• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WTO cuts 2016 world trade growth forecast to 1.7 percent, cites wake-up call

James972 said:
about incomes which are now reaching 1999 levels!!!!
Click to expand...

And who refused the stimulus-spending in 2010 when they took control of HofR - whilst acclaiming the virtues of inane Austerity Budgeting!

What happened were not only lower income-levels but lower Employment-to-Population Rate levels. No jobs were being created and therefore no impetus either to improve incomes in a morose economic environment.

Only Stimulus-Spending by governments in a downturn will bring back economic activity. We've known that since Keynes pronounced the notion upon the world in his book (1931) and Roosevelt took the lesson seriously. Presidents have been employing the tool adeptly every since. (Except when most Replicant PotUSs think that DoD is where the "stimulus-spending" should be done, then go off to war to show "how right we are!".)

My point: America is in the present mess because it richly deserves to be there after Gross Economic Mismanagement by a succession of Replicant presidents since the 1980s (starting with Reckless Ronnie)!

And you are saying that the Democrats are to blame?

You gotta be kidding or wacko or both ...
_______________
 
Last edited:
joG said:
Because -and this might surprise you- I tend to read documents before I comment on them.
Click to expand...

I am not surprised you responded to me prior to reading the paper.
 
Kushinator said:
I am not surprised you responded to me prior to reading the paper.
Click to expand...

You mean to ask for the definitions behind the graph? How could I have read the article and evaluated the graph before knowing which one you referred to?

But you know? That is how I am finding you think most of the time, which goes a long way to explain some of the things you say.
 
joG said:
You mean to ask for the definitions behind the graph? How could I have read the article and evaluated the graph before knowing which one you referred to?

But you know? That is how I am finding you think most of the time, which goes a long way to explain some of the things you say.
Click to expand...

Your statement:

joG said:
Do you have the calculation used for the "natural rate of interest"? Then we can discuss the graph you are using as proof.
Click to expand...

To which i obliged in the form of:

Kushinator said:

Of course!

This research comes directly from the Fed.
Click to expand...

Your next response was not anything of substance (as usual), but instead:

joG said:
I was not really doubting their authenticity. It is just that inflation can be calculated in a variety of ways and to know each one's implications one needs to know, what goes into it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking you if you doubted their authenticity or if inflation can be calculated in a variety of ways. I asked:

Kushinator said:
The neutral rate of interest is at or below zero... so why on earth would there be a need for higher interest rates?
Click to expand...

And still nada. Don't worry, i completely understand why you refuse to engage in discussion and dance around questions. ;)
 
Kushinator said:
Your statement:



To which i obliged in the form of:



Your next response was not anything of substance (as usual), but instead:



I wasn't asking you if you doubted their authenticity or if inflation can be calculated in a variety of ways. I asked:



And still nada. Don't worry, i completely understand why you refuse to engage in discussion and dance around questions. ;)
Click to expand...

That is quite obvious. The natural rate you refer to is the one in the article you posted and I am reading. I do not understand you belligerence and find it rather degoutant.
 
joG said:
That is quite obvious. The natural rate you refer to is the one in the article you posted and I am reading. I do not understand you belligerence and find it rather degoutant.
Click to expand...

I do not understand why you continue to respond to me without answering the question. I presented the source of the data upon request, and still you've not even the slightest attempt at content! Again, i am not the least surprised... this is what you do.
 
Last edited:
Kushinator said:
I do not understand why you continue to respond to me without answering the question. I presented the source of the data upon request, and still you've not even the slightest attempt at content! Again, i am not the least surprised... this is what you do.
Click to expand...

I am sure you have lots of time to read 40 page studies. Sorry to say I have more than one study and quite a bit else on my desk. But I think you are being too pesky, so I will not be answering you, though I will read the article, when I get around to it.
 
joG said:
I am sure you have lots of time to read 40 page studies.
Click to expand...

There are 13 pages of the actual study... but you'd know that if you bothered to look at it.

