rates way way up to Y2K levels
At least then they could say, “look at what the republicans were not willing to do.”
Unfortunately too many democrats are either pussies or millionaires themselves (confict of interest).

Too many politicians on both sides have impediment of that conflict of interest.

Dude they already get trillions, thats not enough to feed thier greed - so they print trillions more. Thats not enough now raise taxes more? enough!

The raising of the taxes is whats killing the country IMO. I know the goal: eventually government is 100% of the economony and we are cuba.

tatupu70 says

I wouldn’t argue the Fed doesn’t share some responsibility, but it’s not the primary cause.

The above statement is contradictory to the statement below.

tatupu70 says

The cause was clearly the ability of banks to sell mortgages no matter how crappy the loans.

If banks are responsible, and the bank's bank (The Fed) sets/controls the market interest rate, who's at fault? Remember, there is NOTHING federal about the Federal Reserve. It is basically a consortium of private banks. Answer this question: how do banks make money? Well, through issuing more debt. When issuing more debt is your incentive to earn more, then you will issue debt to infinity. Why would the central bank loosen the noose on monetary policy for the private banks? The TBTF banks own and dictate the monetary policy in this country.

tatupu70 says

Tulips, South Sea Company, Railroads, etc.

South sea company bubble cause: Government war spending by England. (central planning by the government)

RailRoads: The Bank of England cut interest rates, making government bonds less attractive investments, and existing railway companies' shares began to boom as they moved ever-increasing amounts of cargo and people, making people willing to invest in new railways. (central planning by the central bank)

Tulip mania: See this paper (http://www.econ.ucla.edu/thompson/Document97.pdf) as always, Government meddles with the market.

There are three Options:

* Default. Short term pain, hopefully sweep away the deadwood. Might end up sweeping the middle class baby out with the bathwater, however.

* Austerity. There is no way to Grow Out of the Debt, not even a return of the late 90's tech boom will solve it. Austerity will only guarantee the absolute elimination of the Middle Class, as less spending = less business = more layoffs and paycuts = even less spending in a downward cycle of doom. Those who own productive assets will escape largely unscathed and relatively even more wealthy (and thus, powerful) than everybody else. Finally, see THIS. Austerity is seldom apportioned fairly, and the sacred cows often go unbutchered, while the golden goose gets trimmed and stuffed.

* Inflation. Probably the best weapon in the arsenal, but not too wonderful for the babyboomers who will be retiring soon. Continuous downward pressure on wages and high unemployment means that we might end up in the same downward cycle as Austerity, since wages won't rise to match inflation, and Unions are weaker than ever.

Pick one.

austrian_man says

If banks are responsible, and the bank’s bank (The Fed) sets/controls the market interest rate, who’s at fault? Remember, there is NOTHING federal about the Federal Reserve. It is basically a consortium of private banks. Answer this question: how do banks make money? Well, through issuing more debt. When issuing more debt is your incentive to earn more, then you will issue debt to infinity. Why would the central bank loosen the noose on monetary policy for the private banks? The TBTF banks own and dictate the monetary policy in this country.

But monetary policy had only a very small, if any, role in the debacle. And the federal reserve system had no role in underwriting standards. Hell--it was savings and loans that were the worst offenders.

austrian_man says

South sea company bubble cause: Government war spending by England. (central planning by the government)
RailRoads: The Bank of England cut interest rates, making government bonds less attractive investments, and existing railway companies’ shares began to boom as they moved ever-increasing amounts of cargo and people, making people willing to invest in new railways. (central planning by the central bank)
Tulip mania: See this paper (http://www.econ.ucla.edu/thompson/Document97.pdf) as always, Government meddles with the market.

I think it was Twain that said--To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Food for thought.

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

OK, granted - but he did institute beef stew Thursdays at McMurdo Station - and many do indeed argue he was unipolar. Or was he unibrow?
elliemae says

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Republican?
I thought Lincoln was bipolar.

I don’t think he ever explored the Arctic. His wife, on the other hand, nuttier than a fruitcake.

