Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 118

Thread: Person of the year 2009- Ben Bernanke

  1. #101
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Person of the year 2009- Ben Bernanke

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
    So are you suggesting a weak dollar does not affect both imports, and exports?
    A weak dollar reduces imports and increases exports.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot
    Who said anything about imports being "inherently good", this is nonsense,
    You did. I asked what you thought the benefits of a strong dollar were, and you cited buying power for imports. So logically you must think that we're better off importing them than producing them ourselves, everything else being equal. I question this assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot
    Another dreamer I see, we will cross that bridge once we burn it!
    Let's suppose that a barrel of oil costs $100, and $100 buys E70. Now let's suppose the dollar declines to $100=E50. Up until the moment the oil-producing nations stop using the dollar, the exchange rate doesn't matter at all; the barrel of oil is still $100. Now, let's suppose the oil-producers start pricing the product in euros when $100=E50. Oil still costs $100. At that point, there would be a problem with letting the dollar fall BELOW $100=E50 (as it would increase the cost of oil). But until they actually sever the link with the dollar, it doesn't really matter in terms of the price of oil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot
    The ponzi scheme is the federal reserve, and their constant booms and busts, do you enjoy being a puppet on a string?
    I really don't think you have the faintest understanding of what a Ponzi scheme is. You're obviously just throwing around words that you think sound smart.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot
    Supply and demand, these prices will go up because demand will fall, think....powered milk, just for a second, let that sink in....
    This has absolutely nothing to do with a weak dollar; the relative strength or weakness of the dollar doesn't affect things produced and consumed domestically at all.

    P.S. If demand falls, prices would go DOWN.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    744

    Re: Person of the year 2009- Ben Bernanke

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    A weak dollar reduces imports and increases exports.
    Yes....what exports?



    You did. I asked what you thought the benefits of a strong dollar were, and you cited buying power for imports. So logically you must think that we're better off importing them than producing them ourselves, everything else being equal. I question this assumption.
    I never said any such thing, I am simply explaining the way things are, not the way we may wish them to be. As it stands, you can import items, even with the expense of shipping them across the globe, and still make a better profit then you could with something manufactured here.


    Let's suppose that a barrel of oil costs $100, and $100 buys E70. Now let's suppose the dollar declines to $100=E50. Up until the moment the oil-producing nations stop using the dollar, the exchange rate doesn't matter at all; the barrel of oil is still $100. Now, let's suppose the oil-producers start pricing the product in euros when $100=E50. Oil still costs $100. At that point, there would be a problem with letting the dollar fall BELOW $100=E50 (as it would increase the cost of oil). But until they actually sever the link with the dollar, it doesn't really matter in terms of the price of oil.
    What was the point of this excercise, using your logic, then a barrel would cost two hundred dollars a barrel, right?




    I really don't think you have the faintest understanding of what a Ponzi scheme is. You're obviously just throwing around words that you think sound smart.
    The only difference between Bernie Madoff, and the fed, is that when it came time to collect what was owed, bernie couldn't print it.



    This has absolutely nothing to do with a weak dollar; the relative strength or weakness of the dollar doesn't affect things produced and consumed domestically at all.

    P.S. If demand falls, prices would go DOWN.
    Not true, not in a fed induced inflationary reality, the whole thing is turned on its head. Everything costs more, shipping, gas, etc, the price goes up, more so when you add in the lack of demand....

  3. #103
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Person of the year 2009- Ben Bernanke

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
    The ponzi scheme is the federal reserve, and their constant booms and busts, do you enjoy being a puppet on a string?
    Really, can you refute the evidence then?

    Quote Originally Posted by GB219
    Recessions were common from 1865 to 1917, with 338 months of contraction and 382 months of expansion (compared to 518 months of expansion and 96 months of contraction from 1945 to 1996)

    The longest contraction on record was 65 months, from October 1873 to March 1879.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/econom...post1058374550

    Maybe if you pay attention Jack, you will actually learn something and you can be interesting when you and your conservative buddies get together and rant about Obama.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    744

    Re: Person of the year 2009- Ben Bernanke

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Really, can you refute the evidence then?




    http://www.debatepolitics.com/econom...post1058374550

    Maybe if you pay attention Jack, you will actually learn something and you can be interesting when you and your conservative buddies get together and rant about Obama.
    When did the dollar start to lose value? No one has suggested that recession is not a part of the economic reality we all face, but when the government has a hand in the till, it can, and does happen unexpectedly. Should the government remain in its constitutional place, we would all be better able to predict, and then prepare for obvious slow downs in the economy.

