Buy Back Mania

LowDown said:

Bull****. I point out again that Crews responds to critics of Crain and Crain. I find the response persuasive.

Click to expand...

The 10,000 commandments report cites the Tip of the Costberg figures, of which the Crain & Crain figure is used as a baseline along with other heroic assumptions, to come to their $1.8 trillion (11% of average household income).

Have a nice evening.

Click to expand...

Moringing :coffeepap

austrianecon said:

Kush, while I agree with you here.. You can boost profits by shedding weight.

Click to expand...

A single firm, yes. All firms? No way!

LowDown said:

You dismiss the argument out of hand because it is not of your politics. Therefore I dismiss your argument out of hand because it is not of my politics.

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

LowDown said:

Bull****. I point out again that Crews responds to critics of Crain and Crain. I find the reponse persuasive.

Have a nice evening.

Click to expand...

The argument is dismissed because it's rhetorical bull****.

Let go of your political party and try to look at this objectively. In what sane world should $294,000 be spent on stock buybacks and dividends for every job created? The median American income is still below $40k correct? That means as many as 10 times as many jobs could have been created if CEOs and investors simply directed excess funds toward company growth instead of lining their personal wallets. Now, you still have to pay to house the employee, so perhaps 5 times as many jobs, but just imagine what that would have done to unemployment. With unemployment down and productivity up, our economy could be BOOMING right now.

That is, of course, if investors were simply willing to make money the way they supposedly do, by investing in companies that employ people and generate products rather than siphoning wealth off to themselves at the expense of the economy.

Absentglare said:

The argument is dismissed because it's rhetorical bull****.

Let go of your political party and try to look at this objectively. In what sane world should $294,000 be spent on stock buybacks and dividends for every job created? The median American income is still below $40k correct? That means as many as 10 times as many jobs could have been created if CEOs and investors simply directed excess funds toward company growth instead of lining their personal wallets. Now, you still have to pay to house the employee, so perhaps 5 times as many jobs, but just imagine what that would have done to unemployment. With unemployment down and productivity up, our economy could be BOOMING right now.

That is, of course, if investors were simply willing to make money the way they supposedly do, by investing in companies that employ people and generate products rather than siphoning wealth off to themselves at the expense of the economy.

Click to expand...

Well, these buybacks are providing a significant wealth effect for the shareholders. I suppose they will need more gardeners, servants, etc..., after they buy their 4th vacation home. After all, that is the idea behind trickle down economics.

Kushinator said:

Well, these buybacks are providing a significant wealth effect for the shareholders. I suppose they will need more gardeners, servants, etc..., after they buy their 4th vacation home. After all, that is the idea behind trickle down economics.

Click to expand...

Rich people just don't own enough. The American dream is owning a bunch of toys that you don't even use, but then you lord over those around you as they collect dust due to lack of use.

Sharing stuff is for poor people. Why rent a vacation home in Florence when you can buy one that nobody else gets to use, ever ?

Ganesh said:

No, I am dismissing your argument because:

1) You are failing to see the role of bias in various media or analytical reports. There is nothing shameful in bias, per se, it is present in very many cases. The key point is to acknowledge it, and to see it when it is manifested. I have a bias, I admit. My leanings are no mystery to any readers here, I'm sure. But I also believe I can back up my arguments with fact. One is free, in this part of the world, to write all manner of glowing reports about extremist political views, but unless they can bolster them with rational argument, then their case will be taken lightly.

2) You have presented no rational argument. That "regulations" can be seen as costing a lot of money is hardly debatable. What is debatable is the far more abstract- but also far more useful- analysis of cost vs benefit for society. You have presented nothing here that makes the point that any of these pieces of legislation do not provide good value for society. In other words, their costs are outweighed by their benefits. Until you can provide more detail, and a more coherent rationale, then your position pretty much untenable. Which is, I guess, why you are choosing to bail out at this time.

Click to expand...

What I see is that you guys are retreating to a corner of the argument where there is no available data. You concede the point I raised, which is that regulations are increasing at an increasing rate and that they are increasingly expensive. I can't imagine what sort of benefits would justify an increase in regulatory costs passed on to ordinary people of 37% in six years. Nor can I believe that such a waste of money would not have a profound negative effect on the economy. It seems to me that benefit that would justify that is a very high bar, and I see no evidence out there that any of the benefits of regulations are anywhere near that great. A demonstrated benefit that great would get everyone talking, and there is no such talk. All of the examples of regulations I've looked at are clearly of marginal or no benefit. If you think all of the regulations being implemented for the cause of global warming mitigation will have some benefit then I guess you can make that claim, but I'd say that they will have no benefit at all, and there is no data that contradicts me. Even the government climate scientists agree that there will be no detectable benefit. Dodd-Frank is a very big sink of money and effort and it's not clear that it has any benefit.

But you are correct. We can't be sure about cost-benefit ratios because no one, least of all the government, has bothered to determine that. That fact in and of itself ought to call the whole regulatory enterprise into question.

