|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 10, 2008 17:56:05 GMT -6
Well, when Obama mandates a percentage of power has to come from renewable sources that cost more than coal or nuclear, what do you think that will do to electricity prices? The collective "we" end up paying for those who can't or don't pay their utility bills anyway. If the cash is coaxed out of your pocket from the utility company or the government has little practical impact. Whoda thunk... Even with a GOP led Senate/House/Whitehouse... including HUUUGE tax cuts, some people still wouldn't be able to pay for their utilities. It's really too bad those people haven't learned the miracle of bankruptcy... I wonder if the amount of Lehman's bankruptcy would be greater than or less than the sum of all delinquent utility bills nationwide??? To go on a rant here... Iowafan... you truly make me sick. Your side would much rather a family be forced to bring a baby into this world - where it will have to starve or freeze to death??? Seriously, what's your goal? Are you not aware that people do come on hard times? Unless you're sitting on a mattress full of gold - your situation is much closer to those that had their power cut off than you would like to admit. Now assuming you lose your job or whatever business you run is no longer able to sell anything... how long will you be able to sustain the life you'd like to lead for yourself & your loved ones with that mattress 'o' savings? Day 1 of the "post mattress" era, I'd love nothing more than to hear you bitch about how "the government" isn't doing enough to help. In the end, this fits with my original theme. For example, would a lending institution be better off repo'ing ungodly numbers of cars to put in an auction where nobody is buying? Or would it be better left in the hands of the current owner, where it will be best utilized & likely paid for when possible? No doubt the auto loan lending institutions will bitch to the government about not having enough money to pay their bills (including the $million executive salaries) and thus require a bailout. Unfortunately, unlike vehicles / utilities... should those institutions be late on their own bills, the repo man can't do much. I've been looking around and I truly can't find anyone who gives a shat that Iowafan1 makes SoCal sick. I mean Damn! That's a badge of honor to me pal. Anyway, out of your rant, I gather that you believe babies ought to continue being slaughtered to keep from freezing to death. That's a new slant. Nice.....BS, but nice nonetheless. The fact of the matter is that the 10+ percent that makes up the folks who had their electricity cut off are the same 10 percent who have never made a good decision in their lives, nor will they ever make a good decision in their lives. On to that mattress full of gold that you think I've got. We all make decisions in our lives. I made the wrong decisions in my 5 1/2 years of high school, vice the normal four and paid dearly for those bad decisions. Since then, I've made the right decisions and have been rewarded for those as well. Nothing I have was donated to me. I earned all of it. By the way, I spent 22 years in the Military and anyone with Military experience can attest to Military salaries being a fraction of what their civilian counterparts earn, so no silver spoon there either. I retired from the Military in 99 and accepted an offer with my current employer. Again, hard work and good decisions led to five promotions. You and your kind want us "rich" folks to pay for the mortgage defaults, lending institution defaults, vehicle loan defaults, personal loan defaults, utilities, etc. etc. etc.....and it certainly looks like you are getting your way by ensuring that I am the one on the hook for the bill and you're the one who's not. I don't feel the need to apologize to you for jack. Just thank me for my help and go away. By the way....you don't even know me. Lets keep it that way.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Oct 11, 2008 7:21:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 11, 2008 8:44:52 GMT -6
You and your kind want us "rich" folks to pay for the mortgage defaults, lending institution defaults, vehicle loan defaults, personal loan defaults, utilities, etc. etc. etc.....and it certainly looks like you are getting your way by ensuring that I am the one on the hook for the bill and you're the one who's not. This is precisely why the Fed is an apolitical beast. Lending institution defaults are gigantic shocks to the real economy. When the Fed issues a dollar, fractional reserve lending by banks turns that dollar into essentially $8. This process is key to maintaining or increasing the money supply. When banks don't lend, the money supply drops (deflation occurs). Though many people have different ideas of what caused the Depression, I believe two of the most compelling were the failure of many banks and the Feds decision to cut the money supply (thereby significantly tightening credit and causing deflation). Leftist anti-corporate welfare thought and rightist anti-bailout free market thought is completely erroneous when we get into shitstorms like this, unless you want to spend a decade of your life living through another great depression. The large banks in this country have a symbiotic relationship with the Fed in the creation and regulation of the money supply. The Fed simply cannot function without private banks lending money.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 11, 2008 9:01:30 GMT -6
Wow, I guess that says it all. Brought to us by Moody's, the fine folks who specialized in granting AAA ratings to those giant pools of subprime tranche Z mortgages. They've never developed an erroneous model. Anyway, not to knock the source any further, but to consider the underlying facts - Do we have any information on the sample size Moody's used in its calculation or what years were used? I know you're very rarely skeptical of charts that you consider to be "evidence" of the superiority of leftist principles, but don't you wonder how they can isolate the impact of each of those variables in a model? I mean I took a bunch of statistics and econometrics classes, and I've yet to see a model with that many variables that is statistically reliable. The person who crafts such models generally knows what they want the model to conclude, and then they make it conclude that. The coefficient of determination is never favorable for the modeler, but the general public for whom such models are intended doesn't know any better and accept it as fact. Furthermore, don't you question whether exogenous forces could have impacted the model? Don't you wonder what happens in years 2-5? How does the model explain GDP growth following 9-11? How do the across the board tax cuts generate 1.03 but then making the tax cuts permanent only generates .29? Do they have a crystal ball that tells them what would happen in 2010 if the Bush tax cuts were made permanent?
