-
Content
682 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Dropzones
Gear
Articles
Fatalities
Stolen
Indoor
Help
Downloads
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Videos
Classifieds
Everything posted by ShcShc11
-
Can you point out the EXACT "accounting gimmicks" that you are talking about? I absolutely love accounting and would love to discuss about it. Imagine if you wrote this on the UFE... you would get "NC" for lack of proof and unbacked assumptions. Its funny when an unbiased nonpartisan group comes along and says the truth, its now "accounting gimmicks". Cheers!
-
Socialised healthcare rocks, you Yanks should really try it.
ShcShc11 replied to Skyrad's topic in Speakers Corner
16% of U.S GDP is on healthcare Other Western countries take half and are better quality. If U.S citizens didn't pay so much to insurance bureaucracy, then we could afford a few more F-22s instead of cancelling them Cheers! :) Shc -
Stop attacking success.
-
Congrats man!
-
According to a Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday: "The nonpartisan organization released a report that finds the cost of repealing the reform will balloon government deficits by $109 billion between 2013 and 2022. Repealing ACA would be a form of tax to Americans and businessmen. The CBO's report reveals the practical hurdles to repeal and underscores a growing pattern in which the key stakeholders -- states, medical providers, businesses, insurers and consumer groups -- are moving beyond the partisan squabble to the no-nonsense work of building the market place of 2014, where everyone will be able to purchase affordable insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions." http://cbo.gov/publication/43471 "What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget? Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion" Cheers!
-
That's easy oil. Peak Oil is purely production and quantity
-
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/07/24/1094111/is-peak-oil-dead/#comments http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/02/peak-oil-we-we-wrong Interest articles on peak oil. Easy oil may be gone, but all the talk about peak oil may have been exaggerated. Cheers!
-
BTW, I deliberately used another source besides the WSJ just to demonstrate to ShcShc11 that I read more than that. In case you didn't know, the DailyMail is a liberal paper in England. To be honest, I usually just read them for their celebrity news and pictures First, we both know the quote given by Obama on business was out of context (there's another topic on dz on it). But honestly, this "he said/she said" is just politics as usual and doesn't really interest me. In fact, its funny that you keep making this as a "Liberals vs Conservative" when what I'm really looking for is: numbers and proof. All mainstream media from CNN, Fox, Spiegel, dailymail, BBC have a very difficult time making the numbers talk. Jack from CNN still talks about the "U.S deficit clock/fiscal cliff" and has very little understanding of how an economy works. WSJ is an OK source if you become impartial and pair it with FT, Alphaville, Brad DeLong, etc... WSJ in 2009 warned us that: "U.S 10 years bonds was about to explode" and 3 years later, U.S bonds are at an historic low. David Frum who is a right-winger said: "Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Wall Street Journal editorial page between 2000 and 2011, and someone in the same period who read the NYT. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of the current economic crisis? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?" (meaning the WSJ has often been wrong including the 2000 bubble) And you don't seem to understand that these entrepreneurs need to have demand in the economy. Without demand, then there's no reason to invest/expand/or become an entrepreneur in the first place. Many companies including Apple has been sitting on a mountain of cash yet they are not using it. You know why? Because of a lack of demand. If you listen to mainstream media, you'l hear some righty say: "its because entrepreneurs are afraid of Obama and his socialist policies" . Anyway, we'l keep talking about "our debts" while we continue to live (and complain) in a sub-par economic engine. ...caused none other than our passive pessimism on debt. Cheers! Weather is absolutely a delight today. Shc
-
+1 IMO, most liberal mathematicians really don't seem to understand inverse responses, except when they're arguing for more Keynesian spending. StreetScooby, the only source you ever come up with is the WSJ whom have been wrong time and time again especially after 2008. WSJ can be fine if you used it in combination to let's say the Tax Policy Center, the CBO, etc... But nope, you just like to stick to WSJ.