LowDown said:

What I see is that you guys are retreating to a corner of the argument where there is no available data. You concede the point I raised, which is that regulations are increasing at an increasing rate and that they are increasingly expensive. I can't imagine what sort of benefits would justify an increase in regulatory costs passed on to ordinary people of 37% in six years. Nor can I believe that such a waste of money would not have a profound negative effect on the economy. It seems to me that benefit that would justify that is a very high bar, and I see no evidence out there that any of the benefits of regulations are anywhere near that great. A demonstrated benefit that great would get everyone talking, and there is no such talk. All of the examples of regulations I've looked at are clearly of marginal or no benefit. If you think all of the regulations being implemented for the cause of global warming mitigation will have some benefit then I guess you can make that claim, but I'd say that they will have no benefit at all, and there is no data that contradicts me. Even the government climate scientists agree that there will be no detectable benefit. Dodd-Frank is a very big sink of money and effort and it's not clear that it has any benefit.

But you are correct. We can't be sure about cost-benefit ratios because no one, least of all the government, has bothered to determine that. That fact in and of itself ought to call the whole regulatory enterprise into question.

Click to expand...

You're being silly. There are a wealth of low regulation countries. They're all in pretty bad shape.

Regulations are not the problem. They're just another conservative boogeyman.

Absentglare said:

The argument is dismissed because it's rhetorical bull****.

Let go of your political party and try to look at this objectively. In what sane world should $294,000 be spent on stock buybacks and dividends for every job created? The median American income is still below $40k correct? That means as many as 10 times as many jobs could have been created if CEOs and investors simply directed excess funds toward company growth instead of lining their personal wallets. Now, you still have to pay to house the employee, so perhaps 5 times as many jobs, but just imagine what that would have done to unemployment. With unemployment down and productivity up, our economy could be BOOMING right now.

That is, of course, if investors were simply willing to make money the way they supposedly do, by investing in companies that employ people and generate products rather than siphoning wealth off to themselves at the expense of the economy.

Click to expand...

So CEOs direct that money be spent on growth. What happens if nobody buys their additional product? They lose the money is what happens. The economy isn't helped at all.

You can't just dump money into growth and expect things to work out. It has to be at the right time and for the right things.

Absentglare said:

You're being silly. There are a wealth of low regulation countries. They're all in pretty bad shape.

Regulations are not the problem. They're just another conservative boogeyman.

Click to expand...

You mean low regulation companies like the Sudan?

How about a different comparison. How about a low regulation country like the U.S.A., back when the growth in the GDP was 10% a year?

Do any of you regulation loving folks run a small business or something? Can I get the opinion of someone who has had to deal with the problem of running a business or starting up one these days?

Of course, it doesn't count if you ignore the regulations. Libs who don't pay their taxes and don't follow the rules don't care how high the taxes get nor how burdensome the regulations are.

LowDown said:

You mean low regulation companies like the Sudan?

How about a different comparison. How about a low regulation country like the U.S.A., back when the growth in the GDP was 10% a year?

Do any of you regulation loving folks run a small business or something? Can I get the opinion of someone who has had to deal with the problem of running a business or starting up one these days?

Of course, it doesn't count if you ignore the regulations. Libs who don't pay their taxes and don't follow the rules don't care how high the taxes get nor how burdensome the regulations are.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware Sudan was a company. :lol:

LowDown said:

So CEOs direct that money be spent on growth. What happens if nobody buys their additional product? They lose the money is what happens. The economy isn't helped at all.

You can't just dump money into growth and expect things to work out. It has to be at the right time and for the right things.

Click to expand...

You're right, not all businesses succeed. Why do you want to revert civilization back toward feudalism just so fewer bad businesses fail ?

Better wealth distribution will balance demand with supply and end up better for everyone, except the rich lazy twats who want to make money off of controlled descent/slow growth companies that fail to innovate.

LowDown said:

You mean low regulation companies like the Sudan?

How about a different comparison. How about a low regulation country like the U.S.A., back when the growth in the GDP was 10% a year?

Do any of you regulation loving folks run a small business or something? Can I get the opinion of someone who has had to deal with the problem of running a business or starting up one these days?

Of course, it doesn't count if you ignore the regulations. Libs who don't pay their taxes and don't follow the rules don't care how high the taxes get nor how burdensome the regulations are.

Click to expand...

Let me show you how to grow an economy, you spend money to put people to work:



Let me show you what a lack of regulation buys you:

austrianecon said:

Regulations which are overly burdensome and unnecessary? How about sterile needles for euthanasia (pets and death row)? Makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.

Click to expand...

Hypodermic needles today come in prepackaged, sterile units. They are meant for single usage, and to be discarded afterwards. If you wanted to use an unsterile needle for death row, you would have to send someone out to forage the garbage cans of a hospital, or catch a nurse who just used one, take it from her, and courier it over to the death chamber, something rather more expensive than just using standard procedure, and a device that costs pennies. It is your proposition that makes absolutely no sense here.

austrianecon said:

But here are some that are asinine.. the first one you SHOULD know about..

Debit Card Interchange Fees (Durbin Amendment) part of Frank-Dodd Act.

Proxy Access Rules another Frank-Dodd idiocy. A regulation that allowed the SEC to step into corporate voting (share holding voting) and effect the elections. A federal court saved us from that for now.


The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009...

Phase-Out of Incandescent Light Bulbs. (Energy Independence and Security Act 2007).. GE closed down the last plant that made Incandescent bulbs in the US and the US buys florescent bulbs from China. So US lost jobs over that and China gained jobs.

Just to name a few.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that far from making a case against regulation, you examples have provided the most clear need for more regulation, not less. The banking rules you refer to here are meant to protect consumers from the extremes of capitalist hubris. If anyone thought them unnecessary in any way, the 2008 meltdown should have enlightened even the most right wing mind. The fact that business is trying to do an end run around what are clearly positive, productive social goals, is just one more example of market failure. That is, the failure to produce the best outcome for the most people, given long term concerns and issues. The market seeks immediate, self interested, maximum self reward. One does not need an advanced degree to see that major societal goals must often take a longer view, and a willingness to provide for tomorrow with some modest sacrifice today.

So too with your light bulbs. We could hardly have a better example of the failure of the market place to attend to important social needs. Energy is a big issue today, due to global warming, and perhaps some future scarcity of resources, pollution issues, and other concerns. Florescent bulbs provide one of the more cheap and easy answers. They cut energy use substantially, are an inexpensive and easy to obtain item, and can be put in place in no time at all. It's a win-win for all. The response of your revered market: screw that, we're not changing, we're taking our marbles and going home. Where is Mr Adams, and his invisible guiding hand? Maybe he (or it) needs a light bulb on to show the way. And there are plenty of places manufacturing florescent lights, although the market might say that China meets their needs in a more profitable way. All the more reason to reduce the say of the market, and increase the say of the citizenry in society today.

LowDown said:

What I see is that you guys are retreating to a corner of the argument where there is no available data. You concede the point I raised, which is that regulations are increasing at an increasing rate and that they are increasingly expensive. I can't imagine what sort of benefits would justify an increase in regulatory costs passed on to ordinary people of 37% in six years. Nor can I believe that such a waste of money would not have a profound negative effect on the economy. It seems to me that benefit that would justify that is a very high bar, and I see no evidence out there that any of the benefits of regulations are anywhere near that great. A demonstrated benefit that great would get everyone talking, and there is no such talk. All of the examples of regulations I've looked at are clearly of marginal or no benefit. If you think all of the regulations being implemented for the cause of global warming mitigation will have some benefit then I guess you can make that claim, but I'd say that they will have no benefit at all, and there is no data that contradicts me. Even the government climate scientists agree that there will be no detectable benefit. Dodd-Frank is a very big sink of money and effort and it's not clear that it has any benefit.

But you are correct. We can't be sure about cost-benefit ratios because no one, least of all the government, has bothered to determine that. That fact in and of itself ought to call the whole regulatory enterprise into question.

Click to expand...

You will never make a case Mr L, in this instance, or any other, unless you are willing to read up on the topic you are discussing, and be willing to provide some rational argument, and an explanation of the notions you quote. A 37% increase in regulatory costs means....what? Do you know, or have any idea? If that might mean that we will now have clean coal plants, much safer cars, with better gas mileage, more secure borders, a reduction in global warming factors, or any number of other pro-social trends, then this figure might be quite admirable, perhaps even too low.

I suspect that you are reading too many ultra-right publications, ones that today try to paint a quite unrealistic portrait of society, in which government is separate from society, and entity on to itself, and one wholly inadequate to administer anything, and the private sector never fails, as it adheres to the laws of physics, and the grand scheme of the universe. History does not bear this out, but you are going to have to read history, if you are going to be able to make an intelligent decision on these issues. Why not start now?

Kushinator said:

A single firm, yes. All firms? No way!

Click to expand...

Well, depends. Shifting labor costs over seas frees up a good chuck of change and boosts profits. Then you have examples of HP who did $14b in buy backs from 1999 to 2005 when only make a profit of $12b in that period.

Ganesh said:

Hypodermic needles today come in prepackaged, sterile units. They are meant for single usage, and to be discarded afterwards.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's much simpler then that. All you have to do is buy a set of Hypodermic needles and reuse them over and over. You don't have to get a nurse or forge from a hospital. Rather after convict X is dead, take the needle out and put them a box and put it on a shelf in the backroom of the death chamber.

Ganesh said:

It seems to me that far from making a case against regulation, you examples have provided the most clear need for more regulation, not less. The banking rules you refer to here are meant to protect consumers from the extremes of capitalist hubris. If anyone thought them unnecessary in any way, the 2008 meltdown should have enlightened even the most right wing mind.