    You have said nothing here, but you appear to be proud of yourself, I find this odd, to say the least?

  5. #105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Person of the year 2009- Ben Bernanke

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Can you point me to the sentence in your incoherent rant about unemployment, "the left," and unions where you explain the benefits of a strong dollar and/or the problems of a weak dollar, so that I can address your point?



    And now an incoherent rant about inflation? What are you referring to when you say "this one"?
    Here is something on why a weak dollar is a problem. Let's remember that a lot of what Americans use are built overseas. So if our currency weakens then the things we buy will cost more, thus inflation. This has not caused a big problem yet because the Chinese currency is tied to the dollar. If we let their currency " float" then stuff from China could rise 20%.

    Another problem with the weak dollar is that we are now a debtor nation. So far other countries have continued to buy our debt, if they stop because they do not want to but a depreciating asset then how will the country finance it's debt.

    There are other adverse consequences but these are a couple of biggies.

  6. #106
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Person of the year 2009- Ben Bernanke

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
    You have said nothing here, but you appear to be proud of yourself, I find this odd, to say the least?
    Really? Care to explain

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
    The ponzi scheme is the federal reserve, and their constant booms and busts
    Quote Originally Posted by GB219
    Recessions were common from 1865 to 1917, with 338 months of contraction and 382 months of expansion (compared to 518 months of expansion and 96 months of contraction from 1945 to 1996)

    The longest contraction on record was 65 months, from October 1873 to March 1879.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #107
    Sage
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,455

    Re: Person of the year 2009- Ben Bernanke

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Man of The year doesn't have anything to do with doing someting good.
    Tiger Woods got picked for Athlete of the year.

    Hes a good golfer too.
    Thank you

  8. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    744

    Re: Person of the year 2009- Ben Bernanke

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Really? Care to explain





    One was natural, the other, created, I don't know what you are failing to grasp about this reality?

    When did the great depression happen, before, or after the fed?

    Now, laugh for me some more, this is fun for me........
    Last edited by Jackboot; 12-17-09 at 07:43 PM.

  9. #109
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Person of the year 2009- Ben Bernanke

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
    One was natural, the other, created, I don't know what you are failing to grasp about this reality?

    When did the great depression happen, before, or after the fed?

    Now, laugh for me some more, this is fun for me........
    Before the creation of the Fed, there were nearly as many months in recession as their were months of expansion/recovery. Nearly a 1:1 ratio. During the Great Depression, the Fed effectively raised interest rates at a peak of 6% in 1933 Bad policy if you ask me.

    Following the implementation of Keynesian policy and eventually its neoclassical upgrade, the ratio slipped 5:1 expansion to recession months.

    Now, do you have any relevant economic comments, or is it more of the same failure? It would serve you best to admit your error.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    744

    Re: Person of the year 2009- Ben Bernanke

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Before the creation of the Fed, there were nearly as many months in recession as their were months of expansion/recovery. Nearly a 1:1 ratio. During the Great Depression, the Fed effectively raised interest rates at a peak of 6% in 1933 Bad policy if you ask me.

    Following the implementation of Keynesian policy and eventually its neoclassical upgrade, the ratio slipped 5:1 expansion to recession months.

    Now, do you have any relevant economic comments, or is it more of the same failure? It would serve you best to admit your error.
    My error, what is "my error" exactly?

    Can you explain to us all how a car went from 2,500 dollars in the late 60's, to about 35,000 dollars today? Could this explain your 5 to 1 ratio......well, no, because 2500 times 5 is 12,500, where did the value go, and how are we better off today? Why did a brand new home cost about 12,000 dollars, and today, it may cost up to 200,000 dollars?

    Any ideas?

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •