Jump to content

Let face it - our version of capitalism is broken


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

US weekly jobless claims drop to the lowest level since 1969

PUBLISHED THU, APR 11 2019 • 8:32 AM EDT UPDATED THU, APR 11 2019 • 12:23 PM EDT
 

 

Good news indeed..... of course, the fact that the jobless rate has been dropping for nine years doesn't seem to make as much impact. It's not like the Trump Administration actually turned the economy around, or even improved it much

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 658
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK, back it up - provide facts to support your silly assertions.  And get a freaking spell checker. Shit, you come across dumb enough without "centerded".  Does that go good with Hamberders?  Nev

These threads remind me of the disclaimers for investment schemes "past performance is not indicative of future results". Capitalism as we know it is maybe 150 years old and an artifact of the industr

One fact is that the wealth at the top is in the stratospheres and catastrophic.  The working class is losing out even as the economy has grown.  Greed has been glorified.  Certain protected classes l

Posted Images

16 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

US weekly jobless claims drop to the lowest level since 19

The Reich's ignorance about economic history and trends knows no bounds . .

They can do nothing but duch, doidge and deflect

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

they keep touting jobless claims, not the jobless claims rate or the jobless rate. That the absolute number of jobless claims is lower than it was in 1969 doesn't mean much of anything - the population has increased 60% since then.

LOL...virtually EVERY economic indicator is up and on the path to a traditional booming American economy....vs...Subversive Obama's flat line ,throw obstacles grow the malaise economy to the point the citizens come hat in hand to big government

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

it was a pretty flat line headed in one direction once he took office.... though Trump's starting to fuck that up

below's the unemployement rate.

latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2009_2019_all

Don't confuse him with reality, his tiny mind is made up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, J28 said:

Denial.

Delusion.

Deflection. 

Dissemble.

Deceive.

It's what Democrats do.  It's Disgusting!

Refusing to address why Obama was handed a silver platter is the Denial. Bernie Frank, gay whore monger, (remember his Gaye prostitution ring out of his home) fucked the economy such that a fucking turnip,  if elected would have had the same numbers as 'bama.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, warbird said:

Refusing to address why Obama was handed a silver platter is the Denial. Bernie Frank, gay whore monger, (remember his Gaye prostitution ring out of his home) fucked the economy such that a fucking turnip,  if elected would have had the same numbers as 'bama.

 

Obama got handed a sliver platter? You mean the 2nd worst financial debacle in US history? That one?  Holy shit, every time I think you clowns have hit bottom you manage to dig out another nugget of crap. And I was starting to think that jzk was the most economically ignorant poster here and you snatched that prize away.

<insert double face palm here>

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, d'ranger said:

?Obama got handed a sliver platter? You mean the 2nd worst financial debacle in US history? That one?  Holy shit, every time I think you clowns have hit bottom you manage to dig out another nugget of crap. And I was starting to think that jzk was the most economically ignorant poster here and you snatched that prize away.

<insert double face palm here>

You are a fucking idiit……  The economy could NOT get worse.  Poofter Frank is the reason. If you are a liberal, OWN it. "bama inherited an economy that could only get better and even he fucked it up by putting on the brakes. 2% is the new normal? What a FUCKING idiot...…...……..

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, warbird said:

You are a fucking idiit……  The economy could NOT get worse.  Poofter Frank is the reason. If you are a liberal, OWN it. "bama inherited an economy that could only get better and even he fucked it up by putting on the brakes. 2% is the new normal, what a FUCKING idiot...…...……..

You really are that stupid.  It could have easily gotten a lot worse, you should try reading up on it by people who know what they are talking about.  As to the brakes, uh, dude that was the never ending opposition by the Republicans who opposed all the stimulus efforts.  The recovery could have come quicker and stronger but we are fortunate that it happened at all.  Just for shits and giggles go back and revisit saving the auto industry.  You clowns shit all over that - GM and Chrysler go down and then Ford follows, in the bankruptcies the bones are picked over and the US permanently loses a major industry while millions more are out of work.