Click to expand...

The banking rules passed in the last 7 years DO NOTHING to protect the consumer. Rather they have harmed the consumer. The Frank-Dodd bill solidified too big to fail and crony capitalism at the cost of the consumer.

Oh, I am very right minded on this matter because I actually work in the Banking and Finance sector. Every "consumer" protection passed by Congress over the last 7 years was to screw the little guy and keep Bankers and Finance guys fat and happy. Can you name me one law passed that actually broke up the big banks? Anybody go to jail from Wall Street over the last crisis? So don't try an act like Congress and Government cares about you. If they cared.. our Banking system would be VASTLY different 7 years later. But it's not, rather it's the same ol' peddled crap of garbage in/garbage out.

All that had to be done was so freaking simple that Congress would have been deemed efficient. Congress should have repealed all laws and regulations post 1999 that dealt with Finance and Banking (Bankruptcy and such) and passed Glass–Steagall again. Then pass a bill (like TARP) to buy all troubled mortgages at a price of $.80 on the $1 and stash them at the Federal Reserve.

If this was done.. nobody at that time would have lost a home, all "bad" debt would have been off banks balance sheets, QE I, II, III would not have been needed and the best of it all..

Ganesh said:

The fact that business is trying to do an end run around what are clearly positive, productive social goals, is just one more example of market failure. That is, the failure to produce the best outcome for the most people, given long term concerns and issues. The market seeks immediate, self interested, maximum self reward. One does not need an advanced degree to see that major societal goals must often take a longer view, and a willingness to provide for tomorrow with some modest sacrifice today.

Click to expand...

That's what business does. Business tries to operate in the world it's given and paid for. The Durbin Amendment was designed for Big Banks and Visa/Mastercard. It was gonna have gaps. But these gaps A) didn't have to be there and B) the amendment wasn't even needed. Banks/VISA/Mastercard actually collect more money from consumers because of this then they did before. It went from a $4b collection by Banks/VISA/Mastercard prior to the Amendment to a $14b collection by Banks/VISA/Mastercard because the Amendment changed how Banks could collect fees.

But let me guess.. you think Joe Biden is for the little guy right? He pushed for stricter bankruptcy laws... it screwed the little guy big time. But not bad for a guy who is literally known as MBNA Joe.

The only way the economy can help everyone in some form is if everyone is financially literate and we go back to Glass–Steagall type banking, when there was a difference between Commercial Banking (where Joe Public banks) and Investment Banking (where companies raise money).

I have been consistent on the issue with Banking and Finance in the 21st century on this forum. Ask Imagep and Kush.... I radically want to go back to Glass-Steagall era, don't view homes as an investment strategy or a way to build retirement, and despise too big to fail.

Ganesh said:

So too with your light bulbs. We could hardly have a better example of the failure of the market place to attend to important social needs. Energy is a big issue today, due to global warming, and perhaps some future scarcity of resources, pollution issues, and other concerns. Florescent bulbs provide one of the more cheap and easy answers. They cut energy use substantially, are an inexpensive and easy to obtain item, and can be put in place in no time at all. It's a win-win for all. The response of your revered market: screw that, we're not changing, we're taking our marbles and going home. Where is Mr Adams, and his invisible guiding hand? Maybe he (or it) needs a light bulb on to show the way. And there are plenty of places manufacturing florescent lights, although the market might say that China meets their needs in a more profitable way. All the more reason to reduce the say of the market, and increase the say of the citizenry in society today.

Click to expand...

Social needs? You do realize that CFL (Fluorescent bulbs) we use at home contain mercury, right? LEDs arsenic, lead, and nickel... That Stony Brook University found CFL to cause serious harm to humans?

Who do you think is the biggest gainers of this so called green energy movement? It's not You, I or consumers in general. Rather those screaming bloody murder to the high heavens. Al Gore said the Ice caps would be gone by 2014.. last I checked they are still there.



Btw, it's Smith, not Adams. But it's about being cost effective. People will always buy what's affordable. When you force people to buy what they don't want it's not the invisible hand.

austrianecon said:

Actually, it's much simpler then that. All you have to do is buy a set of Hypodermic needles and reuse them over and over. You don't have to get a nurse or forge from a hospital. Rather after convict X is dead, take the needle out and put them a box and put it on a shelf in the backroom of the death chamber.

Click to expand...

And while you are at it, you could neatly fold the paper sheet used in the execution, and put it away with the plastic syringe, stains and all. That could save another ten cents. Be careful how you handle that needle though, because considering the clientele, there would be a good chance of it being infected with HIV or hepatitis, and an accident would skew your cost-benefit calculation considerably. You are, of course, being absurd.

austrianecon said:

The banking rules passed in the last 7 years DO NOTHING to protect the consumer. Rather they have harmed the consumer. The Frank-Dodd bill solidified too big to fail and crony capitalism at the cost of the consumer.

Oh, I am very right minded on this matter because I actually work in the Banking and Finance sector. Every "consumer" protection passed by Congress over the last 7 years was to screw the little guy and keep Bankers and Finance guys fat and happy. Can you name me one law passed that actually broke up the big banks? Anybody go to jail from Wall Street over the last crisis? So don't try an act like Congress and Government cares about you. If they cared.. our Banking system would be VASTLY different 7 years later. But it's not, rather it's the same ol' peddled crap of garbage in/garbage out.

All that had to be done was so freaking simple that Congress would have been deemed efficient. Congress should have repealed all laws and regulations post 1999 that dealt with Finance and Banking (Bankruptcy and such) and passed Glass–Steagall again. Then pass a bill (like TARP) to buy all troubled mortgages at a price of $.80 on the $1 and stash them at the Federal Reserve.

If this was done.. nobody at that time would have lost a home, all "bad" debt would have been off banks balance sheets, QE I, II, III would not have been needed and the best of it all..

Click to expand...

I don't really disagree here. The response to '08 didn't go nearly far enough. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised when Obama looked to Goldman Sachs for financial staff, rather than a Krugman or a Stiglitz type. If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. More funds should have gone to working people rather than to financial institutions who are now sitting on it.

The political climate in the US has shifted strongly to the right in recent years, which is a problem. Deregulation though is not the answer. It's easy to be cynical about politics, but throwing up one's hands and saying let the market decide won't work. Been there, and done that, and it wasn't a pretty sight.

austrianecon said:

That's what business does. Business tries to operate in the world it's given and paid for. The Durbin Amendment was designed for Big Banks and Visa/Mastercard. It was gonna have gaps. But these gaps A) didn't have to be there and B) the amendment wasn't even needed. Banks/VISA/Mastercard actually collect more money from consumers because of this then they did before. It went from a $4b collection by Banks/VISA/Mastercard prior to the Amendment to a $14b collection by Banks/VISA/Mastercard because the Amendment changed how Banks could collect fees.

But let me guess.. you think Joe Biden is for the little guy right? He pushed for stricter bankruptcy laws... it screwed the little guy big time. But not bad for a guy who is literally known as MBNA Joe.

The only way the economy can help everyone in some form is if everyone is financially literate and we go back to Glass–Steagall type banking, when there was a difference between Commercial Banking (where Joe Public banks) and Investment Banking (where companies raise money).

I have been consistent on the issue with Banking and Finance in the 21st century on this forum. Ask Imagep and Kush.... I radically want to go back to Glass-Steagall era, don't view homes as an investment strategy or a way to build retirement, and despise too big to fail.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what business does, and that's why we need public oversight, effective oversight of the so called market place. If politicians are corrupt or ineffective, vote for someone else. If there is no one else, get involved. Campaign, lobby, start a new political party, run for office yourself. I'm always amazed at Americans who insist they are freer than anyone else, but have essentially only two political parties, both of which would be considered right wing, pro-business organizations anywhere else in the world. Where is the diversity of opinion among 315M very diverse people?

You will never have everyone financially literate in the country. Just take a sampling of posts on this forum. Glass-Steagall is a good idea I think, but not nearly enough. We need greater public oversight and intervention in the economy, not less.

austrianecon said:

Social needs? You do realize that CFL (Fluorescent bulbs) we use at home contain mercury, right? LEDs arsenic, lead, and nickel... That Stony Brook University found CFL to cause serious harm to humans?

Who do you think is the biggest gainers of this so called green energy movement? It's not You, I or consumers in general. Rather those screaming bloody murder to the high heavens. Al Gore said the Ice caps would be gone by 2014.. last I checked they are still there.


Btw, it's Smith, not Adams. But it's about being cost effective. People will always buy what's affordable. When you force people to buy what they don't want it's not the invisible hand.

Click to expand...

Yes, and there are hazardous materials in that computer you are looking at. Pretending nothing is happening (as your link does) is not a solution. I'm not an environmental extremist, but the vast consensus in the scientific world considers global warming is a reality, and it may well have devastating consequences in coming decades. If left to the market, we would still have 12 mpg cars with no seat belts, cities choked with smog, and energy wasting appliances and houses. That's the way -Mr Smith's- guiding hand really works, in practice rather than theory.

The argument that people buying what seems affordable them will cause the market to fall into its proper place is a bogus one. Do they really know the long term costs of what they are buying? That gas guzzler may be what they want today, but they may be collectively setting up much higher costs for society in the future. And many don't have much choice. If they are on a tight budget, then it's often WalMart, whether they consider the social consequences of a WalMart or not. And in fact today many are clearly making greener choices in their buying, in many parts of the world. In many of the world's great cities, driving cars is down, and cycling and walking are up. A long way to go yet, for sure, but an indication that life isn't all about price and self interest.