Sorry to say I have more than one study and quite a bit else on my desk.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, the I'm too busy approach from someone with almost 30k posts in the span of 3 years. :lol:

But I think you are being too pesky, so I will not be answering you, though I will read the article, when I get around to it.
Click to expand...

You were never going to answer me, which is why you spent 2 days and 6 responses trying to avoid admitting you don't have the slightest clue about the topic or my question. Excuses ranging from where is the data, to, i haven't read it, to i'm too busy. Surprising!
 
Kushinator said:
There are 13 pages of the actual study... but you'd know that if you bothered to look at it.



Ahhhh, the I'm too busy approach from someone with almost 30k posts in the span of 3 years. :lol:



You were never going to answer me, which is why you spent 2 days and 6 responses trying to avoid admitting you don't have the slightest clue about the topic or my question. Excuses ranging from where is the data, to, i haven't read it, to i'm too busy. Surprising!
Click to expand...

If you disregard the tables and graphs and use them as light heartedly as you, I guess, you might think 40 pages are 13. You really think 10k posts a lot per annum? Do you have a writing problem?

Where you are wrong is that I did plan on answering you as I find that would be the polite thing to do, after you supplied a link. But your obnoxiousness and bad manners decided me against that.
 
joG said:
If you disregard the tables and graphs and use them as light heartedly as you, I guess, you might think 40 pages are 13. You really think 10k posts a lot per annum? Do you have a writing problem?

Where you are wrong is that I did plan on answering you as I find that would be the polite thing to do, after you supplied a link. But your obnoxiousness and bad manners decided me against that.
Click to expand...

Why respond at all if you won't address your comment? Again, we know why.
 
DA60 said:
Macroeconomic morons.
Click to expand...

yes does anybody really think socialism will grow an economy faster than conservative Republican capitalism?? Does anybody think that China switched to socialism to get the 8% growth it has been averaging? Thanks to liberals the debate is on a pre kindergarten level.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Right from the OP's report...

"The data underlined concerns that, after a long period of growth through globalization and reliance on global trade, governments are increasingly seeking to protect their own industries and promote domestic producers at the expense of foreign competitors."

In other words, nations looking at trade policy and trade condition have put strain on world trade growth forecasts.

Which has zilch to do with "Keynesian/Krugmanomics nonsense."
Click to expand...

The fact is that the current world economy is debt based, which is really not Keynesian, as Keynes really did not support deficit spending except for during recession.
It is also a fact that you cannot borrow your way to prosperity as a permanent economic policy. The entire world is too far in debt, and that debt is based on inflated asset values. Those debts are beyond the capacity of the borrowers to service, and to support growth simultaneously without artificial asset inflation and is therefore doomed to failure and collapse.

Asset values needed to be allowed to find their organic level in 2008 but were artificially inflated by the worlds central banks in order to protect their member banks.
The bail outs also caused a gigantic moral deficit in that it rewarded the bankers who created the 2008 crisis in the first place. This simply emboldened them to go back to the same criminal practices and expand their unethical practices as they had confidence the central banks would cover any crisis they created.

The problem is that now the problems are so bad that even the almighty central banks will be impotent to deal with the massive defaults, devaluations, and deflation that will soon be upon us.
 
jdog said:
The bail outs also caused a gigantic moral deficit.
Click to expand...

mostly they prevented a great depression that would have cost most people their jobs. There was little moral deficit since the money was paid back, many banks went bankrupt, and many shareholders were wiped out 100%.
Now do you understand?
 
James972 said:
mostly they prevented a great depression that would have cost most people their jobs. There was little moral deficit since the money was paid back, many banks went bankrupt, and many shareholders were wiped out 100%.
Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

If you believe that you probably believe in the Easter Bunny too..... They did not prevent the depression, they simply delayed it and insured it will be much worse when it finally occurs.
 
jdog said:
. They did not prevent the depression, they simply delayed it and insured it will be much worse when it finally occurs.
Click to expand...