Eschew Obfuscation

Hmm... yeah the bi-s are getting mixed up here. His wife was the bipolar one, Lincoln was the bisexual.

shrekgrinch says

thunderlips11 says

I see so many Mississippians booking month-long paid vacations to Mallorca and the Aegean every August.

And many Europeans don’t, either. Not the ones who don’t have jobs and hardly any purchasing power at all. Those who get to go are subsidized by those who don’t, essentially.

Unemployed people in the old miss aren't taking vacations on the redneck riviera either. How do the unemployed subsidize the employed? What does that mean? Do you have a point with this at all? How does being unemployed relate to PPP? Try to focus.

shrekgrinch says

bob2356 says

What about the fact that in Europe you don’t pay 12-18k per year out of your take home pay for health care? Or 50-200k for a university degree.

What do you mean “they don’t pay”? It isn’t free. They pay for it in diminished economic opportunities from so much of their income being leeched by the govmnt. If you want that trade off, then by all means move your ass to Europe. Just don’t chant the BS “Hey let’s be more like Europe!”. America is not Europe.

Do you ever stay on topic, or even understand the topic? What does economic opportunities have to do with PPP. There are no lost economic opportunities, you have to pay for health care, education, etc. no matter if it's through taxes or insurance premiums and tuition. Try to remember (I know it's hard but focus, but I have faith that you can do it) that you are the op and the subject is PPP.

I went and read the original carpe diem article that your article is based on. Pretty weak stuff. There are tons of problems with data and methodology. There are lots of methodologies for calculating PPP, almost all admit it's at best a guestimate, but Professor Perry doesn't explain at all which he uses or how. Just trust me I guess.

I never said "they don't pay", I said they don't pay for these things out of their take home pay (that means post tax by the way, have someone explain the difference). Try to focus. Yes the take home pay in the US is higher, but lots of things are paid out of pocket here rather than through taxes (pre tax income). Are you beginning to understand this point yet?

This is the first big weakness of most PPP calculations. How to equalize what is pay and what is a basket of goods (and/or services) to calculate by. The CIA estimate, which is part of what Perry uses, just adds up all goods and services then divides by population with a cost of living adjustment. There is a big disclaimer that Dr. Perry fails to share that these numbers are just estimates at best.

You always scream about reading comprehension, but tell me exactly where I said “Hey let’s be more like Europe!”. I said Europeans have different values. Period. No comment on which was better. There is no better, it's whatever people prefer. Try to focus, it's hard I know.

The value that is most different between the cultures is time. Europeans work a lot less hours and take 6-8 weeks vacation every year. There are a lot less 2 income families. They value having a stay at home parent. This is all a choice, even though it lowers gdp and therefore PPP.

Many europeans I know consider the the 50-70 hour work week for both parents, children at day care till 6, grab fast food on the way home, watch tv for an hour then off to bed lifestyle of many Americans insane. They would rather have more time than a whole house full of walmart crap. Spend 2 hours of family time fixing and eating dinner with local in season ingredients rather than paying for prepared food. Take 4 weeks in the alps and 4 weeks in the south of france every year. Yes most working people in europe do that kind of thing. Try to get a room anywhere south of clermont-ferrand in july or august. or meribel in january. ce n'est pas possible. Most kids take a year or two off after graduating school and travel the world. It's called the big oe (overseas experience) and is pretty much expected. Try that with 100k in student loans. I host these kids at my house frequently. Almost none have expressed any interest in living in the US. They like their countries just fine.

So PPP can't begin to factor these kinds of things in and most honest (not making an ideological political point, thank you Dr. Perry) evaluations admit this openly.

tatupu70 says

But monetary policy had only a very small, if any, role in the debacle.

How? That is the root...without which all the sloppiness at the bank level couldn't have occurred.

tatupu70 says

I think it was Twain that said–To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I quote actual historical references and you choose to be blind to it...and the ignorance continues.

bob2356 says

Unemployed people in the old miss aren’t taking vacations on the redneck riviera either. How do the unemployed subsidize the employed? What does that mean? Do you have a point with this at all? How does being unemployed relate to PPP? Try to focus.