Fuck, you, jzk and J28 are just pathetic in your ignorance. I would say retarded but that is insulting to the retarded folks.  Y'all need to get along as there are some villages missing their idiots.

edit: Just to add, I am stunned by your lack of recent history - this is basic stuff.  The world was in a freaking panic and an economic free fall.  Seriously, I did not think your view was even possible by someone who was able to type and use a computer.  My bad.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, d'ranger said:
3 hours ago, warbird said:

Refusing to address why Obama was handed a silver platter is the Denial. Bernie Frank, gay whore monger, (remember his Gaye prostitution ring out of his home) fucked the economy such that a fucking turnip,  if elected would have had the same numbers as 'bama.

 

Obama got handed a sliver platter? You mean the 2nd worst financial debacle in US history? That one?  Holy shit, every time I think you clowns have hit bottom you manage to dig out another nugget of crap. And I was starting to think that jzk was the most economically ignorant poster here and you snatched that prize away.

<insert double face palm here>

It's a fact....... that they live in La-La Land

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d'ranger said:

You really are that stupid.  It could have easily gotten a lot worse, you should try reading up on it by people who know what they are talking about.  As to the brakes, uh, dude that was the never ending opposition by the Republicans who opposed all the stimulus efforts.  The recovery could have come quicker and stronger but we are fortunate that it happened at all.  Just for shits and giggles go back and revisit saving the auto industry.  You clowns shit all over that - GM and Chrysler go down and then Ford follows, in the bankruptcies the bones are picked over and the US permanently loses a major industry while millions more are out of work.

Fuck, you, jzk and J28 are just pathetic in your ignorance. I would say retarded but that is insulting to the retarded folks.  Y'all need to get along as there are some villages missing their idiots.

 

You are the idiot.....  The stimulus efforts centerded almost entirely around preserving union jobs...……..  Until you are able to acknowledge that  you will remain on the "most stupid ever of sailing anarchy" poster Top 10 list. Congratulations!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, warbird said:

You are the idiot.....  The stimulus efforts centerded almost entirely around preserving union jobs...……..  Until you are able to acknowledge that  you will remain on the "most stupid ever of sailing anarchy" poster Top 10 list. Congratulations!

OK, back it up - provide facts to support your silly assertions.  And get a freaking spell checker. Shit, you come across dumb enough without "centerded".  Does that go good with Hamberders? 

Never mind, back on ignore for you. Not wasting my time with someone so out of touch with reality that it hurts just reading your drivel.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

OK, back it up - provide facts to support your silly assertions.  And get a freaking spell checker. Shit, you come across dumb enough without "centerded".  Does that go good with Hamberders? 

Never mind, back on ignore for you. Not wasting my time with someone so out of touch with reality that it hurts just reading your drivel.

ARRA

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, warbird said:
44 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

OK, back it up - provide facts to support your silly assertions.  And get a freaking spell checker. Shit, you come across dumb enough without "centerded".  Does that go good with Hamberders? 

Never mind, back on ignore for you. Not wasting my time with someone so out of touch with reality that it hurts just reading your drivel.

ARRA

You tell him! He can't talk that way to a guy who's like a scientist 'n shit!

Remind everybody about that thing you invented, and that you were a Marine!!!!

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even a single criminal indictment of anyone in the Obama admin .  

                                    VS. 

88 felony convictions of GOPPERS since Nixon (vs 2 during Clinton years) 

A person really has to be a dumb-sh_t racist to argue that Drumph/Bush are cleaner than Obama 

Seriously, that is stupid 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, d'ranger said:

OK, back it up - provide facts to support your silly assertions.  And get a freaking spell checker. Shit, you come across dumb enough without "centerded".  Does that go good with Hamberders? 

Never mind, back on ignore for you. Not wasting my time with someone so out of touch with reality that it hurts just reading your drivel.

https://www.thebalance.com/arra-details-3306299

$75 billion into the NEA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Big businesses are faring better than ever under the Trump era tax law, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).

According to analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), 60 Fortune 500 companies avoided paying all federal income tax in 2018 (with their total average effective tax rate being roughly -5%).