-
If you're a male and you're voting for Obama
ShcShc11 replied to Arvoitus's topic in Speakers Corner
OBAMA, DESTROYER OF THE NORTH AMERICAN MAINLAND! -
It all depends how and why there is an economic contraction in the first place. Having a controlled economic contraction of an overheating economy is not a bad thing. “Controlled” meaning the Fed is raising Interest Rates and/or sucking the money supply out of the economy in order to cool down the economy. If U.S unemployment was only at 2-3%, then that might be clear sign that U.S economy is overheating (full-employment is considered usually 4-5%). It basically means companies have a hard time finding suitable labour for their company AND they have to pay more to keep the workforce they have now. This would translate into higher inflations in the line 4-5% (which nobody really wants). The current recession (some call it a Depression) started in 2008 with the housing bubble crisis. Housing prices went down and the Private Sector (the average Joe) accumulated unforeseen debts. They have no choice, but to pay them down. Because Average Joe is paying down debt, they are not paying for commodities and thus sucking money supply out of the economy. They rather keep money in a Savings Account instead of buying / investing them anywhere. Because they are saving instead of buying, demand is low and companies have to shed employees. A lot of good potential labour are now unemployed or underemployed due to LOW DEMAND. The economy is not functioning at its fullest potential and we are living a very sub-standard quality of life. Job scarcity means less revenue for the Gov (meaning less revenue to pay debt), more social government program for the poor gets activated (as less people are making money), less investments (education is cut) and many Grads are losing their potential because they are working in fields that have nothing to do with what they studied. Too many people are saving their money and not enough is spending it in the economy. So we have to bring measures to de-incentive people from saving or hoarding their money. This can be in the form of: -lowering interests (but the Feds already brought interest rates nearly to zero) -raise inflation target (this is more for emergency cases such as the present moment when interest rates can’t be further lowered). -Government Spending (if the Private Sector is unwilling to bring demand up, then the Public should). Etc… … About Adam Tooze’s book. I’m sure there is no abridge version of it. If I can find some interesting links about it, Il be sure to post them. Tooze’s book is probably the only real one that talks in-depth about Nazi economy (unfortunately ). Cheers! Shc
-
Crossing the Arctic in a rowboat: They plan to be the first
ShcShc11 replied to ShcShc11's topic in Speakers Corner
Quite impressive. Article from the LA Times about four men setting out to row across the Arctic... http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arctic-row-20120704,0,1854635.story "Four men are setting out to row across the Arctic. A few years ago this would not have been possible: They're calling it the Arctic Row. Four men with a profound love of adventure are setting out to do something dangerous and unprecedented -- something they could not have done before the ice covering the top of the world began to melt in earnest. They are going to row across the Arctic Ocean, nonstop and without support. It's just four U.S. men in a narrow rowboat -- but they have a gigantic issue before them: what the melting of the Arctic means for the world. Obviously, they won't come away with all the answers. What they say they're looking for, at the very least, is to raise a little more awareness about the changes underway in the Arctic.” Cheers! -
on a sidenote, would recommend "Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze about Nazi economics. In summary: Germany in the 1920s-1930s had two choice. -Deal more business with the Americans so that the Americans will be the ones who would help Germans annule their war debts AND protect them from French military invasion (remember the French invaded and occupied Germany's industrial heartland of Rhineland in 1923). -Take business into their own hands and forcefully annule war reparation debts with France and Europe. They tried both and both failed spectacularly. The former was tried by the Weimar Republic and failed in the 1930s when Hoover refused to help them (and even raised border tarifs on German trades). The latter was the course Hitler took. Anyway, definitely recommending the book. Cheers! Shc
-
Yep. That's how it's going to be until the government is forced to do something. I figure we'll default on our loans first. Good thing we have a strong military. oh and p-s: You know who has a REAL chance of defaulting? You know what is actually really scary in the economy right now? http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2012/07/Screen-shot-2012-07-11-at-4.18.10-PM.png This is a graph released only a week ago. Spanish Capitals are flying out of the country and the country can't finance its debt. You know why? Because people in Germany willfully accepted the notion that they can't afford it (that they have too much debt already... that they don't want to burden their children). They've been trying to be so conservative "with debt" to the extent where they are willing to risk the very existence of the Euro. And unfortunately they will be paying much MUCH more to fix it (and we probably will too). Cheers! Shc
-
Yep. That's how it's going to be until the government is forced to do something. I figure we'll default on our loans first. Good thing we have a strong military. Once again good economics discussion is replaced by counter-productive debt talks. And yet we keep wondering why unemployment is at 8.2%. The U.K have been doing exactly what you guys want to prescribe. And guess what. U.K business confidence is at an all-time low. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/12/marketing-executives-slash-budgets?newsfeed=true That article is just 2 days ago. I can show you Cameron's policies brought business confidence down since 2010 because of his cut spending/raise tax mentality. "THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR IS FEAR ITSELF". Widely used quote mainly to give motivation to people. But that quote was about the economy. When we look back at the 1930s Depression, we don't see it as: "oh they were trying to be responsible by trying to cut the deficit". We see it as the worst economic time period in modern American history. "But this time is different, we can't afford it" No its not different. We're just willing to ignore real-life economic experiments for some fantasy horror stories. Cheers!