It's completely relevant. There's a huge difference in driving 3 hours to the coast for a long Memorial or Labor Day weekend in a Motel 6 by the Gulf once a year if you're lucky, and being able to afford a 4-hour flight to the other side of the continent to stay in Spain for three weeks, not to mention the other dozen or so paid holidays spread out through the year.

The conversation was about PPP, and comparing Europeans to Americans. For working class people, Europe is vastly superior. The health care benefits for all, regardless of who you work for, how many hours you have, or how much you make alone is worth hundreds a month - or over a thousand each month, if your employer doesn't offer any medical care.

3-4 weeks of paid vacation is something that the most humble French ditch digger gets, but something only a handful of US workers ever get. That's a benefit also worth over a thousand.

austrian_man says

I quote actual historical references and you choose to be blind to it…and the ignorance continues.

OK--I give up. There will always be something you can blame. Wars caused bubbles before the Fed, but they stopped bubbles after the Fed.

I wonder how many people are on the sidelines that do NOT have 20% down; and after seeing the possibility of them raising it to 20% downpayment, they jump on and purchase a home before they get priced out?

I'm beginning to think Government is fake just like wrestling & WWF when I was a kid. All staged out.

It would be utterly ridiculous for people to jump in to buy before a rule on higher down payments thinking that they would be priced out - given that prices would have to come in line with average ability to save said payment.

Michelle Bachman to announce tomorrow.

Now that we have Male Republican look-alikes, we also seem to have Female Republican Clones.

QUIZ: Can you tell Bachman and Palin apart?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/take-the-bachmann-palin-challenge-can-you-tell-them-apart-20110609

As a future first time buyer I would much rather pay a larger down payment, but an overall lower price for the home. Home prices will drop to reflect the drop in demand, just as they increased exponentially when available credit expanded in the early 2000's. Home prices falling wouldn't be a bad thing, it would finally make homes affordable once again. Easy access to credit has inflated home prices and pushed the lower to middle income borrowers to stretch as far as possible in their budget to be able to afford the monthly payment. The way to make homes affordable is not through credit, but real drops in prices. In the end we haven’t helped these lower to middle income borrowers, we’ve trapped them under a mountain of debt, but pretended that we helped them because we made it easier to sign a piece of paper.

However, I think the market should set its own rules without government mandates and the government should just exit the market altogether so I fundamentally disagree with the QRM rules, but we live in a market where the government still backs loans at 3.5% up to 729k, and the fed meanwhile is keeping interest rates artificially low extending easy money to the banks. In a truly free market I don’t think the banks would even consider less than 20%, or if they did as during the housing boom, they would be allowed to fail. But we don’t live in that world.

shrekgrinch says

elliemae says

People don’t trust Mormons as a whole.

You mean LIBERALS mostly when defining ‘people’. Hell, LIBERALS don’t trust many people who are religious, period.

You say that like there are no religious liberals. Or that it is not the right wing christians most opposed to mormons. Sounds like someone has linked...
shrekgrinch says

false facts with even worse bullshit

...whatever.

Transparent

Please specify the bullshit you mean. Otherwise this thread is just a personal insult, not a discussion.

Well said AF. And for future reference, PLEASE, if you can't be bothered to eat me in a polite and orderly manner, then don't bother to eat me at all.

And we should Bomb Libya, while acting polite while watching Bahrain act out even more horrid atrocities on their citizens. And we actually occupy a military presence in Bahrain.

We dont have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Its about time we made cuts.

The democrats had OVER 700 DAYS to pass a budget when they controlled both houses. They failed. Why? Because they are worse than the loser republicans that controlled everything for a few years before them.

When Obama was elected, the dems won both houses and the economy started to tank on Bush's way out I had a mental picture of a hole in the bottom of a canoe. During the Obama mania crap I saw all over the place I thought to myself, "They are going to solve this by blowing a bigger hole in the boat."

Sure enough...

It's Fox New's fault.

P.S. I taste fouler than I sound.