That’s more than three times the number of companies that avoided paying corporate taxes on average from 2008 to 2015. During that period, 18 companies managed to pay 0% or less (with their total average effective tax rate over 8 years being roughly -4%).

“There are a lot of breaks and loopholes that allow a company not to pay,” Steve Wamhoff, ITEP’s Director of Federal Tax Policy, told Yahoo Finance. “People, when they think of tax reform, think the government is going to fix the tax code and get rid of breaks and loopholes and get rid tax dodging. What we got at the end of 2017 was not that. It was the opposite of that. The Tax Cuts and jobs act left a lot of special breaks and loopholes in place and created some new ones.”

Oh what a surprise. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-paying-zero-taxes-trump-law-155944124.html

Obviously, they need to cut entitlements to make up for that...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey you little punk Reichistas . . . 

Tell us all about all the indictments of Obama admin officials !! 

Oh wait, that's right, there weren't any - zero, zip, nada, null, and etc. 

And don't forget the sabotage by the congressional Reich of virtually everything Obama tried to do . . 

(but I disagreed with him on education policy, the Forever Wars, letting torturers and war criminals and banksters go unpunished, . . .) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Obama did do was serve as president during the great Quantitative Easing Experiment.  The expansion of the FED balance sheet accounted for 93% of all stock market gains from 2008 when he started his terms to 2015 when the FED finally closed the spigots.  It was an infusion of around 4 TRILLION dollars into the pockets of people and corporations invested in the stock market.  That expansion, coupled with the secondary spill over through REITs and 'zero interest rate policy' into the real estate market, almost completely accounts for the expansion in household disparity including the increasing gulf between rich and poor, and between ethnic groups.

The wealth gap did not occur because of poor immigration policy, health care, or tax cuts.  It happened because we chose, as a country through our elected officials - to re inflate the equity markets after the financial crisis and socialize the losses.

For that, does Obama deserve credit or blame?

http://feddashboard.com/one-force-drove-each-stock-market-boom-do-you-know-which

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

A $1 Trillion per year deficit is going to break some records. 

We are probably looking at $1.4T at the top of a 10 plus year expansion which blows me away.  The ride down is going to be shock and awe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

less than 10% of total funding and the program centered on preserving union jobs? Are you high?

it's fucking amazing how you cretins double and triple down on the stupid.

You didn't  follow the money back in 09, 10 and 11 did you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

tax cuts that prioritize capital over labor most definitely exacerbate the wealth gap.

we socialized the loses and agreed not to prosecute Wall Street for behavior, including illegal behavior, that incurred those losses. Obama made that choice, Republicans stridently agreed with it.

as for your last comment on QE - Trump quite clearly wants to inflate equity markets via QE at the moment. He is explicitly clear on that. I have heard zero criticism on that from the people who pilloried Obama, so I expect backflips.

Does capital make labor more productive?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

Does capital make labor more productive?

Does a duck quack?  Is the sky blue?  Anything else you want to point out which has nothing to do with the issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hasher said:

Does a duck quack?  Is the sky blue?  Anything else you want to point out which has nothing to do with the issue?

The statement was "tax cuts that prioritize capital over labor most definitely exacerbate the wealth gap."

I asked if capital makes labor more productive.  Instead of providing an answer or a comment in furtherance of the discussion, you chose to shit your pants instead.  And that is your right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

The statement was "tax cuts that prioritize capital over labor most definitely exacerbate the wealth gap."

I asked if capital makes labor more productive.  Instead of providing an answer or a comment in furtherance of the discussion, you chose to shit your pants instead.  And that is your right.

We don't lack for money to invest in capital equipment.  The excess creates bubbles, money chasing fictitious goals.  We have pent up demand by much of our population because they are underpaid.  Folks like me and you I assume, have most of what we ever care to get.  Most folks aren't like that.  Giving money to the wealthy will not trickle down.  I know people with multiple homes.  Most of the rooms are empty most of the time.  Giving a tax cut to the wealthy will not improve the economy.  Paying people more will help.  

Your cryptic statement about capital is simplistic and idiotic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

He is explicitly clear on that. I have heard zero criticism on that from the people who pilloried Obama, so I expect backflips.

