Thomas Jefferson's warning (Austrian view, absolutely.)
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Bubbles are created by greed and stupidity. It's a side effect of the market. Take the Dot-Com bubble for example... Everyone saw the Internet as the next big thing, and anyone with a Dot-Com idea would suddenly be a hot commodity. All of the venture capitalists scrambled to pour money into every twit with a website, and the more money they received, the more valuable they were (Perception is reality!). It went up and up and up with new startups and IPOs and more startups and more IPOs until FINALLY........ A lot of people paused a moment... They looked around... They said to themselves, "You know, none of these idiots are making us any money." And what did they do? They sold. The stock prices started to level off, and everyone who owned stock decided, "Well, had a good run! Time to cash out!" More sells, more prices dropped, more people sold... Crash. That had NOTHING to do with the Federal Reserve or the money supply.
I agree with much of this. Until the very last sentence. The Fed was involved in lowering interest rates in that sector, therefore helping those new startups get extra cash if needed. When they couldn't pay them back because the stocks were being sold, there came a time when the interest rates rose, and the businesses went bankrupt ALONG WITH the fact that the stocks were being sold. All of it comes together. Yes, it had nothing to do with the money supply... except the fact that the Fed lowered and raised rates, telling the banks to do the same.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now, the current crisis is much the same thing... The difference comes from the factor that initiates the greed and stupidity. Interest rates were falling, so loans were getting cheaper. Money was cheap, and the banks were greedy and wanted to capitalize on that. They started issuing as many loans as possible, wanting to take advantage of the cheap money while they had the opportunity. It got more complicated than this, with rating agencies doing stupid and greedy things as well, but that's basically how it started. Well, the interest rates went back up, as anyone with any economic sense KNEW they would do... Loans defaulted... Crash. So the CURRENT one is connected to the interest rates, but that doesn't imply that every bubble is the fault of the Federal Reserve.
No of course not. Except the fact that the Fed wants to inflate the money supply so that the banks will loan..
josda1000 wrote:
The Fed was involved in lowering interest rates in that sector, therefore helping those new startups get extra cash if needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble[^][^] Rates were relatively steady[^] (1995), maxing out at 6% and only dropping to 4.75%, and rose predictably after '98... That's what the Fed always does to moderate the economy. The problem came in 2000 when people started selling off, realizing that these startups were never going to make any money. That bubble was fueled by speculation, not interest rates.
josda1000 wrote:
No of course not. Except the fact that the Fed wants to inflate the money supply so that the banks will loan... but they're not. Which will kill us in the end.
So is the Fed supposed to ORDER the banks to make loans? Anyway, if all of that extra money is just gathering dust, then it's not contributing to inflation. The value of currency is based on the amount being used, not the amount hidden away. Value is determined by availability, not existence. Look at fine art... There was an article a short time ago about one of the few remaining Picassos on the market, fetching an absolutely ridiculous sum of money (Around $100 million)... It sold for that much NOT because of how many exist, but because of how many can be bought. The vast majority of classical art is held by museums, not private collectors, and very unlikely to go back on the market. If someone suddenly found a hundred new Picasso paintings and put them on the market, the value would drop significantly. If that someone instead donated them to a museum, it would have little to no effect on the existing, privately-owned paintings. In fact, a lot of rich people are investing in art, because it's steadily growing in value. As more pieces are donated or willed to museums, the remaining privately-owned ones become more valuable.
Proud to have finally moved to th
-
josda1000 wrote:
I'm not sure if she was either, but I do know that the business was never built on the land, but her house was demolished. All for nothing.
Well, that bites.
josda1000 wrote:
But wasn't I the one to say that one should read all media outlets for opposing views?
Media outlets have little to do with this. I meant more that one should read some economics books to understand the debate that exists where you claim there is none
josda1000 wrote:
The only reason why there isn't a conclusion, after about 200 years of debate, is because people don't want to understand the truth.
Well, that's an arrogant assumption. You have the truth, but a body of professional economics just don't want to understand what you do ?
josda1000 wrote:
I've been doing research on this stuff for quite some time, and let me tell you, there was an overwhelming consensus at one point, and then the 1860s happened.
At one point the overwhelming consensus was that the world was flat.
josda1000 wrote:
Disagreed. What they should have done was look at history, and they'd see that everytime a central bank gets involved in the monetary business, SHTF.
The central bank had nothing to do with it. People were sent to make farms and they killed the native grass, which created the conditions for the grass bowl. That's the degree to which government was involved, and guilty of something.
josda1000 wrote:
Wow, here's a big misconception. The people ARE the markets! They are the ones figuring out what the best product is, and they go after it.
That's a bizarre view. So, the old woman on the bus, who has barely enough to eat, and has never owned stocks, should care more about the long term health of the stock market than if she eats tonight ?
josda1000 wrote:
If you blame stock markets, fine.
I am saying, the government acts to push markets in directions that will help ordinary people, more so than in directions to help people invested in the stock market.
josda1000 wrote:
Isn't that what the market is all about, people getting together to
Christian Graus wrote:
Media outlets have little to do with this. I meant more that one should read some economics books to understand the debate that exists where you claim there is none
Explain how I claimed this. If we are having a debate on such a matter, how can I claim "the debate is over", as Gore loves to say? As to economic books, I've got three, and read plenty. Thanks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that's an arrogant assumption. You have the truth, but a body of professional economics just don't want to understand what you do ?
