ShcShc11

By consumer side, do you mean the private sector? The private sector definitely cannot / are not spending more and are paying their excess debt from the pre-2008 bubble years. Where does this idea that we can't borrow anymore? People come up with the 14 T$ debt and say ''of course we can't borrow anymore. None of the indicators seem to imply that. If someone borrowed 90,000$, does that mean he borrowed too much? The answer is of course ''it depends''. From a purely debt and fiscal perspective, you're putting yourself more in debt by trying to tackle the debt by slashing in a depressed economy. See 1930 Bruning deflation economics, Japan 1990s austerity period and the U.K Cameron Government. The Cameron Government is back-tracking their austerity stance because they realized they can't hit anywhere near their debt cutting goals and completely devastating their future (through investment cuts) and their KIDS future (education cuts) And about needing to cut back during the good times, I absolutely agree on that. We should. But in a depressed economy the U.S is in at the moment, they really don't have a choice. Trying to cut debt won't even accomplish its goals. I've made other threads about how much the Gov actually spent (which was extremely little) when you consider the Fed/State/Local levels. A 2.5-3.0 Trillion $ economic gap created by the 2008 housing bubble/financial crisis can't be amended with a mini-stimulus (most of which was Federal-State transfers). In 2000, we harshly criticized Japan for doing this and what we are doing is much much worse. So are we spending for the sake of spending? No. We don't really have a choice because the PRIVATE sector is bringing down their debt. If we are doing the same, then we would be heading towards deflation. The peripheries countries in Europe is more or less borderline to catastrophic deflation. Its maso-monetarism. We want to cut spending because it ''feels good to suffer'', but it has honestly little evidence from past empirical datas/events. You'l disagree I know. It sounds wrong when I say ''cutting debt will make the debt worse''. In some of my meetings, people called me an ''Economic sorcerer/witchcraft'' wanting to destroy the economy. But at the very least you get new perspectives on it... Cutting spending seems responsible; it even sounds courageous, but its actually downright stupidity and reckless from an economic perspective of a zero-bound economy. Cheers!

The 10 years bonds help give hints on the state of the economy. It is only one of the indicators, but once you pair it with the other statistics- then it is pretty clear that the U.S has a low rate BECAUSE of the depressed state of economy. GDP, like you mentioned is another indicator that tells other story. Germany is not the only one to be blamed for the Euro crisis, but they are the only one who can solve it. The house was set on fire by the Greeks, and the Germans are the only one with the fire extinguisher but refuses to use it. They have to start accepting basic economics (e.g: inflation at 4%) if they are any serious about solving the problem. Canada has definitely its own problem including a housing crisis similar to 2007 U.S. House prices especially in the Toronto and Vancouver area are extremely high and the bubble there might pop too. Provinces such as Saskatchewan SHOULD most definitely up their spending. This comparison is flawed and essentially it is what causing the current U.S economic slug. My debt is your income. For an economy, it would be like refusing to pay for school in order to "save money". Cheers! Shc

U.S Government Bonds 10 years U.S Treasuries 1.75% = which is essentially a historic low and the U.S Gov can borrow at an extremely cheap rate. 1.75 means investors are putting their money in the Government in spite of getting a negative return (with inflation). 1.75 means we are in a depressed economy. 1.75 means the Gov can borrow super cheaply and debunks this whole ''U.S is drowning in debt and is going to become like Greece'' bs talk. 1.75 means good money is ending up doing nothing. The Federal Government is simply not spending enough. I understand people are concerned about the debt and thinks its responsible to pay it off. But doing this in a demand-depressed economy is incredibly irresponsible when the rate is as cheap as it is now. So whenever a rich/investor/whoever are putting their money in the Gov, it ends up doing nothing. It ends up doing nothing because: 1) we are too afraid with the imaginary voodoo debt concerns. 2) people keep bringing up: ''Government spending is inefficient''. Hellooo, doing NOTHING with the money is worse. 3) people make this into PRIVATE sector vs PUBLIC sector spending. http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/010212_2140_TheDebtwatc1.png ...except the PRIVATE sector is still paying down its debt from the bubble years and unable to stimulate demand. 2008-20?? will probably be seen as the dark ages of economics. In the meantime, Germany in lala fantasy land and still refuses to acknowledge that a much higher inflation is needed (around 4%) to save the euro. Cheers! Shc

If anyone wants a summary: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/world/europe/in-greece-fears-that-voting-wont-resolve-turmoil.html?pagewanted=all Pro-Bailout: New Democracy against Anti-Bailout: Syriza Last polls were undecisive. This will be interesting :P But yes, whatever happens to Greece won't affect us but definitely be watchful of Spanish and Italian 10 year bonds. Cheers!