Ganesh said:

And while you are at it, you could neatly fold the paper sheet used in the execution, and put it away with the plastic syringe, stains and all. That could save another ten cents. Be careful how you handle that needle though, because considering the clientele, there would be a good chance of it being infected with HIV or hepatitis, and an accident would skew your cost-benefit calculation considerably. You are, of course, being absurd.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course I am being absurd about it. But we are a Death Penalty nation.. Death Penalty is 10x more expensive because of costs such a drugs to kill someone, the medical equipment required, hiring staff and such. If we are gonna be a death penalty country you have to find ways to lower the costs and because we are "humane" today the most simple would be end of life costs. A bullet, a noose or the chair is more cost effective at this point.

Ganesh said:

I don't really disagree here. The response to '08 didn't go nearly far enough. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised when Obama looked to Goldman Sachs for financial staff, rather than a Krugman or a Stiglitz type. If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. More funds should have gone to working people rather than to financial institutions who are now sitting on it.

Click to expand...

Krugman and Stiglitz types aren't the ones you want. Stiglitz is a Third Way economics guy who is part of the problem. Remember he was part of the Clinton Admin. There was "good" times under Clinton but everybody forgets the Dot Com bubble or it's under Clinton the housing crisis seeds were sown (and no I am not talking CRA, but Regulations). But Stiglitz is the standard economic adviser in whore (he goes where he gets paid and there is nothing wrong that). Stiglitz bounced around since 2008 from France, UN, Greece, Scotland's Government economic commission on Independence and now is being paid by the Labour Party in the UK. Basically he shows up on the radar when he's plugging a book.


As William K. Black has said about Third Way: "Third Way is this group that pretends sometimes to be center-left but is actually completely a creation of Wall Street--it's run by Wall Street for Wall Street with this false flag operation as if it were a center-left group. It's nothing of the sort."

Krugman is huckster, a snake oil salesman or whatever term you want to use. He hasn't produced anything of worth in years and in the world of Academia where Krugman lives that is fine. You can live and die on a Nobel prize, collect speaking fees and write a column.. Which is not much different then Stiglitz.

Ganesh said:

The political climate in the US has shifted strongly to the right in recent years, which is a problem. Deregulation though is not the answer. It's easy to be cynical about politics, but throwing up one's hands and saying let the market decide won't work. Been there, and done that, and it wasn't a pretty sight.

Click to expand...

Really? Last I checked the US has shifted strong left. As a Libertarian it's shifted in some ways (social) I wanted but not in the way I wanted. Just follow the damn Constitution and we don't have to pass new laws to recognize the rights of people, groups or whatever.. But in economic ways, it hasn't. US has SHIFTED very left. We now have Obamacare (major economic change), NRLB ruling in August , FCC's net neutrality ruling and so forth.

austrianecon said:

Well, depends. Shifting labor costs over seas frees up a good chuck of change and boosts profits. Then you have examples of HP who did $14b in buy backs from 1999 to 2005 when only make a profit of $12b in that period.

Click to expand...

As stated, not on a macro scale.

austrianecon said:

Yes, of course I am being absurd about it. But we are a Death Penalty nation.. Death Penalty is 10x more expensive because of costs such a drugs to kill someone, the medical equipment required, hiring staff and such. If we are gonna be a death penalty country you have to find ways to lower the costs and because we are "humane" today the most simple would be end of life costs. A bullet, a noose or the chair is more cost effective at this point.

Click to expand...

I thought is was because of the legal costs of appeals, and the security costs to ensure the legal process plays out.

Krugman and Stiglitz types aren't the ones you want. Stiglitz is a Third Way economics guy who is part of the problem. Remember he was part of the Clinton Admin. There was "good" times under Clinton but everybody forgets the Dot Com bubble or it's under Clinton the housing crisis seeds were sown (and no I am not talking CRA, but Regulations). But Stiglitz is the standard economic adviser in whore (he goes where he gets paid and there is nothing wrong that). Stiglitz bounced around since 2008 from France, UN, Greece, Scotland's Government economic commission on Independence and now is being paid by the Labour Party in the UK. Basically he shows up on the radar when he's plugging a book.

Click to expand...

Great argument!:lol:

Krugman is huckster, a snake oil salesman or whatever term you want to use. He hasn't produced anything of worth in years and in the world of Academia where Krugman lives that is fine. You can live and die on a Nobel prize, collect speaking fees and write a column.. Which is not much different then Stiglitz.

Click to expand...

He has been published twice since the great recession, by some of the most respected economic journals in the world.

American Economic Review

Oxford Quarterly Journal of Economics

Really? Last I checked the US has shifted strong left. As a Libertarian it's shifted in some ways (social) I wanted but not in the way I wanted. Just follow the damn Constitution and we don't have to pass new laws to recognize the rights of people, groups or whatever.. But in economic ways, it hasn't. US has SHIFTED very left. We now have Obamacare (major economic change), NRLB ruling in August , FCC's net neutrality ruling and so forth.

Click to expand...

Compare the post-WWII era with that of today.

austrianecon said:

Yes, of course I am being absurd about it. But we are a Death Penalty nation.. Death Penalty is 10x more expensive because of costs such a drugs to kill someone, the medical equipment required, hiring staff and such. If we are gonna be a death penalty country you have to find ways to lower the costs and because we are "humane" today the most simple would be end of life costs. A bullet, a noose or the chair is more cost effective at this point.

Click to expand...

How about public beheadings? If you get a good sword (don't go to Wal Mart) it will last years. A few drops of bleach will keep it clean. You could force the executeded's family to wash down the blood, and remove the body (and the head). What a vivid illustration of price discovery, and the efficiency of the free market!

Yes, the US spends a lot on criminal justice and prisons because it has so many prisoners, more than any other advanced nation per capita. And this is largely a result of neo-liberal policies, ones that encourage great wealth disparity, social division, a self-serving sentiment in society, and an intolerant policy on drugs. A few drops of a lethal drug, and a nurse needing to pick up a few extra bucks, are nothing in comparison.

austrianecon said:

Krugman and Stiglitz types aren't the ones you want. Stiglitz is a Third Way economics guy who is part of the problem. Remember he was part of the Clinton Admin. There was "good" times under Clinton but everybody forgets the Dot Com bubble or it's under Clinton the housing crisis seeds were sown (and no I am not talking CRA, but Regulations). But Stiglitz is the standard economic adviser in whore (he goes where he gets paid and there is nothing wrong that). Stiglitz bounced around since 2008 from France, UN, Greece, Scotland's Government economic commission on Independence and now is being paid by the Labour Party in the UK. Basically he shows up on the radar when he's plugging a book.

Click to expand...

Eh? He is a whore because he is in demand for consultation and speaking engagements, and a prolific author? Have you actually read any of his books?

austrianecon said:

As William K. Black has said about Third Way: "Third Way is this group that pretends sometimes to be center-left but is actually completely a creation of Wall Street--it's run by Wall Street for Wall Street with this false flag operation as if it were a center-left group. It's nothing of the sort."

Krugman is huckster, a snake oil salesman or whatever term you want to use. He hasn't produced anything of worth in years and in the world of Academia where Krugman lives that is fine. You can live and die on a Nobel prize, collect speaking fees and write a column.. Which is not much different then Stiglitz.

Click to expand...

Anything of worth? Except several books, journal articles, newspaper and blog pieces, in addition to teaching. If you had read any of either's work you would realize that their philosophy is constant, non-whore like, and addresses the great issues of our times, in an informed and intelligent fashion.

Explain to us how any of these twos' pronouncements are snake oil, or whoring.

austrianecon said:

Really? Last I checked the US has shifted strong left. As a Libertarian it's shifted in some ways (social) I wanted but not in the way I wanted. Just follow the damn Constitution and we don't have to pass new laws to recognize the rights of people, groups or whatever.. But in economic ways, it hasn't. US has SHIFTED very left. We now have Obamacare (major economic change), NRLB ruling in August , FCC's net neutrality ruling and so forth.

Click to expand...

Obamacare was a modest attempt to bring the US into line with the rest of the civilized world by providing all with needed medical care, whether rich or not. It failed to a large degree due to the voracious and unending opposition of those with self interest in mind, with money to be made under a still privatized system. It is one of the clearest examples of the ascendancy of the right in America today. Even Richard Nixon, hardly your closet commie, was in favour of universal medicare. Take a look at the GOP position today. Democrats were once the party of the great society, today all must pay allegiance to the great market place. Many people accept the ravings of Fox News as actual news, whereas such outlets would have been laughed off the air a few decades ago. Donald Trump would have been labelled a fascist a few years back, today he is the front runner for the Republican nomination. That's how far things have gone.

And please don't join others here in bleating about the constitution. There's a heck of a lot more "regulation" required for the 21st century than there was for a small group of rural farmers and small town entrepreneurs two and half centuries ago.

Kushinator said:

I thought is was because of the legal costs of appeals, and the security costs to ensure the legal process plays out.

Click to expand...

No, all inmates have the same rights in legal appeals and filing of writs as death row inmates if your sentence is more then 5 years (in most cases, some time 10 years or more). In the legal system today (Federal).. Death row inmates only account for 1% of all writs being filed per year of that only 20% will win in Federal Court.

Kushinator said:

Great argument!:lol:

Click to expand...

Everything, Stiglitz touches goes to hell and a hand basket. But Stiglitz and Krugman on the same Economic Adviser board would be fun to see when they had their cat fight.

Kushinator said:

He has been published twice since the great recession, by some of the most respected economic journals in the world.

American Economic Review

Oxford Quarterly Journal of Economics

Click to expand...

Seriously? First one is a print of his speech (lecture) in Stockholm when he got his Noble Prize for NTT and NEG, you know the work he did in the 1970s and had a light bulb moment in the early 1990s expanding that NTT to NEG . His NTT and NEG are more and more becoming the standard..

The Oxford publishing is basically a rehashing of what he's been saying about "liquidity traps" since the 1990s. But ironically it matched his next book that was published at the same time called.. "End This Depression Now!"

But that's not new work. He hasn't produced anything new in the world of Academia in two decades or a better way to say it.. he hasn't pushed the field of economics in two decades.

Kushinator said:

Compare the post-WWII era with that of today.

Click to expand...

We have dramatically moved from right to the left in the last 8 years. Ganesh claimed we have shifted right.. that's not true. We shifted right in the 1980s in the US under Reagan. Bush, Sr. hiked taxes. Clinton moved it back to the left a little and was helped greatly by the Bush tax hikes and Bush, JR went a little to left as well on some economic issues (Medicare Part D) and heavily Keynesian spending ideas (massive deficits). So yeah, I am gonna disagree with Ganesh assessment on where the US economy is. It's much further left then it was 8 years ago and it's never really been far right but slightly center of right.

austrianecon said:

Yes, of course I am being absurd about it. But we are a Death Penalty nation.. Death Penalty is 10x more expensive because of costs such a drugs to kill someone, the medical equipment required, hiring staff and such. If we are gonna be a death penalty country you have to find ways to lower the costs and because we are "humane" today the most simple would be end of life costs. A bullet, a noose or the chair is more cost effective at this point.





Krugman and Stiglitz types aren't the ones you want. Stiglitz is a Third Way economics guy who is part of the problem. Remember he was part of the Clinton Admin. There was "good" times under Clinton but everybody forgets the Dot Com bubble or it's under Clinton the housing crisis seeds were sown (and no I am not talking CRA, but Regulations). But Stiglitz is the standard economic adviser in whore (he goes where he gets paid and there is nothing wrong that). Stiglitz bounced around since 2008 from France, UN, Greece, Scotland's Government economic commission on Independence and now is being paid by the Labour Party in the UK. Basically he shows up on the radar when he's plugging a book.


As William K. Black has said about Third Way: "Third Way is this group that pretends sometimes to be center-left but is actually completely a creation of Wall Street--it's run by Wall Street for Wall Street with this false flag operation as if it were a center-left group. It's nothing of the sort."

Krugman is huckster, a snake oil salesman or whatever term you want to use. He hasn't produced anything of worth in years and in the world of Academia where Krugman lives that is fine. You can live and die on a Nobel prize, collect speaking fees and write a column.. Which is not much different then Stiglitz.




Really? Last I checked the US has shifted strong left. As a Libertarian it's shifted in some ways (social) I wanted but not in the way I wanted. Just follow the damn Constitution and we don't have to pass new laws to recognize the rights of people, groups or whatever.. But in economic ways, it hasn't. US has SHIFTED very left. We now have Obamacare (major economic change), NRLB ruling in August , FCC's net neutrality ruling and so forth.

Click to expand...

Yeah, doing it the right way is too expensive.

Let's just free all criminals, fire all police and prison guards, and then abolish the judicial branch because expensive.

austrianecon said:

No, all inmates have the same rights in legal appeals and filing of writs as death row inmates if your sentence is more then 5 years (in most cases, some time 10 years or more). In the legal system today (Federal).. Death row inmates only account for 1% of all writs being filed per year of that only 20% will win in Federal Court.





Everything, Stiglitz touches goes to hell and a hand basket. But Stiglitz and Krugman on the same Economic Adviser board would be fun to see when they had their cat fight.





Seriously? First one is a print of his speech (lecture) in Stockholm when he got his Noble Prize for NTT and NEG, you know the work he did in the 1970s and had a light bulb moment in the early 1990s expanding that NTT to NEG . His NTT and NEG are more and more becoming the standard..

The Oxford publishing is basically a rehashing of what he's been saying about "liquidity traps" since the 1990s. But ironically it matched his next book that was published at the same time called.. "End This Depression Now!"

But that's not new work. He hasn't produced anything new in the world of Academia in two decades or a better way to say it.. he hasn't pushed the field of economics in two decades.



We have dramatically moved from right to the left in the last 8 years. Ganesh claimed we have shifted right.. that's not true. We shifted right in the 1980s in the US under Reagan. Bush, Sr. hiked taxes. Clinton moved it back to the left a little and was helped greatly by the Bush tax hikes and Bush, JR went a little to left as well on some economic issues (Medicare Part D) and heavily Keynesian spending ideas (massive deficits). So yeah, I am gonna disagree with Ganesh assessment on where the US economy is. It's much further left then it was 8 years ago and it's never really been far right but slightly center of right.

Click to expand...

Well that's just silly. The medicare part d expansion was leftish of President Bush 2, but his war of aggression, his restriction of civil liberties, his campaign of torture without trial, his tax cuts, his deregulation of the housing market, and the subsequent economic disaster that were the results of his policies were all conservative by American standards.

He did have deficits. Hmm... Wonder why...