What it comes down to is an understanding of history. In order to understand economics, you have to understand the history that goes with it. It's not just about the charts, it's politics as well, unfortunately. I realize that the way I put it was arrogant, but I should have expanded. People do not want to understand the truth learn (how dumbed down is our population today?!), therefore they do not understand history, therefore totally misunderstanding what they think they know of economics.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: I've been doing research on this stuff for quite some time, and let me tell you, there was an overwhelming consensus at one point, and then the 1860s happened. At one point the overwhelming consensus was that the world was flat.
True. But think of some simple example: We are amazed that thousands of years ago, the Egyptians could build pyramids in short amounts of time, with tons of blocks and they'd be taller than some of our skyscrapers, and so precise that even some of our computers couldn't be that precise. That knowledge was not passed on. Now we talk about simple economic thought, not passed on only 4 generations. Yes, we know the world is not flat. Yes, it's not the center of the solar system. But if we don't know the cause and effect of depressions, something that is truly ancient knowledge, then yes, there's a problem. There's a natural order for us to be enlightened, and then in the dark. Just like booms and busts.
Christian Graus wrote:
That's a bizarre view. So, the old woman on the bus, who has barely enough to eat, and has never owned stocks, should care more about the long term health of the stock market than if she eats tonight ?
T
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Media outlets have little to do with this. I meant more that one should read some economics books to understand the debate that exists where you claim there is none
Explain how I claimed this. If we are having a debate on such a matter, how can I claim "the debate is over", as Gore loves to say? As to economic books, I've got three, and read plenty. Thanks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that's an arrogant assumption. You have the truth, but a body of professional economics just don't want to understand what you do ?
What it comes down to is an understanding of history. In order to understand economics, you have to understand the history that goes with it. It's not just about the charts, it's politics as well, unfortunately. I realize that the way I put it was arrogant, but I should have expanded. People do not want to understand the truth learn (how dumbed down is our population today?!), therefore they do not understand history, therefore totally misunderstanding what they think they know of economics.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: I've been doing research on this stuff for quite some time, and let me tell you, there was an overwhelming consensus at one point, and then the 1860s happened. At one point the overwhelming consensus was that the world was flat.
True. But think of some simple example: We are amazed that thousands of years ago, the Egyptians could build pyramids in short amounts of time, with tons of blocks and they'd be taller than some of our skyscrapers, and so precise that even some of our computers couldn't be that precise. That knowledge was not passed on. Now we talk about simple economic thought, not passed on only 4 generations. Yes, we know the world is not flat. Yes, it's not the center of the solar system. But if we don't know the cause and effect of depressions, something that is truly ancient knowledge, then yes, there's a problem. There's a natural order for us to be enlightened, and then in the dark. Just like booms and busts.
Christian Graus wrote:
That's a bizarre view. So, the old woman on the bus, who has barely enough to eat, and has never owned stocks, should care more about the long term health of the stock market than if she eats tonight ?
T
josda1000 wrote:
Explain how I claimed this. If we are having a debate on such a matter, how can I claim "the debate is over", as Gore loves to say?
By making absolute statements of fact where no consensus exists.
josda1000 wrote:
As to economic books, I've got three, and read plenty. Thanks.
Do any of them oppose your point of view ?
josda1000 wrote:
People do not want to understand the truth learn (how dumbed down is our population today?!), therefore they do not understand history, therefore totally misunderstanding what they think they know of economics.
If you mean the general population, then you're probably mostly right.
josda1000 wrote:
True. But think of some simple example: We are amazed that thousands of years ago, the Egyptians could build pyramids in short amounts of time, with tons of blocks and they'd be taller than some of our skyscrapers, and so precise that even some of our computers couldn't be that precise.
So, you can think of examples that support your claim, and that's fine. My point stands. That we agreed on something 150 years ago, does not mean we devolved in our thoughts to no longer agree now.
josda1000 wrote:
So if I am not in stocks, there's a deflationary effect on the market. If I buy 100 shares of Goldman, then there's an inflationary effect in the financial sector.
And if I'm starving, I don't give a damn about the market or the financial sector.
josda1000 wrote:
If you don't want stocks, fine! Neither do I! lol I want food! I want clothing! I also want silver, but that's my own thing!
I have a good number of stocks. It's not the point. We've deviated far from my point. My point is that in a depression, the government cares more about saving lives than saving markets, as it should.
josda1000 wrote:
Thanks, and your dark view of people is disturbing, while your view of government is even more disturbing. But enough with the hash talk lol
*grin* I am actually a pretty happy and positive person. At least, I think I am.
josda1000 wrote:
Again, be more specific. If you are only talking about
-
josda1000 wrote:
Explain how I claimed this. If we are having a debate on such a matter, how can I claim "the debate is over", as Gore loves to say?
By making absolute statements of fact where no consensus exists.
josda1000 wrote:
As to economic books, I've got three, and read plenty. Thanks.
Do any of them oppose your point of view ?
josda1000 wrote:
People do not want to understand the truth learn (how dumbed down is our population today?!), therefore they do not understand history, therefore totally misunderstanding what they think they know of economics.
If you mean the general population, then you're probably mostly right.
josda1000 wrote:
True. But think of some simple example: We are amazed that thousands of years ago, the Egyptians could build pyramids in short amounts of time, with tons of blocks and they'd be taller than some of our skyscrapers, and so precise that even some of our computers couldn't be that precise.