Why will it be much worse given the banks are in much better shape than ever, the Fed has great experience now that it didn't have before, everyone is alert to bubbles, the really bad actors(some borrowers, banks, mortgage buyers) in the drama went bankrupt, and Dodd Frank is the new law designed to prevent another huge issue? Isn't learning fun?
 
jdog said:
This simply emboldened them to go back to the same criminal practices and expand their unethical practices as they had confidence the central banks would cover any crisis they created.
.
Click to expand...
totally stupid of course since 100 or so banks went bankrupt, the others learned the lesson, people all over the world are afraid of mortgage backed securities, the banks that survived like Bank Of America are worth about 15% of what they were before the crisis( this is going back to old practices?) and Dodd Frank makes it illegal to cover any crisis. You know nothing I'm afraid. Sorry to rock your world!!
 
James972 said:
Why will it be much worse given the banks are in much better shape than ever, the Fed has great experience now that it didn't have before, everyone is alert to bubbles, the really bad actors(some borrowers, banks, mortgage buyers) in the drama went bankrupt, and Dodd Frank is the new law designed to prevent another huge issue? Isn't learning fun?
Click to expand...

The banks are not in better shape. In addition the bail outs caused moral hazard within the system in which the people who caused the problems by their misdeeds were rewarded for doing wrong and encouraged to continue to continue the same practices that caused the problems to begin with. If you think we are not heading for crash then you are in for a rude awakening...
 
James972 said:
totally stupid of course since 100 or so banks went bankrupt, the others learned the lesson, people all over the world are afraid of mortgage backed securities, the banks that survived like Bank Of America are worth about 15% of what they were before the crisis( this is going back to old practices?) and Dodd Frank makes it illegal to cover any crisis. You know nothing I'm afraid. Sorry to rock your world!!
Click to expand...

I know enough to have profited from every crash since 1987, and I will profit from the one which is approaching. I simply attempt to give some facts to some people who choose to listen. I have no desire to attempt to change the minds of delusional people, I am not the Jackass Whisperer......
 
jdog said:
I know enough to have profited from every crash since 1987, and I will profit from the one which is approaching. I simply attempt to give some facts to some people who choose to listen. I have no desire to attempt to change the minds of delusional people, I am not the Jackass Whisperer......
Click to expand...

totally stupid of course to say new crisis is coming and will be worse given 100 or so banks went bankrupt, the survivors learned the lesson, people all over the world are afraid of mortgage backed securities, the banks that survived like Bank Of America are worth about 15% of what they were before the crisis( this is going back to old practices?) and Dodd Frank makes it illegal to bailout any crisis and helps assure that a new crisis cant happen. You know nothing I'm afraid. Sorry to rock your world!!
 
James972 said:
totally stupid of course to say new crisis is coming and will be worse given 100 or so banks went bankrupt, the survivors learned the lesson, people all over the world are afraid of mortgage backed securities, the banks that survived like Bank Of America are worth about 15% of what they were before the crisis( this is going back to old practices?) and Dodd Frank makes it illegal to bailout any crisis and helps assure that a new crisis cant happen. You know nothing I'm afraid. Sorry to rock your world!!
Click to expand...

Believe what you want. In the end, the value of your opinion can be measured by your financial success. Some of us have achieved that, but the mass majority of the people have not.
 
jdog said:
, the value of your opinion can be measured by your financial success. .
Click to expand...

so Taylor Swift should get a Nobel Prize for macroeconomics in your bizarro world???????????? Isn't thinking fun??
 
James972 said:
so Taylor Swift should get a Nobel Prize for macroeconomics in your bizarro world???????????? Isn't thinking fun??
Click to expand...

I am sure she could teach you a thing or two about making money....
 
jdog said:
I am sure she could teach you a thing or two about making money....
Click to expand...

how 100000% absurd given that she could not teach me to sing like she does and that she does not know word one about macroeconomics. 1+1=2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom