Page 55 of 63 FirstFirst ... 5455354555657 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 628

Thread: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

  1. #541
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    We can't determine at what point they will start lending again because there is uncertainty. You can't just say that we are at 17x the legal minimum and declare that it is enough because that minimum is completely arbitrary. And besides, if those reserves are in treasury bonds, then it's not really a reserve.

    Are treasury bonds included in the reserves?
    If you are going to argue your opinion... at least comprehend what you are discussing. You do not even understand what reserves are and yet expect your opinion to be a matter of relevance?
    Last edited by Kushinator; 12-23-09 at 03:47 PM.
    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

  2. #542
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    If you are going to argue your opinion... at least comprehend what you are discussing. You do not even understand what reserves are and yet expect your opinion to be a matter of relevance?
    At least he's not blatantly lying about your position as others do in "economic" discussions.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #543
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    If you are going to argue your opinion... at least comprehend what you are discussing. You do not even understand what reserves are and yet expect your opinion to be a matter of relevance?
    Explain it to me then. You say that reserves are high, yet banks still refuse to lend. I say that it's because they're buying treasury bonds instead of taking a risk with the private sector. With so much uncertainty, I can understand. Now, if they have 17x the reserves that they need and they are not lending, and they're busy buying treasury bonds, I'm jumping to the conclusion that you are saying that treasury bonds are included in those reserves because they are as good as money (3% guaranteed return). Tell me why, despite having 17x the reserves that they need, that they are not lending, yet are able to buy treasury bonds.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  4. #544
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Explain it to me then.
    Do you remember this comment?

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    I've studied economics, just not to your liking.
    And yet your errors are all covered in a macro principles course/text. So it seems as though the economics you have studied is not to your liking. Otherwise i would not have to constantly explain basic concepts... concepts that should be familiar to those having such a discussion.

    You say that reserves are high, yet banks still refuse to lend.
    When have i said banks refuse to lend. Banks refuse to offer prime or prime +1, prime +LIBOR to everyone wanting to take a loan. With historic low rates, consumer expectations play a considerable role expanding the cost of credit gap. The easy credit days of 2004 are gone and the consumers budget has deflated; therefore playing the blame game is questionable.

    I say that it's because they're buying treasury bonds instead of taking a risk with the private sector.
    Crowding out is a very real long term concern, but with private sector velocity still at uneasy levels this is a mere talking point at this time. Regardless, can you provide some recent info on the banking sector? Your article lacked quality and substance.

    With so much uncertainty, I can understand. Now, if they have 17x the reserves that they need and they are not lending, and they're busy buying treasury bonds, I'm jumping to the conclusion that you are saying that treasury bonds are included in those reserves because they are as good as money (3% guaranteed return).
    And there is the problem. You allow yourself to be controlled by ideology to the point where you rationalize your gaps in misunderstanding to fit. Assets are not reserves... just consider the vocabulary.... Reserves equate to cash/dollars. Assets can be debt, equity, land, derivatives (to a point), etc....

    Tell me why, despite having 17x the reserves that they need, that they are not lending, yet are able to buy treasury bonds.
    They were able to get into treasuries back in 2008 with newly issued TARP funds (along with offering other swap options, preferred stock, etc...) As for the current situation and purchasers of debt, well why don't you look that up. The truth might just shock you, but i doubt it.
    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

  5. #545
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Do you remember this comment?

    And yet your errors are all covered in a macro principles course/text. So it seems as though the economics you have studied is not to your liking. Otherwise i would not have to constantly explain basic concepts... concepts that should be familiar to those having such a discussion.
    You sure do a lot of talking down to people.

    When have i said banks refuse to lend. Banks refuse to offer prime or prime +1, prime +LIBOR to everyone wanting to take a loan. With historic low rates, consumer expectations play a considerable role expanding the cost of credit gap. The easy credit days of 2004 are gone and the consumers budget has deflated; therefore playing the blame game is questionable.
    You're still assuming that 17x some arbitrary amount should be sufficient for lending. A real number times something that means nothing, guess what, means nothing! We don't know when banks will feel comfortable loaning again, but with so many banks just failing or close to failing, it's easy to see why they're hesitant to loan. Government meddling with health care and its effect on employees is really adding to uncertainty. No one knows what's going to happen and so people are afraid to hire because they don't know in the end how much it will cost to hire someone right now.

    Crowding out is a very real long term concern, but with private sector velocity still at uneasy levels this is a mere talking point at this time. Regardless, can you provide some recent info on the banking sector? Your article lacked quality and substance.
    In other words, you don't like it and can't point out anything that you really can argue against. I'm not going to keep searching. The paper was good enough.

    And there is the problem. You allow yourself to be controlled by ideology to the point where you rationalize your gaps in misunderstanding to fit. Assets are not reserves... just consider the vocabulary.... Reserves equate to cash/dollars. Assets can be debt, equity, land, derivatives (to a point), etc....
    Yes, I know what you mean, yet I was trying to figure out where you were coming from. I know what reserves mean, but we've had issues with terminology before like with inflation.

    They were able to get into treasuries back in 2008 with newly issued TARP funds (along with offering other swap options, preferred stock, etc...) As for the current situation and purchasers of debt, well why don't you look that up. The truth might just shock you, but i doubt it.
    More talking down.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  6. #546
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    You sure do a lot of talking down to people.
    Calling people for questionable comments is down talking?

    You're still assuming that 17x some arbitrary amount should be sufficient for lending. A real number times something that means nothing, guess what, means nothing! We don't know when banks will feel comfortable loaning again, but with so many banks just failing or close to failing, it's easy to see why they're hesitant to loan.
    It is a matter of timing.... Of course one could correctly argue that banks would not be assuming massive cash positions in a healthy lending environment; however this tone does not take into account the crux... which is credit worthiness.

    A person with the means will not have any problem securing a loan. In November of 2008, you would have had a point. (When was the last time you took out a loan?)

    So while banks have been tightening up lending restrictions (and rightfully so), responsible consumers are more apprehensive in acquiring debt (remember increased savings rates?). Strictly speaking: if you have want to take out a loan, and have the income required to do so...... YOU WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM! Banks are not going to lend on a regular basis to unworthy borrowers.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 12-24-09 at 06:14 PM.
    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. #547
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    It is a matter of timing.... Of course one could correctly argue that banks would not be assuming massive cash positions in a healthy lending environment; however this tone does not take into account the crux... which is credit worthiness.

    A person with the means will not have any problem securing a loan. In November of 2008, you would have had a point. (When was the last time you took out a loan?)

    So while banks have been tightening up lending restrictions (and rightfully so), responsible consumers are more apprehensive in acquiring debt (remember increased savings rates?). Strictly speaking: if you have want to take out a loan, and have the income required to do so...... YOU WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM! Banks are not going to lend on a regular basis to unworthy borrowers.
    Then what is the problem with the increased savings?

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  8. #548
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Then what is the problem with the increased savings?
    Less money is being consumed. Less purchasing. The paradox of thrift.

  9. #549
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Less money is being consumed. Less purchasing. The paradox of thrift.
    What's the problem?

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  10. #550
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    What's the problem?
    Saving is good for the individual, but not for the economy as a whole.

    People try to save more and therefore they spend less. Investment in the economy decreases.

    This would not be a problem if credit was flowing smoothly, since saved money would be reinvested by the bank, however, credit has become harder to come by because of circumstances already described, this means there really is money being saved that is not being reinvested in the economy.

    The economy as a whole is trying to sell more to save money and buy less, this creates a drop in demand. The drop in demand leads to a drop in revenues for comanies, downsizing, and unemployment. This means lower incomes, lower prices (deflation), and in turn less economic activity and even more saving. Possibly why banks are even more warry to lend right now.

Page 55 of 63 FirstFirst ... 5455354555657 ... 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
  •