-
And hopefully the job is in the private sector... lack of demand. lack of demand. lack of demand. lack of demand. ...etc... http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201112060005 "NFIB Survey: Lack of Demand Is Biggest Impediment To Growth (And The Second-Biggest, Too)" The Private Sector is simply incapable of bridging this DEMAND GAP because the private sector is busy paying down their debt. This is a simple Google image, but it clearly shows what the Private Sector has been doing lately. http://misc.mortgagebrokers.ie/images/blogimages/2010/October2010/US%20Private%20Debt%20to%20GDP.jpg Essentially, when the Bush bubbles burst in 2008 (back to 2000s levels), the Private Sector accumulated an enormous debt and had no choice to pay down their debt. Businesses had to take radical cost cutting measures including laying off workers. If the PRIVATE SECTOR is busy paying down their debt, then they are incapable of bringing DEMAND up. In other words: If demand remains lackluster then businessmen don't have any incentives to expand or invest into new PPE/labour/long-term investments. They are easily filling the demand with what they have now. If businessmen don't hire enough labour, the labour don't have enough money to pay down its debt. If they can't pay down their debt, then demand goes lower. etc... ** Its a very simplified overview of what happened since 2008. A lot of us end up having these mundane "Private vs Public" sector debates yet doesn't understand the underlying factors to what happened to the economy, what is happening and why its happening this way. This isin't about PRIVATE VS PUBLIC and should never have been about that. It should never have been about the RICH vs MIDDLE CLASS. The question should be: "What tools (private or public tools) would be MOST efficient and would have the MOST multiplier effects in order to bring DEMAND higher and to prevent money hoarding" In a better world that base policies on empirical evidences, we would be: -having higher inflation targets -expanding the money supply to discourage cash-hogging -take advantage of a historical low of the U.S 10 years bonds to invest for the future. But all of this is now highly politicized and none of the parties will go anywhere near these solutions because they became taboo. Instead what is the public asking the Politicians to do? "Bring down the debt" and bring DEMAND LOWER. Now instead of having just the PRIVATE sector paying down their own debt, we now have a full fledge Great Recession/Little Depression because the PUBLIC sector is also trying to do the same. There is no entity trying to start the engine again. All this because we keep making the false analogy that debt in an economy is like "a credit card". ... It really is lovely to see people caring about the debt because they don't want to burden their children. But this is the factor that is destroying future U.S economic outputs and ironically destroying the next generation's future by preventing them to have the jobs that would launch their careers. Recent graduates entering the labour late will never catch up to its full potential...ever. Worse, U.S States such as NJ, TX, California cut EDUCATION in the name of "debt cutting". ... Back to some of the solutions: -having higher inflation targets -expanding the money supply to discourage cash-hogging -take advantage of a historical low of the U.S 10 years bonds to invest for the future. This is unfortunately designed to punish people who saved money and reward people who accumulated debt (bc inflation would erode private sector debt). Someone is (or at least should) say that this immoral. And its true. It is. Why punish people who have been saving money? Economics is not a morality play. If you want to restart the economy, if you want unemployment down to 5%, if you want to stop social unrests (e.g: Occupy movement) then people have to simply accept this. Money needs to flow in the economic engine and we can only do this by punishing the savers (through money-value erosion). Else people are just in lala fantasy land thinking its Obama's fault or its some political party's fault. It is our fault because we keep trying to make economics a moral play. We keep obsessing over the debt and inadvertently make the country far weaker (far below its economic potential). When was the last time people protested because they wanted 4% inflation in the U.S... (uh never.) Cheers!
-
Is there a first cut-away info poll?
ShcShc11 replied to iFlyFast's topic in General Skydiving Discussions
Jump #18. couldn't get the line twists undone. landed in a tree too to make things worse LOL. 2 x 24 beers I guess! hahaha Cheers! Shc -
Yes absolutely. See my previous posts. Tax cuts for the rich can work in the case of 1970s stagflation but not in the case of lack-of-demand (the zero-bound economy) like the 1930s and 2008s depressions. The general rule is to criticize the grammar when there's nothing to criticize on the numbers LOL "Datas" is indicative of knowing more than one language Cheers'!
-
Corn prices have soared more than 40% in recent weeks as the drought and dry heat have wreaked havoc on crops in the Midwest. Prices reached as high as $7.48 per bushel of corn on the Chicago Board of Trade Wednesday morning, not far from the record high of $7.9975 hit last June.
-
Mr. Romney proposes to have tax cuts for the rich because it would be good for the economy I have nothing against the rich. I don't really care much about the constant rhetorics happening around them. But there was an interesting article on how much the rich actually contribute to the real economy. http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL12.pdf '[...] the measure of such changes’ supply-side effects is the sensitivity of reported income to marginal rates. If people work and invest more in response to tax cuts, their reported income will rise when marginal rates fall. True supply-siders believe that this sensitivity is well over a value of 1, implying that cuts in marginal rates raise reported income enough that government tax revenues nevertheless rise. Several natural-experiment studies concluded that the best available estimates of this sensitivity range from 0.12 to 0.40. The midpoint of the range, 0.25, implies that if the marginal tax rate for high earners decreased from its current level of 35 percent to 28 percent , reported income would rise by just 2 1/2 percent" In a few decades, we'l end up seeing this whole rich worshipping ("the engine of economy") the same way we see Communism today. "how could we have been so dumb in spite of all the datas??" Cheers!
-
And just what debt is the private sector so busy paying off, pray tell? Specific examples, please. And again you incorrectly equate gov't debt with private enterprise. Try again - preferably with a *coherent* argument. LOL. I always love your short replies Mike. hmm. I don`t know, maybe just maybe the debt caused by the BIG HOUSING BUBBLE/BANK CRISIS in 2008???? http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/010212_2140_TheDebtwatc1.png google map, takes 2 seconds. What do you think is happening at the end of the red line? The Private Sector accumulated too much debt in 2000-2008 and has no choice but to pay it off. In other words, they must DELEVERAGE. In other words, not much DEMAND is coming from the Private Sector. In other words, the private sector won't INVEST (in new PPE, labour, etc...) In other words, we are repeating our 1930s history lessons