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 11, 2008 12:12:46 GMT -6
Wow, I guess that says it all. Brought to us by Moody's, the fine folks who specialized in granting AAA ratings to those giant pools of subprime tranche Z mortgages. They've never developed an erroneous model. Anyway, not to knock the source any further, but to consider the underlying facts - Do we have any information on the sample size Moody's used in its calculation or what years were used? I know you're very rarely skeptical of charts that you consider to be "evidence" of the superiority of leftist principles, but don't you wonder how they can isolate the impact of each of those variables in a model? I mean I took a bunch of statistics and econometrics classes, and I've yet to see a model with that many variables that is statistically reliable. The person who crafts such models generally knows what they want the model to conclude, and then they make it conclude that. The coefficient of determination is never favorable for the modeler, but the general public for whom such models are intended doesn't know any better and accept it as fact. Furthermore, don't you question whether exogenous forces could have impacted the model? Don't you wonder what happens in years 2-5? How does the model explain GDP growth following 9-11? How do the across the board tax cuts generate 1.03 but then making the tax cuts permanent only generates .29? Do they have a crystal ball that tells them what would happen in 2010 if the Bush tax cuts were made permanent? It is no suprise why things are so bad when two "proles" are fighting over the credibility of the measuring sticks of the economy.
|
|
|
Post by cmonhox on Oct 13, 2008 7:34:33 GMT -6
You and your kind want us "rich" folks to pay for the mortgage defaults, lending institution defaults, vehicle loan defaults, personal loan defaults, utilities, etc. etc. etc.....and it certainly looks like you are getting your way by ensuring that I am the one on the hook for the bill and you're the one who's not. This is precisely why the Fed is an apolitical beast. Lending institution defaults are gigantic shocks to the real economy. When the Fed issues a dollar, fractional reserve lending by banks turns that dollar into essentially $8. This process is key to maintaining or increasing the money supply. When banks don't lend, the money supply drops (deflation occurs). Though many people have different ideas of what caused the Depression, I believe two of the most compelling were the failure of many banks and the Feds decision to cut the money supply (thereby significantly tightening credit and causing deflation). Not sure I follow you here. Wouldn't maintaining or increasing money supply, while good to keep credit availability afloat, in reality keep interest rates low and keep us in the highly leveraged cycle that got us here? Increasing money supply is going to mean more $ available, thereby decreasing demand and subsequently either keeping interest rates low or making them lower. It will also decrease the value of the $ abroad, and while that makes our exports cheaper, will hurt our GDP as foreign investors might shy away from the lower rates being earned on US $. The fact is we simply can't have low interest rates and an expanding economy forever. As we continually expand, demands for inputs and materials increase, driving up prices and creating a very real possibility of inflation. While I'm sure the Fed is lowering rates to open up credit markets, that is the exact same path that was one of many factors in getting to where we are now.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Oct 13, 2008 8:31:47 GMT -6
This is precisely why the Fed is an apolitical beast. Lending institution defaults are gigantic shocks to the real economy. When the Fed issues a dollar, fractional reserve lending by banks turns that dollar into essentially $8. This process is key to maintaining or increasing the money supply. When banks don't lend, the money supply drops (deflation occurs). Though many people have different ideas of what caused the Depression, I believe two of the most compelling were the failure of many banks and the Feds decision to cut the money supply (thereby significantly tightening credit and causing deflation). Not sure I follow you here. Wouldn't maintaining or increasing money supply, while good to keep credit availability afloat, in reality keep interest rates low and keep us in the highly leveraged cycle that got us here? Increasing money supply is going to mean more $ available, thereby decreasing demand and subsequently either keeping interest rates low or making them lower. It will also decrease the value of the $ abroad, and while that makes our exports cheaper, will hurt our GDP as foreign investors might shy away from the lower rates being earned on US $. The fact is we simply can't have low interest rates and an expanding economy forever. As we continually expand, demands for inputs and materials increase, driving up prices and creating a very real possibility of inflation. While I'm sure the Fed is lowering rates to open up credit markets, that is the exact same path that was one of many factors in getting to where we are now. HITCHHIKER: Yeah, you wouldn't believe my idea--it's a home run. You ever hear of Eight-Minute Abs? TED: The exercise tape? Sure, I've seen it on T.V. HITCHHIKER: Two million copies it sold last year. Two million, man. But not next year--my idea's gonna blow them outta the water. Get this: (dramatic pause) Seven-Minute Abs. BEAT. TED: I see where you're going. HITCHHIKER: (big smile) Think about it. You walk into a video store and you see Eight-Minute Abs and right next to it you see seven-Minute Abs--which one you gonna spring for? TED: I'd go with the seven. HITCHHIKER: Bingo. Especially since we guarantee you'll get every bit as good a work-out. TED: How do you guarantee that? HITCHHIKER: If you're not happy with the first 7 minutes, we're gonna send you the extra minute free. You see? That's it. That's our motto. That's where we're comin' from. That's from "A" to "B". TED: That's right. That's - that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Abs. Then you're in trouble, huh? [Hitchhiker convulses] HITCHHIKER: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel. TED: That - good point. HITCHHIKER: 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 doors. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office. TED: Why? HITCHHIKER: 'Cause you're fuckin' fired!