It was fucking evil when Obama did it - and I said so at the time.  Its one of the big reasons I don't genuflect to Obama's obvious greatness.  HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING and signed off on it anyway.   Fuck him.  He proved himself to be just one more of the beautiful people through his actions, not his rhetoric.

And it's evil when Trump proposes doing it.  And I say so now as well.  It's fucking evil policy and is one of the most nasty and intentionally deceptive mechanisms to enrich the beautiful people at the expense of the general populous that has ever conceived by economists.   

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

It was fucking evil when Obama did it - and I said so at the time.  Its one of the big reasons I don't genuflect to Obama's obvious greatness.  HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING and signed off on it anyway.   Fuck him.  He proved himself to be just one more of the beautiful people through his actions, not his rhetoric.

And it's evil when Trump proposes doing it.  And I say so now as well.  It's fucking evil policy and is one of the most nasty and intentionally deceptive mechanisms to enrich the beautiful people at the expense of the general populous that has ever conceived by economists.   

 

Yep,  That we didn't prosecute ANY of those wall st fuckstains that brought the economy down is beyond me.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hasher said:

We don't lack for money to invest in capital equipment.  The excess creates bubbles, money chasing fictitious goals.  We have pent up demand by much of our population because they are underpaid.  Folks like me and you I assume, have most of what we ever care to get.  Most folks aren't like that.  Giving money to the wealthy will not trickle down.  I know people with multiple homes.  Most of the rooms are empty most of the time.  Giving a tax cut to the wealthy will not improve the economy.  Paying people more will help.  

Your cryptic statement about capital is simplistic and idiotic.

If you know of someone that is underpaid, encourage them to get a different job or start a business.  Tax cuts don't "give" money to the wealthy.  They let the wealthy keep the money that they already earned.  How nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

If you know of someone that is underpaid, encourage them to get a different job or start a business.  Tax cuts don't "give" money to the wealthy.  They let the wealthy keep the money that they already earned.  How nice.

You sanctimonious s head.  I know lots of people who are working hard every day at the best job they can get.  I'm asking for a society to pay them value. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hasher said:

You sanctimonious s head.  I know lots of people who are working hard every day at the best job they can get.  I'm asking for a society to pay them value. 

If it is the best job that they can get, then they, by definition, are not being underpaid.  If they want value, they have to provide it.  You could dig ditches every day and fill them up providing no value to society.  It is on you to find something that society will value.  Once you do, society will pay you.  Just like it pays Ellen and LeBron.  Or was it just their cronies that hooked them up, like CEO pay?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

If it is the best job that they can get, then they, by definition, are not being underpaid.  If they want value, they have to provide it.  You could dig ditches every day and fill them up providing no value to society.  It is on you to find something that society will value.  Once you do, society will pay you.  Just like it pays Ellen and LeBron.  Or was it just their cronies that hooked them up, like CEO pay?

So you don't really understand the history of labor.  There is no coherent thought in your arguments.  "I got it, so it is mine, FU".  Do you understand the political and economic systems that have allowed you to succeed? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jzk said:

The statement was "tax cuts that prioritize capital over labor most definitely exacerbate the wealth gap."

I asked if capital makes labor more productive.  Instead of providing an answer or a comment in furtherance of the discussion, you chose to shit your pants instead.  And that is your right.

Again, you have tail wagging the dog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:

So you don't really understand the history of labor.  There is no coherent thought in your arguments.  "I got it, so it is mine, FU".  Do you understand the political and economic systems that have allowed you to succeed? 

No kidding. Many have engaged jizkid, all have backed away shaking their heads.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

It was fucking evil when Obama did it - and I said so at the time.  Its one of the big reasons I don't genuflect to Obama's obvious greatness.  HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING and signed off on it anyway.   Fuck him.  He proved himself to be just one more of the beautiful people through his actions, not his rhetoric.

And it's evil when Trump proposes doing it.  And I say so now as well.  It's fucking evil policy and is one of the most nasty and intentionally deceptive mechanisms to enrich the beautiful people at the expense of the general populous that has ever conceived by economists.   

 

I have no problem blaming Obama for his failings, he is human and imperfect.   Many of his advisors were career Democrat appointees, used by Clinton.    Obama’s education was law, political science and international relations, not economics.

Quantitative easing is a fed process.   Trump may be changing that and his candidate wants to return to the gold standard.   Traditionally the federal reserve is independent,    Additionally income inequality has increased around the world,    It started long before Obama.   Please explain your thought processes on how quantitative easing is to blame and is Obama’s fault?.       

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hasher said:

So you don't really understand the history of labor.  There is no coherent thought in your arguments.  "I got it, so it is mine, FU".  Do you understand the political and economic systems that have allowed you to succeed? 

If you could make a logical case for something, you would just make it.  Instead you revert to the typical PA circle jerk pants shitting response.  And that is ok too.  You are just making shit up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

No kidding. Many have engaged jizkid, all have backed away shaking their heads.

Are you talking about your inability to understand what an ice age is and whether we are currently in one now?

Here is Geologist Professor, Dr. Dan Britt, a global warming believer, that can explain that to you.  Right at the 45:00 mark:

I really am trying, but I can only do so much if you don't have the ability to learn. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasher said:

"I got it, so it is mine, FU".  

Complete fucking lies like this are not really helpful to any kind of discussion.  

I advocate human flourishing, and I would like to believe you do as well.  How can humans flourish?  I think they can better themselves, work hard, provide a value to society and get rich.  Any of them can except, perhaps, a very small minority of truly disabled.

You, however, think that average people are morons and can't make it in this world without your help.  They can't survive unless you take money from other people and give to them.  You probably even think they aren't smart enough to get a voter id.

That is the difference.  My way leads to real human flourishing.  Your way just traps people into poverty and keeps them dependent on the system.  If we wanted to attribute a big "FU" to either system towards the common person, it would most certainly be yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jzk said:

Complete fucking lies like this are not really helpful to any kind of discussion.  

I advocate human flourishing, and I would like to believe you do as well.  How can humans flourish?  I think they can better themselves, work hard, provide a value to society and get rich.  Any of them can except, perhaps, a very small minority of truly disabled.

You, however, think that average people are morons and can't make it in this world without your help.  They can't survive unless you take money from other people and give to them.  You probably even think they aren't smart enough to get a voter id.

That is the difference.  My way leads to real human flourishing.  Your way just traps people into poverty and keeps them dependent on the system.  If we wanted to attribute a big "FU" to either system towards the common person, it would most certainly be yours.

Perhaps you don't understand language.  I advocate good wages, not charity.  I advocate taxes on the wealthy based upon the wealth they make from our social organization.  Do you think you are some cowboy who makes all his wealth on his own?  You are delusional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hasher said:

Perhaps you don't understand language.  I advocate good wages, not charity.  I advocate taxes on the wealthy based upon the wealth they make from our social organization.  Do you think you are some cowboy who makes all his wealth on his own?  You are delusional.

Of course I don't make my wealth on my own.  I have suppliers, customers, and employees.  I pay my suppliers, I serve my customers, and I pay my employees.  In fact, I pay my employees more money than they can get anywhere else.  I pay my suppliers a better price than they can get from any other buyer.   And, I give my customers better deals for higher quality products than they can get anywhere else.  See how that works all by itself?

For the government services I use, I pay taxes.  A metric fuckton, by the way.

If you want a sustainable government, then everyone has to pay for it.  It can't be just a minority paying for everyone else.  Otherwise, it is just going to collapse.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Give me all your money and my life will be great. 

No it won't.  To some degree, work/accomplishment is an end in itself.  But people who need to support themselves and their families should be paid a living wage.  Bankruptcy over medical bills is an outrage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasher said:

No it won't.  To some degree, work/accomplishment is an end in itself.  But people who need to support themselves and their families should be paid a living wage.  Bankruptcy over medical bills is an outrage.