So, you can think of examples that support your claim, and that's fine. My point stands. That we agreed on something 150 years ago, does not mean we devolved in our thoughts to no longer agree now.
josda1000 wrote:
So if I am not in stocks, there's a deflationary effect on the market. If I buy 100 shares of Goldman, then there's an inflationary effect in the financial sector.
And if I'm starving, I don't give a damn about the market or the financial sector.
josda1000 wrote:
If you don't want stocks, fine! Neither do I! lol I want food! I want clothing! I also want silver, but that's my own thing!
I have a good number of stocks. It's not the point. We've deviated far from my point. My point is that in a depression, the government cares more about saving lives than saving markets, as it should.
josda1000 wrote:
Thanks, and your dark view of people is disturbing, while your view of government is even more disturbing. But enough with the hash talk lol
*grin* I am actually a pretty happy and positive person. At least, I think I am.
josda1000 wrote:
Again, be more specific. If you are only talking about
I have Keynes' "ultimate book" The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Most of it I highly disagree with, for obvious reasons.
Christian Graus wrote:
I have a good number of stocks. It's not the point. We've deviated far from my point. My point is that in a depression, the government cares more about saving lives than saving markets, as it should.
And my point was, that it should care about the markets, because markets drive the economy, helping the average man much more than handouts stolen from some people by governments to give to other people.
Christian Graus wrote:
*grin* I am actually a pretty happy and positive person. At least, I think I am.
I don't know you well enough to know lol
Christian Graus wrote:
Not at all. I started a company that did not list. But, I thought we were talking about bubbles in stocks, and government interference in the stock market.
See, that's the problem. Bubbles can occur in any market... as you said, with supply and demand. It's the same concept.
Christian Graus wrote:
The only problem is that the customer is not always served, they are often defrauded. Which is why some government regulation is needed. Yes, only a few commit fraud, by and large. I suspect more did when there was less regulation, proving my point.
That doesn't prove a point when you just 'suspect' something. Find the facts. As to, "The only problem is that the customer is not always served, they are often defrauded.", "always" and "often" are two very different words. Please reiterate. And the reason why this "liberty movement" is continuing is because there is way too much "law and legislation" out there. It's ridiculous. People my age see this and are scared to death to even bother starting a business to try to fit in all the loopholes of the regulations. I'd love to start a business, but why bother when there's such a great chance of being taken to court over any one law you miss?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
The Fed was involved in lowering interest rates in that sector, therefore helping those new startups get extra cash if needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble[^][^] Rates were relatively steady[^] (1995), maxing out at 6% and only dropping to 4.75%, and rose predictably after '98... That's what the Fed always does to moderate the economy. The problem came in 2000 when people started selling off, realizing that these startups were never going to make any money. That bubble was fueled by speculation, not interest rates.
josda1000 wrote:
No of course not. Except the fact that the Fed wants to inflate the money supply so that the banks will loan... but they're not. Which will kill us in the end.
So is the Fed supposed to ORDER the banks to make loans? Anyway, if all of that extra money is just gathering dust, then it's not contributing to inflation. The value of currency is based on the amount being used, not the amount hidden away. Value is determined by availability, not existence. Look at fine art... There was an article a short time ago about one of the few remaining Picassos on the market, fetching an absolutely ridiculous sum of money (Around $100 million)... It sold for that much NOT because of how many exist, but because of how many can be bought. The vast majority of classical art is held by museums, not private collectors, and very unlikely to go back on the market. If someone suddenly found a hundred new Picasso paintings and put them on the market, the value would drop significantly. If that someone instead donated them to a museum, it would have little to no effect on the existing, privately-owned paintings. In fact, a lot of rich people are investing in art, because it's steadily growing in value. As more pieces are donated or willed to museums, the remaining privately-owned ones become more valuable.
Proud to have finally moved to th
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Rates were relatively steady[^] (1995), maxing out at 6% and only dropping to 4.75%, and rose predictably after '98...
Time to debunk this one. Take a look at your chart again. Yes, it seems "relatively steady". But step through that one at a time, and imagine being a bank. When you get to September of 1992, you see a trend of AT LEAST 2 years (we don't have all of the data on that one chart, though I'm sure it's on the site) of interest rates going south. This in effect means that banks will lend out without being good lenders, and checking the customer's payment history and indebtedness and the like. This is commonly referred to as "cheap money". Then for a year (Feb '94 to Feb '95), rates go up, and banks become (relatively) sane lenders again. Reason being, they need to make sure that they can pay the interest on the loans back to the Federal Reserve banks. '95. Bubble occurs. Why is that? Take a look at the chart. Interest rates start heading south again. Lending becomes more available. Speculation arises in the internet sector, because cheap money is available through banks. Banks speculate along with the speculators. I realize there was one jump in the interest rate in '97, but that was only once and changed only by a quarter of a point. Interest continue to fall until the end of '98. Then what? It rises. In '99. Banks need to be more careful, and pay back the interest on loans. Easy money becomes unavailable because they need to be more careful, so their loans get paid back through raising the interest rates they make on THEIR loans. Speculation decreases for this reason, and the bubble bursts. Take a harder look at the rates. If you can prove me wrong here, tell me.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
The Fed was involved in lowering interest rates in that sector, therefore helping those new startups get extra cash if needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble[^][^] Rates were relatively steady[^] (1995), maxing out at 6% and only dropping to 4.75%, and rose predictably after '98... That's what the Fed always does to moderate the economy. The problem came in 2000 when people started selling off, realizing that these startups were never going to make any money. That bubble was fueled by speculation, not interest rates.
josda1000 wrote:
No of course not. Except the fact that the Fed wants to inflate the money supply so that the banks will loan... but they're not. Which will kill us in the end.
So is the Fed supposed to ORDER the banks to make loans? Anyway, if all of that extra money is just gathering dust, then it's not contributing to inflation. The value of currency is based on the amount being used, not the amount hidden away. Value is determined by availability, not existence. Look at fine art... There was an article a short time ago about one of the few remaining Picassos on the market, fetching an absolutely ridiculous sum of money (Around $100 million)... It sold for that much NOT because of how many exist, but because of how many can be bought. The vast majority of classical art is held by museums, not private collectors, and very unlikely to go back on the market. If someone suddenly found a hundred new Picasso paintings and put them on the market, the value would drop significantly. If that someone instead donated them to a museum, it would have little to no effect on the existing, privately-owned paintings. In fact, a lot of rich people are investing in art, because it's steadily growing in value. As more pieces are donated or willed to museums, the remaining privately-owned ones become more valuable.
Proud to have finally moved to th
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So is the Fed supposed to ORDER the banks to make loans? Anyway, if all of that extra money is just gathering dust, then it's not contributing to inflation. The value of currency is based on the amount being used, not the amount hidden away. Value is determined by availability, not existence.
Technically that is correct, but when people see the money supply being expanded, even though it is not circulated, people will try to do something to hedge against (possible or likely) inflation (see Gold and other prices). (note: I know some people buy Gold not because they're hedging against inflation but some do.) If every sectors of the economy hedges against inflation, then it feels like there is inflation. For ordinary people, they don't care about the definition of inflation. All they care about is this, if I've $50 this week and I bought this amount of goods/services, and 1, 2, 3 or 6 months from now, I can only bug 80% or 90% of the goods/services with the same amount of money, it is inflation to them.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Rates were relatively steady[^] (1995), maxing out at 6% and only dropping to 4.75%, and rose predictably after '98...
Time to debunk this one. Take a look at your chart again. Yes, it seems "relatively steady". But step through that one at a time, and imagine being a bank. When you get to September of 1992, you see a trend of AT LEAST 2 years (we don't have all of the data on that one chart, though I'm sure it's on the site) of interest rates going south. This in effect means that banks will lend out without being good lenders, and checking the customer's payment history and indebtedness and the like. This is commonly referred to as "cheap money". Then for a year (Feb '94 to Feb '95), rates go up, and banks become (relatively) sane lenders again. Reason being, they need to make sure that they can pay the interest on the loans back to the Federal Reserve banks. '95. Bubble occurs. Why is that? Take a look at the chart. Interest rates start heading south again. Lending becomes more available. Speculation arises in the internet sector, because cheap money is available through banks. Banks speculate along with the speculators. I realize there was one jump in the interest rate in '97, but that was only once and changed only by a quarter of a point. Interest continue to fall until the end of '98. Then what? It rises. In '99. Banks need to be more careful, and pay back the interest on loans. Easy money becomes unavailable because they need to be more careful, so their loans get paid back through raising the interest rates they make on THEIR loans. Speculation decreases for this reason, and the bubble bursts. Take a harder look at the rates. If you can prove me wrong here, tell me.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
'95. Bubble occurs. Why is that? Take a look at the chart. Interest rates start heading south again. Lending becomes more available. Speculation arises in the internet sector, because cheap money is available through banks. Banks speculate along with the speculators.
Except banks don't just see two downward points and assume it'll continue. There are lots and lots of analysts who make a lot of money predicting things like this. Actually, I'd like to see what the rate futures looked like before each of those announcements, as those can be indicators of whether the rate changes were what the market was expecting.
josda1000 wrote:
Interest continue to fall until the end of '98. Then what? It rises. In '99. Banks need to be more careful, and pay back the interest on loans. Easy money becomes unavailable because they need to be more careful, so their loans get paid back through raising the interest rates they make on THEIR loans. Speculation decreases for this reason, and the bubble bursts.
The bubble didn't burst until a year later. Interest rates started rising again in June '99, while the bubble burst in March '00. You might be right to say that the rising interest rates encouraged companies to look a little closer at what they were financing. Then they would have noticed how stupid their investments were, and popped the bubble. Now that I think about it along those lines, though... What might have happened if the Fed has NOT increased interest rates? I think it's likely that the market would have gone quite a bit higher before people finally realized that companies that don't make money aren't worth anything. The bubble would have popped eventually, and the bigger it was, the more painful the downturn would have been. I'll concede that the interest rates were related, but not that they were the root cause of the bubble. In fact, I wonder if the rate increase may have been done intentionally to minimize the pain, and turn a possible depression into a minor recession.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So is the Fed supposed to ORDER the banks to make loans? Anyway, if all of that extra money is just gathering dust, then it's not contributing to inflation. The value of currency is based on the amount being used, not the amount hidden away. Value is determined by availability, not existence.
Technically that is correct, but when people see the money supply being expanded, even though it is not circulated, people will try to do something to hedge against (possible or likely) inflation (see Gold and other prices). (note: I know some people buy Gold not because they're hedging against inflation but some do.) If every sectors of the economy hedges against inflation, then it feels like there is inflation. For ordinary people, they don't care about the definition of inflation. All they care about is this, if I've $50 this week and I bought this amount of goods/services, and 1, 2, 3 or 6 months from now, I can only bug 80% or 90% of the goods/services with the same amount of money, it is inflation to them.
Fair enough, but that isn't going to have NEARLY the inflationary effect that actually circulating that currency would have.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
josda1000 wrote:
'95. Bubble occurs. Why is that? Take a look at the chart. Interest rates start heading south again. Lending becomes more available. Speculation arises in the internet sector, because cheap money is available through banks. Banks speculate along with the speculators.
Except banks don't just see two downward points and assume it'll continue. There are lots and lots of analysts who make a lot of money predicting things like this. Actually, I'd like to see what the rate futures looked like before each of those announcements, as those can be indicators of whether the rate changes were what the market was expecting.
josda1000 wrote:
Interest continue to fall until the end of '98. Then what? It rises. In '99. Banks need to be more careful, and pay back the interest on loans. Easy money becomes unavailable because they need to be more careful, so their loans get paid back through raising the interest rates they make on THEIR loans. Speculation decreases for this reason, and the bubble bursts.
The bubble didn't burst until a year later. Interest rates started rising again in June '99, while the bubble burst in March '00. You might be right to say that the rising interest rates encouraged companies to look a little closer at what they were financing. Then they would have noticed how stupid their investments were, and popped the bubble. Now that I think about it along those lines, though... What might have happened if the Fed has NOT increased interest rates? I think it's likely that the market would have gone quite a bit higher before people finally realized that companies that don't make money aren't worth anything. The bubble would have popped eventually, and the bigger it was, the more painful the downturn would have been. I'll concede that the interest rates were related, but not that they were the root cause of the bubble. In fact, I wonder if the rate increase may have been done intentionally to minimize the pain, and turn a possible depression into a minor recession.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except banks don't just see two downward points and assume it'll continue. There are lots and lots of analysts who make a lot of money predicting things like this. Actually, I'd like to see what the rate futures looked like before each of those announcements, as those can be indicators of whether the rate changes were what the market was expecting.
I can understand that, however, that doesn't change the banks lending practices. Speculators will practice with what they have... and if they don't have the money to spend with, how can they speculate?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The bubble didn't burst until a year later. Interest rates started rising again in June '99, while the bubble burst in March '00. You might be right to say that the rising interest rates encouraged companies to look a little closer at what they were financing. Then they would have noticed how stupid their investments were, and popped the bubble.
Now you've got it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What might have happened if the Fed has NOT increased interest rates? I think it's likely that the market would have gone quite a bit higher before people finally realized that companies that don't make money aren't worth anything. The bubble would have popped eventually, and the bigger it was, the more painful the downturn would have been.
Now you're thinking the way I think. Precisely.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'll concede that the interest rates were related, but not that they were the root cause of the bubble.
At least you WERE on the right track lol
Ian Shlasko wrote:
In fact, I wonder if the rate increase may have been done intentionally to minimize the pain, and turn a possible depression into a minor recession.
Interesting theory... and I may agree actually. They may have saw that if they continued this low interest rate, more artificial speculation may have continued, so they popped the bubble on purpose. I'll take that as a good theory.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except banks don't just see two downward points and assume it'll continue. There are lots and lots of analysts who make a lot of money predicting things like this. Actually, I'd like to see what the rate futures looked like before each of those announcements, as those can be indicators of whether the rate changes were what the market was expecting.
I can understand that, however, that doesn't change the banks lending practices. Speculators will practice with what they have... and if they don't have the money to spend with, how can they speculate?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The bubble didn't burst until a year later. Interest rates started rising again in June '99, while the bubble burst in March '00. You might be right to say that the rising interest rates encouraged companies to look a little closer at what they were financing. Then they would have noticed how stupid their investments were, and popped the bubble.
Now you've got it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What might have happened if the Fed has NOT increased interest rates? I think it's likely that the market would have gone quite a bit higher before people finally realized that companies that don't make money aren't worth anything. The bubble would have popped eventually, and the bigger it was, the more painful the downturn would have been.
Now you're thinking the way I think. Precisely.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'll concede that the interest rates were related, but not that they were the root cause of the bubble.
At least you WERE on the right track lol
Ian Shlasko wrote:
In fact, I wonder if the rate increase may have been done intentionally to minimize the pain, and turn a possible depression into a minor recession.
Interesting theory... and I may agree actually. They may have saw that if they continued this low interest rate, more artificial speculation may have continued, so they popped the bubble on purpose. I'll take that as a good theory.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Interesting theory... and I may agree actually. They may have saw that if they continued this low interest rate, more artificial speculation may have continued, so they popped the bubble on purpose. I'll take that as a good theory.
But see, it wasn't the low interest rate that caused the bubble (Funny to talk about 5% as low, when we're now below 1%). It was plain old human stupidity. People saw value when there was none, because they didn't understand this new-spangled Intarwebs thing. The low interest rate encouraged them to invest, but THEY chose WHERE to invest. If instead of the Internet, they had used those low rates to invest in something more profitable and likely to succeed, the Internet bubble wouldn't have happened. So the rate didn't cause the bubble. It was only a prerequisite. As an analogy... Someone buys a rifle and shoots his wife. The gun shop owner isn't to blame for the crime, as that gun could have been used for hunting to feed the guy's family, but it wouldn't have happened (At least not the same way) if the rifle wasn't available. So the Fed provides the low interest rates, but it's not their fault people used them to make stupid investments.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
josda1000 wrote:
Interesting theory... and I may agree actually. They may have saw that if they continued this low interest rate, more artificial speculation may have continued, so they popped the bubble on purpose. I'll take that as a good theory.
But see, it wasn't the low interest rate that caused the bubble (Funny to talk about 5% as low, when we're now below 1%). It was plain old human stupidity. People saw value when there was none, because they didn't understand this new-spangled Intarwebs thing. The low interest rate encouraged them to invest, but THEY chose WHERE to invest. If instead of the Internet, they had used those low rates to invest in something more profitable and likely to succeed, the Internet bubble wouldn't have happened. So the rate didn't cause the bubble. It was only a prerequisite. As an analogy... Someone buys a rifle and shoots his wife. The gun shop owner isn't to blame for the crime, as that gun could have been used for hunting to feed the guy's family, but it wouldn't have happened (At least not the same way) if the rifle wasn't available. So the Fed provides the low interest rates, but it's not their fault people used them to make stupid investments.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
So the rate didn't cause the bubble. It was only a prerequisite.
Definition of Prerequisite: Something that is prerequisite, as a course that is required prior to taking an advanced course. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prerequisite[^] It may not be the whole cause, but it is necessarily PART of the cause. You're seriously on the right track, but think of the whole picture. You do and have conceded that it may be part of the failure, but make sure you keep that in the back of your mind. The cause is twofold: lower interest rates at the Fed, plus speculators being stupid. But that's the problem: When the days are better and the banks are lending out easier money, people will definitely jump into the pot to see if they can come up with more gold. It is necessary to make this assumption, because we know how people can be narrow minded and think of themselves. "Oh! I can get a lower interest rate on my loan! Let me go use the easy money to get richer!" But then, when lending becomes tough, they MUST be cautious. This is precisely why the Fed is the creator of the boom and bust cycle. Yes. It's a prerequisite. And in my opinion, THE prerequisite.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As an analogy... Someone buys a rifle and shoots his wife. The gun shop owner isn't to blame for the crime, as that gun could have been used for hunting to feed the guy's family, but it wouldn't have happened (At least not the same way) if the rifle wasn't available.
Agreed! 100%! Now if we did NOT have a Federal Reserve, nobody would be able to create such violent booms and busts. Why are you helping my point? Did I convert you already? I mean I understand that point, and it's a valid argument. However, you are talking about the principle behind the government entity vs a private entity (gun shop). And this is where we differ. The gun owner can do what he wants and go to any store he wants. The gun shops should also have the capacity to know which people to sell to (there are always lame shops that sell to anyone, and nevermind a black market). But when we speak of a public entity (central bank), nobody has a choice in the matter, because it's considered "public policy". This is the inherent problem. If we had multiple banks d
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So the rate didn't cause the bubble. It was only a prerequisite.
Definition of Prerequisite: Something that is prerequisite, as a course that is required prior to taking an advanced course. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prerequisite[^] It may not be the whole cause, but it is necessarily PART of the cause. You're seriously on the right track, but think of the whole picture. You do and have conceded that it may be part of the failure, but make sure you keep that in the back of your mind. The cause is twofold: lower interest rates at the Fed, plus speculators being stupid. But that's the problem: When the days are better and the banks are lending out easier money, people will definitely jump into the pot to see if they can come up with more gold. It is necessary to make this assumption, because we know how people can be narrow minded and think of themselves. "Oh! I can get a lower interest rate on my loan! Let me go use the easy money to get richer!" But then, when lending becomes tough, they MUST be cautious. This is precisely why the Fed is the creator of the boom and bust cycle. Yes. It's a prerequisite. And in my opinion, THE prerequisite.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As an analogy... Someone buys a rifle and shoots his wife. The gun shop owner isn't to blame for the crime, as that gun could have been used for hunting to feed the guy's family, but it wouldn't have happened (At least not the same way) if the rifle wasn't available.
Agreed! 100%! Now if we did NOT have a Federal Reserve, nobody would be able to create such violent booms and busts. Why are you helping my point? Did I convert you already? I mean I understand that point, and it's a valid argument. However, you are talking about the principle behind the government entity vs a private entity (gun shop). And this is where we differ. The gun owner can do what he wants and go to any store he wants. The gun shops should also have the capacity to know which people to sell to (there are always lame shops that sell to anyone, and nevermind a black market). But when we speak of a public entity (central bank), nobody has a choice in the matter, because it's considered "public policy". This is the inherent problem. If we had multiple banks d
josda1000 wrote:
It may not be the whole cause, but it is necessarily PART of the cause. You're seriously on the right track, but think of the whole picture. You do and have conceded that it may be part of the failure, but make sure you keep that in the back of your mind.
I conceded that they're RELATED. Don't put words in my mouth :) What I'm trying to say is that the low interest rates, i.e. a favorable lending situation, was necessary to initiate the bubble. Whether those rates were set by the Fed, or through free market operations, the situation would be the same. Even in your ideal world of fiat currency, there would still be a prevailing interest rate that would fluctuate with the economy. It would just be decided collectively, instead of manipulated by the central bank. Though, I wonder how the interest rates would react without a central bank... I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with non-Keynesian economics, but I would think that the bubble would have kept growing until people realized that the profits just weren't there. THEN the interest rates would have gone up as the lenders realized they weren't going to recoup their investments. It would have been MORE painful because it would have gone on longer before bursting...
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed! 100%! Now if we did NOT have a Federal Reserve, nobody would be able to create such violent booms and busts. Why are you helping my point? Did I convert you already?
The interest rates would be there with or without the Fed... SOMEONE is going to be selling the guns. Again, the factor here is the low interest rate, not the entity that sets it (Fed or free market).
josda1000 wrote:
If we had multiple banks dishing out currencies of their own (hard metal, paper, whatever), if a bust happens like this, at least it's limited in scope. In the case of 2008 and 2000, a whole market is effected, because it all comes down to one business.
You think every bank should have its own currency? That'd be utterly chaotic... Their value would fluctuate relative to each other, and it'd be ridiculously hard to do any kind of business on a national scale. Or if you mean they should all be based on fixed currency... Well, that's another debate entirely.
josda1000 wrote:
So my case is threefold: 1: Fiat currency 2: Fractional reserve b
-
josda1000 wrote:
It may not be the whole cause, but it is necessarily PART of the cause. You're seriously on the right track, but think of the whole picture. You do and have conceded that it may be part of the failure, but make sure you keep that in the back of your mind.
I conceded that they're RELATED. Don't put words in my mouth :) What I'm trying to say is that the low interest rates, i.e. a favorable lending situation, was necessary to initiate the bubble. Whether those rates were set by the Fed, or through free market operations, the situation would be the same. Even in your ideal world of fiat currency, there would still be a prevailing interest rate that would fluctuate with the economy. It would just be decided collectively, instead of manipulated by the central bank. Though, I wonder how the interest rates would react without a central bank... I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with non-Keynesian economics, but I would think that the bubble would have kept growing until people realized that the profits just weren't there. THEN the interest rates would have gone up as the lenders realized they weren't going to recoup their investments. It would have been MORE painful because it would have gone on longer before bursting...
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed! 100%! Now if we did NOT have a Federal Reserve, nobody would be able to create such violent booms and busts. Why are you helping my point? Did I convert you already?
The interest rates would be there with or without the Fed... SOMEONE is going to be selling the guns. Again, the factor here is the low interest rate, not the entity that sets it (Fed or free market).
josda1000 wrote:
If we had multiple banks dishing out currencies of their own (hard metal, paper, whatever), if a bust happens like this, at least it's limited in scope. In the case of 2008 and 2000, a whole market is effected, because it all comes down to one business.
You think every bank should have its own currency? That'd be utterly chaotic... Their value would fluctuate relative to each other, and it'd be ridiculously hard to do any kind of business on a national scale. Or if you mean they should all be based on fixed currency... Well, that's another debate entirely.
josda1000 wrote:
So my case is threefold: 1: Fiat currency 2: Fractional reserve b
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I conceded that they're RELATED. Don't put words in my mouth Smile
lol I won't mention the image I just got.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that the low interest rates, i.e. a favorable lending situation, was necessary to initiate the bubble. Whether those rates were set by the Fed, or through free market operations, the situation would be the same.
What free market operations are you referring to exactly?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Even in your ideal world of fiat currency, there would still be a prevailing interest rate that would fluctuate with the economy.
Please explain my ideal world of fiat currency. I thought I've been touting the idea of hard money? So you'll have to clarify in order for me to retort to this sentence. As I seem to do with every fucking sentence and I'm annoying myself lol
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Though, I wonder how the interest rates would react without a central bank... I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with non-Keynesian economics, but I would think that the bubble would have kept growing until people realized that the profits just weren't there.
I can understand this. I'd agree with it as well. But just remember that you really are only thinking about the stock market and thinking only of the graphs. You should remember to always invest in companies in both sides, growth companies and value companies. Just sayin. Gotta look at the fundamentals.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
THEN the interest rates would have gone up as the lenders realized they weren't going to recoup their investments.
No, I don't think so. In a free economy, the interest rates would go DOWN in this situation, in order to get more people to borrow. Wouldn't you want to attract more people to the bank, and raise demand for your product? Conversely, interest rates will go UP in order to profit off people getting into the game, especially if you're in high demand.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It would have been MORE painful because it would have gone on longer before bursting...
With your point debated, please rethink this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You think every bank sho
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I conceded that they're RELATED. Don't put words in my mouth Smile
lol I won't mention the image I just got.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that the low interest rates, i.e. a favorable lending situation, was necessary to initiate the bubble. Whether those rates were set by the Fed, or through free market operations, the situation would be the same.
What free market operations are you referring to exactly?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Even in your ideal world of fiat currency, there would still be a prevailing interest rate that would fluctuate with the economy.
Please explain my ideal world of fiat currency. I thought I've been touting the idea of hard money? So you'll have to clarify in order for me to retort to this sentence. As I seem to do with every fucking sentence and I'm annoying myself lol
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Though, I wonder how the interest rates would react without a central bank... I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with non-Keynesian economics, but I would think that the bubble would have kept growing until people realized that the profits just weren't there.
I can understand this. I'd agree with it as well. But just remember that you really are only thinking about the stock market and thinking only of the graphs. You should remember to always invest in companies in both sides, growth companies and value companies. Just sayin. Gotta look at the fundamentals.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
THEN the interest rates would have gone up as the lenders realized they weren't going to recoup their investments.
No, I don't think so. In a free economy, the interest rates would go DOWN in this situation, in order to get more people to borrow. Wouldn't you want to attract more people to the bank, and raise demand for your product? Conversely, interest rates will go UP in order to profit off people getting into the game, especially if you're in high demand.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It would have been MORE painful because it would have gone on longer before bursting...
With your point debated, please rethink this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You think every bank sho
josda1000 wrote:
What free market operations are you referring to exactly?