Wow! I absolutely love EnglishJon's videos. If there's one thing that could have been added is women talking about it. They would prob have an even more in-depth way to explain it from an emotional point-of-view. Loved the video. Cheers! Shc :)

The U.S be surpassed by a currency? Seriously? Maybe in 40-50 years. There is currently no currency that can do a fraction of what the U.S dollars does and the furthest we are is SPEs (which is only at the drawing boards). Check the 10 years U.S and tell me that again with a straight face. Cheers! Shc

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GSPG10YR:IND 6.91% 10 years Spanish bonds. Dangerous...

Greece honestly doesn`t have much power. Greece going bust is kind of like cutting off your pinky- it hurts and it sucks but you`l still live on. Spain, on the other hand: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GSPG10YR:IND Interest rate hits 6.91%, a new high and this is only a few days after the 100B Euro bailout. I feel that people in general sometimes forgot how serious 2009 was for the U.S. If Spain or Italy goes, then we'l probably find out. The Great Depression started with failing stock markets in the U.S 1930. The second part of the Great Depression started in 1932 when Austria bailed out its banks (Austria being insolvent themselves). Cheers! Shc

lol. All these political fights are so funny.

http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/08/lagarde-on-the-looming-crisis-in-spain/#comments http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/11/lagarde-less-than-three-months-to-save-the-euro/ An interesting interview. The EU can imo procrastinate for probably another year or two through bank bailouts (like the one given recently to Spain 100B Euros and bank infusion back in December 2011). Greece doesn't really matter. However, if the whole EU currency collapses, then definitely watch for major banks like Citigroup and BAC to be in serious trouble (or to fail completely). Soon, Europe would have to choose one of two options: -A political union with monetary transfers and Eurobonds (in the same way the U.S Federal Gov transfers money to States that are in need). -A Euro collapses. The Maastricht dream project fails and Europe falls into complete irrelevancy. Major U.S banks subsequently fail and the world economy is in a much worse Depression. Cheers! Shc

But its easier to blame

Article on WWL.

Federal transfers to states in need. When the 2008 housing bubble popped, most States were in urgent need of the Fed $. If it was McCain or Obama, those State transfers would be the minimum. When we look deeper how this money was spent, we realize we tried to plug a 2.5 trillion $ hole caused in 2008 with maybe 300 B$ in spending. Yes, we should have let one or more of the big banks, auto makers, airlines, etc. go bankrupt, kept the stimulus money and retooled the economy. Paulson and Geitner should have been turned away at the door. It would have made for a longer and more painful but more stable recovery. Mis dos centavos. Right. The 1930 German economy was long and painful, but led to a more stable recovery... oh wait. Cheers! Shc

Your 2 examples contradict eachother. Last I checked Barry took office in '08. Nope. they do not contradict each other. BO took office 2009 and the 2009 budget was made in 2008 (the 2009 stimulus is however counted in BO`s administration). Cheers Shc

Define "bottoming out". There was a time when bottoming out would mean certain bankruptcy to Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan, etc... ...it would mean at least a good 20-25% unemployment in 2009. this scenario is still a distinct possibility if EU doesn't play its cards correctly. I can post some numbers from Citigroup (published around end 2011)... Cheers! Shc

https://s3.amazonaws.com/obama.3cdn.net/2334ea5f5e08d88e8b_ldpumvul9.png http://postimage.org/image/phofdi0hh/ Remember when we said ''we won't do the same mistake FDR made in 1937 when he pulled back too soon''. Well we are. ...And we wonder why U.S is still struggling with 8.2% unemployment lol. People keep making this debate as if its a Public vs Private sector when in reality this is true only in a full-employment economy. This great recession/depression is all about demand- if demand goes up, BOTH the public revenues and private sector would flourish. Cheers!