If you want a family, it might be a good idea to equip yourself with a skill that, when applied, commands a living wage.  Just an idea.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lark said:

I have no problem blaming Obama for his failings, he is human and imperfect.   Many of his advisors were career Democrat appointees, used by Clinton.    Obama’s education was law, political science and international relations, not economics.

Quantitative easing is a fed process.   Trump may be changing that and his candidate wants to return to the gold standard.   Traditionally the federal reserve is independent,    Additionally income inequality has increased around the world,    It started long before Obama.   Please explain your thought processes on how quantitative easing is to blame and is Obama’s fault?.       

The president is to blame as much as any president is to blame for any economy.  But, In regards to the Fed and Quantitative Easing in particular, Obama re-nominated Bernanke against opposition from both parties (from Wikipedia):

"On August 25, 2009, President Obama announced he would nominate Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.[37] In a short statement on Martha's Vineyard, with Bernanke standing at his side, Obama said Bernanke's background, temperament, courage and creativity helped to prevent another Great Depression in 2008.[38] When Senate Banking Committee hearings on his nomination began on December 3, 2009, several senators from both parties indicated they would not support a second term.[39][40][41][42][43][44]"

He was, of course, pushed across the line through a democratic senate.  Regarding quantitative easing:

In November 2010, the Fed announced a second round of quantitative easing, buying $600 billion of Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011.[63][64] The expression "QE2" became a ubiquitous nickname in 2010, used to refer to this second round of quantitative easing by US central banks.[65] Retrospectively, the round of quantitative easing preceding QE2 was called "QE1".[66][67]

A third round of quantitative easing, "QE3", was announced on 13 September 2012. In an 11–1 vote, the Federal Reserve decided to launch a new $40 billion per month, open-ended bond purchasing program of agency mortgage-backed securities. Additionally, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced that it would likely maintain the federal funds rate near zero "at least through 2015".[68][69] According to NASDAQ.com, this is effectively a stimulus program that allows the Federal Reserve to relieve $40 billion per month of commercial housing market debt risk.[70] Because of its open-ended nature, QE3 has earned the popular nickname of "QE-Infinity".[71][better source needed] On 12 December 2012, the FOMC announced an increase in the amount of open-ended purchases from $40 billion to $85 billion per month.[72]

------------

Look at the time line.  The first QE experiment was over.  The progenitor - Chairman Bernanke  - was unpopular.  But President Obama, nonetheless, nominated and pushed him through whereupon Bernanke doubled and finally infinited down on his previous policies of swapping out good paper for bad.  Meanwhile, the Fed voted over and over to leave interest rates near zero so that large corporations and REITs could borrow money for free and then use it to prop up their own balance sheets, repairing any damage to the beautiful people.  Obama knew what Bernanke was going to do.  He complimented him on the policy and then sherpa-ed him to a next term.

FWIW, I don't disagree with QE 1.  But I think QE2 and QE-Infinite were as detrimental for workers and lower income Americans as anything the republicans have pushed through since Reagan.  I believe that Obama knew what Bernanke had in mind and signed off on it.  For example, here's Obama defending QE2 -

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/nov/08/obama-defends-qe2-g20-summit

He wanted to 'grow the economy' and didn't care how it happened.  In my mind, Obama was no better or worse than the Republicans before or after him in regards to fiscal policy.  They're all 'top level guys' who give a lot of lip service to the bottom 50% but actively promote trickle down economics.  Republicans will knee you in the groin and take your money - Democrats will take your money and give you an ice pack for what the republicans just did.  But make no mistake - both are taking money and funneling it to their rich friends.  Obama just had more 'temperament, courage and creativity'.  And, is better liked by historians.  Thats why I agree with Tom about the 'duopoly'.  Each party uses different mechanisms and their own special lingo but it's remarkable how they keep ending up at the same end point.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasher said:

No it won't.  To some degree, work/accomplishment is an end in itself.  But people who need to support themselves and their families should be paid a living wage.  Bankruptcy over medical bills is an outrage.

Define exactly what is a living wage!

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

The president is to blame as much as any president is to blame for any economy.  But, In regards to the Fed and Quantitative Easing in particular, Obama re-nominated Bernanke against opposition from both parties (from Wikipedia):

"On August 25, 2009, President Obama announced he would nominate Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.[37] In a short statement on Martha's Vineyard, with Bernanke standing at his side, Obama said Bernanke's background, temperament, courage and creativity helped to prevent another Great Depression in 2008.[38] When Senate Banking Committee hearings on his nomination began on December 3, 2009, several senators from both parties indicated they would not support a second term.[39][40][41][42][43][44]"

He was, of course, pushed across the line through a democratic senate.  Regarding quantitative easing:

In November 2010, the Fed announced a second round of quantitative easing, buying $600 billion of Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011.[63][64] The expression "QE2" became a ubiquitous nickname in 2010, used to refer to this second round of quantitative easing by US central banks.[65] Retrospectively, the round of quantitative easing preceding QE2 was called "QE1".[66][67]

A third round of quantitative easing, "QE3", was announced on 13 September 2012. In an 11–1 vote, the Federal Reserve decided to launch a new $40 billion per month, open-ended bond purchasing program of agency mortgage-backed securities. Additionally, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced that it would likely maintain the federal funds rate near zero "at least through 2015".[68][69] According to NASDAQ.com, this is effectively a stimulus program that allows the Federal Reserve to relieve $40 billion per month of commercial housing market debt risk.[70] Because of its open-ended nature, QE3 has earned the popular nickname of "QE-Infinity".[71][better source needed] On 12 December 2012, the FOMC announced an increase in the amount of open-ended purchases from $40 billion to $85 billion per month.[72]

------------

Look at the time line.  The first QE experiment was over.  The progenitor - Chairman Bernanke  - was unpopular.  But President Obama, nonetheless, nominated and pushed him through whereupon Bernanke doubled and finally infinited down on his previous policies of swapping out good paper for bad.  Meanwhile, the Fed voted over and over to leave interest rates near zero so that large corporations and REITs could borrow money for free and then use it to prop up their own balance sheets, repairing any damage to the beautiful people.  Obama knew what Bernanke was going to do.  He complimented him on the policy and then sherpa-ed him to a next term.

FWIW, I don't disagree with QE 1.  But I think QE2 and QE-Infinite were as detrimental for workers and lower income Americans as anything the republicans have pushed through since Reagan.  I believe that Obama knew what Bernanke had in mind and signed off on it.  For example, here's Obama defending QE2 -

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/nov/08/obama-defends-qe2-g20-summit

He wanted to 'grow the economy' and didn't care how it happened.  In my mind, Obama was no better or worse than the Republicans before or after him in regards to fiscal policy.  They're all 'top level guys' who give a lot of lip service to the bottom 50% but actively promote trickle down economics.  Republicans will knee you in the groin and take your money - Democrats will take your money and give you an ice pack for what the republicans just did.  But make no mistake - both are taking money and funneling it to their rich friends.  Obama just had more 'temperament, courage and creativity'.  And, is better liked by historians.  Thats why I agree with Tom about the 'duopoly'.  Each party uses different mechanisms and their own special lingo but it's remarkable how they keep ending up at the same end point.

 

For a different take on QE and the weakness of Obama’s economy:

“So if they are so deeply reticent to inject the Fed into a political environment, why did Bernanke and Co. launch QE3 now? The answer is plain enough: Bernanke and his colleagues are so worried about the sliding, stumbling, suffering U.S. economy they felt they couldn’t wait just two short months to get past the election.

There is no clearer affirmation of the weakness of the U.S. economy than that Bernanke and the Fed couldn’t wait before taking actions they believe will help the economy. Never mind that the Fed’s actions will almost surely prove more harmful than helpful in the short run, and even dangerous to the real recovery when it finally, belated gets underway.

The Fed’s revealed message is clear: Bernanke believes QE 3 will help. And he believes the danger to the U.S. economy of stalling altogether was simply too great to wait.”

......

“Give him this much credit: President Obama has a fairly clear economic philosophy, which is on full display in his policies from higher spending to Obamacare. The nation’s Capitol is full of all-hat, no-cattle politicians who talk a good game but wilt and run for a cowering compromise at the first sign of opposition. Not President Obama.

For all his faults, this fault cannot be found in the president. He has an economic philosophy. He has pursued it vigorously. And now we know, for sure, that his government-centric economic philosophy was badly flawed. We know because it failed.”

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/what-bernankes-policy-says-about-obamas-economy

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, J28 said:

...     ...     ...

“Give him this much credit: President Obama has a fairly clear economic philosophy.....

For all his faults, this fault cannot be found in the president. He has an economic philosophy. He has pursued it vigorously. And now we know, for sure, that his government-centric economic philosophy was badly flawed. We know because it failed.”

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/what-bernankes-policy-says-about-obamas-economy

Uh huh

Compare and contrast the Obama economic policy with, say for example, the Bush/Cheney economic policy, then tell me it failed.

Dumbass.

Of course, it's from the Heritage Foundation which is basically pablum for rightie dumbasses anyway

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019 at 7:48 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Uh huh

Compare and contrast the Obama economic policy with, say for example, the Bush/Cheney economic policy, then tell me it failed.

Dumbass.

Of course, it's from the Heritage Foundation which is basically pablum for rightie dumbasses anyway

-DSK

Steamer, you are the Dumbass. Bush Cheney were just fine except for porter Barney Frank, 'Bama was a failure except for free money from the FED in QE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019 at 8:48 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Uh huh

Compare and contrast the Obama economic policy with, say for example, the Bush/Cheney economic policy, then tell me it failed.

Dumbass.

Of course, it's from the Heritage Foundation which is basically pablum for rightie dumbasses anyway

-DSK

Attack the source when you don't like the facts it presents.  Pretty standard really.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, J28 said:
On 4/14/2019 at 8:48 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Uh huh

Compare and contrast the Obama economic policy with, say for example, the Bush/Cheney economic policy, then tell me it failed.

Dumbass.

Of course, it's from the Heritage Foundation which is basically pablum for rightie dumbasses anyway

 

Attack the source when you don't like the facts it presents.  Pretty standard really.

 

Not really. To say that "The Obama economic policy was a failure" is to say that every American President's economic policy has been a DRASTIC failure. Obama did way better than anybody except maybe Clinton.

Are those the "facts" you're presenting? Or are you going to claim that Reagan, Bush, and George W. did not all President their way into a crash, and generally after mediocre economies anyway?

Presenting silly, obviously false, bullshit that makes righties feel good about their stupidity is pablum. That's another fact.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

In another example of how capitalism is fucked. Today I made a little less than 10k on Amazon.  Not. Ad huh?
 

Bezos made $13B and has seen his wealth grow $80B this year to $190B.  He’s worth more than Exxon, Nike or McDonanlds.

His  ex wife made $5B today and is now the 13th richest person in the world.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-07-20/jeff-bezos-adds-record-13-billion-in-single-day-to-his-fortune?__twitter_impression=true

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fakenews said:

In another example of how capitalism is fucked. Today I made a little less than 10k on Amazon.  Not. Ad huh?
 

Bezos made $13B and has seen his wealth grow $80B this year to $190B.  He’s worth more than Exxon, Nike or McDonanlds.

His  ex wife made $5B today and is now the 13th richest person in the world.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-07-20/jeff-bezos-adds-record-13-billion-in-single-day-to-his-fortune?__twitter_impression=true

 

How is that fucked?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fakenews said:

In another example of how capitalism is fucked. Today I made a little less than 10k on Amazon.  Not. Ad huh?
 

Bezos made $13B and has seen his wealth grow $80B this year to $190B.  He’s worth more than Exxon, Nike or McDonanlds.

His  ex wife made $5B today and is now the 13th richest person in the world.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-07-20/jeff-bezos-adds-record-13-billion-in-single-day-to-his-fortune?__twitter_impression=true

 

sounds like a win win to me.

 

Look at Kayne west and his crew, they all made it in America... easy peasy,  right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason why the Europeans call the US socio-politico-economic system 

Savage Capitalism 

Canadians too for that matter. 

Want proof? They lead better lives 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...