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Oct 13, 2008 10:11:50 GMT -6
Classic scene! ;D
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 13, 2008 14:04:20 GMT -6
It's up 961 with a couple of minutes left till market close. . .. WTF? It will be VERY interesting to see what it is up by the end of the week.
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Oct 13, 2008 14:57:16 GMT -6
It's up 961 with a couple of minutes left till market close. . .. WTF? Shhhhhhh, don't tell anyone, many people like to think the world is ending. ;D Dow + 936 (11%) NASDAQ + 195 (11.8%) S&P 500 + 104 (11.6%)
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Oct 13, 2008 19:35:48 GMT -6
It's up 961 with a couple of minutes left till market close. . .. WTF? Shhhhhhh, don't tell anyone, many people like to think the world is ending. ;D Dow + 936 (11%) NASDAQ + 195 (11.8%) S&P 500 + 104 (11.6%) Today's the perfect example why it's silly to try to time the market.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 13, 2008 20:42:20 GMT -6
It's up 961 with a couple of minutes left till market close. . .. WTF? Shhhhhhh, don't tell anyone, many people like to think the world is ending. ;D Dow + 936 (11%) NASDAQ + 195 (11.8%) S&P 500 + 104 (11.6%) Don't blink Hoffa.....
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 14, 2008 18:24:56 GMT -6
This is precisely why the Fed is an apolitical beast. Lending institution defaults are gigantic shocks to the real economy. When the Fed issues a dollar, fractional reserve lending by banks turns that dollar into essentially $8. This process is key to maintaining or increasing the money supply. When banks don't lend, the money supply drops (deflation occurs). Though many people have different ideas of what caused the Depression, I believe two of the most compelling were the failure of many banks and the Feds decision to cut the money supply (thereby significantly tightening credit and causing deflation). Not sure I follow you here. Wouldn't maintaining or increasing money supply, while good to keep credit availability afloat, in reality keep interest rates low and keep us in the highly leveraged cycle that got us here? Increasing money supply is going to mean more $ available, thereby decreasing demand and subsequently either keeping interest rates low or making them lower. It will also decrease the value of the $ abroad, and while that makes our exports cheaper, will hurt our GDP as foreign investors might shy away from the lower rates being earned on US $. The fact is we simply can't have low interest rates and an expanding economy forever. As we continually expand, demands for inputs and materials increase, driving up prices and creating a very real possibility of inflation. While I'm sure the Fed is lowering rates to open up credit markets, that is the exact same path that was one of many factors in getting to where we are now. The immediate problem is the locking of the credit market. When it locks up, you gotta unfreeze it. The problem I think we have had for close to two decades is that the rates have just been too low. In the short term, until this storm passes, keep the rates low, but as the economy strengthens, the Fed absolutely must show more discipline in increasing rates quickly. I appreciate that in theory the Fed is separate from the Executive branch and the Legislative branch, but given our gigantic deficit and debt, I would not be surprised if the Fed has been told in no uncertain terms to keep rates low to help the Federal budget out. The dollar is doing fine right now. The liquidity injection is coordinated with the Europeans, so it hasn't hurt the dollar's value. When we saw the first signs of a slowdown, we cut rates quickly and the dollar plummeted, leading in large part to the huge oil spike we saw. The Fed wants to create inflation. They think that is the best way to get out of the mess we're in. They know people have a fear of selling their home at a loss, so they will inflate the hell out of the money supply and cause the price of everything to go up, your house might not go up, but you won't take a loss on it (so goes the Fed's idea of how the average prole with think).
|
|
|
Post by cmonhox on Oct 14, 2008 21:28:45 GMT -6
[/quote]
The immediate problem is the locking of the credit market. When it locks up, you gotta unfreeze it. The problem I think we have had for close to two decades is that the rates have just been too low. In the short term, until this storm passes, keep the rates low, but as the economy strengthens, the Fed absolutely must show more discipline in increasing rates quickly. I appreciate that in theory the Fed is separate from the Executive branch and the Legislative branch, but given our gigantic deficit and debt, I would not be surprised if the Fed has been told in no uncertain terms to keep rates low to help the Federal budget out.
The dollar is doing fine right now. The liquidity injection is coordinated with the Europeans, so it hasn't hurt the dollar's value. [/quote]
Good points. Can't say I disagree. As long as Europe is also expanding money supply the $ wouldn't slip too much if at all. The problem is, if it's not coordinated, expanding our own money supply would not be a good thing.
|
|