You are absolutely missing the point. This isin't about whether businesses can hold on to their money or not. Of course, they can. Is that good for the economy? Absolutely not. Private debt sector hit a peak in 2008 and it was only since that time it has started to "pay it off". If the Private Sector is busy paying its debt, then someone else has to come up and pick up the demand (which would obviously go to the Public). A zero-bound economy cannot sustain both a Public and Private cuts- or the debt from a purely fiscal term will rise. This isin't a belief- this is real facts from emperical datas and real-life datas. Ask anyone from RBC Capital MArkets to Citigroup's IB- they'l tell that our problems are demand-related. Business surveys as to why they are not expanding: "Not enough sales"... not enough demand. Like I said, if you really want to learn more about economics, look at the Japanese economy in 1990. Cheers! Shc I have been staying out of SC for a reason and I guess I had a brain fart and jumped in again. What you are saying is a view nothing more. I just do not have the time or the energy to get in to it bc your mind will not change. I will take my econ. degree and lessons as a business owner and form my opinions. You are free to form your own. That`s OK. We'l discuss another time. When you say ''its simple'', it just showed a very basic lack of knowledge how a country`s economy works. A business does not function anything like an economy. Its OK and I'm fine that you're more pro-Romney but do it for the right reason; not for ''oh he's a businessman so he knows about the economy''. Lastly, if you can bring real datas, then my mind could very well change but the studies (whether they are studies on Ireland, U.K, Japan 1990s, Estonia, EU Crisis, US 1930s, etc...) clearly state that austerity is not the right path even in purely fiscal terms. Cheers and wish you a very nice week!

You are absolutely missing the point. This isin't about whether businesses can hold on to their money or not. Of course, they can. Is that good for the economy? Absolutely not. Private debt sector hit a peak in 2008 and it was only since that time it has started to "pay it off". If the Private Sector is busy paying its debt, then someone else has to come up and pick up the demand (which would obviously go to the Public). A zero-bound economy cannot sustain both a Public and Private cuts- or the debt from a purely fiscal term will rise. This isin't a belief- this is real facts from emperical datas and real-life datas. Ask anyone from RBC Capital MArkets to Citigroup's IB- they'l tell that our problems are demand-related. Business surveys as to why they are not expanding: "Not enough sales"... not enough demand. Like I said, if you really want to learn more about economics, look at the Japanese economy in 1990. Cheers! Shc

"Its really not that complex guys" Just 2 small variables screws up your claim: 1) My debt is your income // Your debt is my income. 2) http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us/ Considering that the rich and the investors are parking their money (bringing U.S Gov bonds to a historical low), it is pretty irresponsible for the Gov to do absolutely nothing with that money. Money is essentially clogged in the economy through the zero-bound and you're essentially suggesting to make it worse. Remember: even the smallest countries sells to itself at 80% (the U.S much more). No business is ever like that. If you are truly serious about economics and want to rely on emperical datas (than "oh its just leftist conspiracy"), then read about Japan in the 1990s. Its a fair example of what a zero-bound economy is and how to solve it. This feels like the equivalent of a newbie skydiver saying: "I want to get a Velocity 111 because swooping is cool". -Dumb, refuses to look at datas and eventually going be a wreck. (oh wait, that's already happening with Germany and the EU) Cheers! Shc

What the US needs is someone who knows business and understands that you do not spend more if you are not bringing in more. It is that simple. It is with that sort of mentality that has led both Europe and the U.S into this mess. A country's economy is nowhere near the same as a business. We (both Europe/US) are conducting irresponsible economic policies with the backward notion that the economy should be managed like a "family's budget". The investors are essentially parking their money into U.S Gov bond and what does the Gov do with such low int-rate bonds? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Money is clogged into doing absolutely nothing, unemployment stays high and businesses have no justification to expand their investments because demands are low. This is the zero-bound economy of Japan in the 90s and the Great Depression. Yet people continue to prescribe catastrophic economic policies based on the false prejudice of "Government is on credit card". .. Eitherway, none of the candidates are serious about this deficit-talk. Romney's budget is going to bring explode deficit levels through tax-cuts and Romney's chief economic advisor Hubbard recognizes this is a zero-bound demand problem and said Romney will "create demand" (through higher gov spending). Cheers! Shc

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/28/global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-science-new-study-claims/ fox news LOL

I agree with Clinton. Romney did a great job in his business, but it in no ways translate to good economic policies. Timidity and lack of stimulus (that could get us out of the zero-bound economy) is bad Obama policies. However, Romney's imaginary structural policies are non-sense. Its almost a simulation of the 1930s gold standard or the 2000 Euro handicaps. Cheers! Shc

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/581058_403319186377707_1273943397_n.jpg

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/467712_403167479726211_1901522099_o.jpg ''The first course for the first World Wing-Suit League proximity race :) Will be the first wing-suit race with turns :)'' -Jeb Cheers! Shc

-Jeb Corliss So how do you guys imagine the wingsuit race will be? If you weigh more, don't you technically go "faster" than someone lighter? Would be a great step forward if this somehow works out.