With your philosophy, the average lending rate would be determined by the free market. Supply and demand and competition would cause the market to eventually "settle" on an average lending rate that reflects the economic situation. It wouldn't be an enforced rate, but just like the price of, say, a loaf of bread, it would eventually stabilize to a certain number. As the situation changed (Wars here and abroad, weather affecting crops and tourism, natural disasters, political changes, businesses growing and failing), this rate would fluctuate, just as it does now.
josda1000 wrote:
No, I don't think so. In a free economy, the interest rates would go DOWN in this situation, in order to get more people to borrow. Wouldn't you want to attract more people to the bank, and raise demand for your product? Conversely, interest rates will go UP in order to profit off people getting into the game, especially if you're in high demand.
Think about this... You're running a bank, and you're selling loans. The more risky your investment is, the more interest you have to charge to counter that. If the economy is getting to the point where lending is more risky, you're going to give less loans, perhaps investing in blue-chips instead. The supply of lenders goes down... Demand becomes greater than supply, so rates go up.
josda1000 wrote:
To continue the point, fractional reserve banking, according to libertarians, is fraud by definition. This is because the banks do not have all deposits on hand, as opposed to its original reason to be created in the first place.
How is it fraud? It would say right in the contract, when you open an account, that your money will be used to generate profits for the bank. It's only fraud if they claim that they won't be doing that. They were originally created just to keep your money safe from robbery... Now their purpose has changed a bit. If the full reserve system became popular again, fine... The people would be able to choose.
josda1000 wrote:
Disagreed. If my assumption is correct, (looking back at the depression of 1920, great depression, crashes of 2000 and 2008), then they are actually causing a harsher and longer crash than the market could create on its own.
I
-
josda1000 wrote:
What free market operations are you referring to exactly?
With your philosophy, the average lending rate would be determined by the free market. Supply and demand and competition would cause the market to eventually "settle" on an average lending rate that reflects the economic situation. It wouldn't be an enforced rate, but just like the price of, say, a loaf of bread, it would eventually stabilize to a certain number. As the situation changed (Wars here and abroad, weather affecting crops and tourism, natural disasters, political changes, businesses growing and failing), this rate would fluctuate, just as it does now.
josda1000 wrote:
No, I don't think so. In a free economy, the interest rates would go DOWN in this situation, in order to get more people to borrow. Wouldn't you want to attract more people to the bank, and raise demand for your product? Conversely, interest rates will go UP in order to profit off people getting into the game, especially if you're in high demand.
Think about this... You're running a bank, and you're selling loans. The more risky your investment is, the more interest you have to charge to counter that. If the economy is getting to the point where lending is more risky, you're going to give less loans, perhaps investing in blue-chips instead. The supply of lenders goes down... Demand becomes greater than supply, so rates go up.
josda1000 wrote:
To continue the point, fractional reserve banking, according to libertarians, is fraud by definition. This is because the banks do not have all deposits on hand, as opposed to its original reason to be created in the first place.
How is it fraud? It would say right in the contract, when you open an account, that your money will be used to generate profits for the bank. It's only fraud if they claim that they won't be doing that. They were originally created just to keep your money safe from robbery... Now their purpose has changed a bit. If the full reserve system became popular again, fine... The people would be able to choose.
josda1000 wrote:
Disagreed. If my assumption is correct, (looking back at the depression of 1920, great depression, crashes of 2000 and 2008), then they are actually causing a harsher and longer crash than the market could create on its own.
I
Firstly, on libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU0ZUpIjpiY[^]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Unfortunately, the Libertarian philosophy depends a great deal on people being intelligent, logical, and educated... This just isn't the case in most of the world.
So you agree that most of the world is uneducated. Do you agree that you (and I) could be better educated, and therefore may not have the right answers here? Maybe if we free up the markets, things would actually be a bit better in our daily life?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Even if 90% of people are morally good, there's still a significant number who look for any ethical or unethical advantage they can find to screw everyone else for their own benefit.
I agree. And we need a government to prevent fraud. Point being?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think the bubbles prove beyond a doubt that people do stupid things, given the opportunity.
Was I arguing that? My argument is that there's more to the picture. Open your mind.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
With your philosophy, the average lending rate would be determined by the free market. Supply and demand and competition would cause the market to eventually "settle" on an average lending rate that reflects the economic situation. It wouldn't be an enforced rate, but just like the price of, say, a loaf of bread, it would eventually stabilize to a certain number. As the situation changed (Wars here and abroad, weather affecting crops and tourism, natural disasters, political changes, businesses growing and failing), this rate would fluctuate, just as it does now.
Yup.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
There are two problems right now... The debt and the wall street firms... The firms are STILL too intertwined to allow any of them to fail, and the debt is just ridiculous. The Fed can't fix this. If the currency deflates, the debt kills us. If interest rates go up, the banks kill us. I don't know what the solution is, but yeah, unless someone gets one hell of a great idea, we're all screwed sooner or later.
You're missing the one thing that WILL happen. These two scenarios just w
-
Firstly, on libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU0ZUpIjpiY[^]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Unfortunately, the Libertarian philosophy depends a great deal on people being intelligent, logical, and educated... This just isn't the case in most of the world.
So you agree that most of the world is uneducated. Do you agree that you (and I) could be better educated, and therefore may not have the right answers here? Maybe if we free up the markets, things would actually be a bit better in our daily life?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Even if 90% of people are morally good, there's still a significant number who look for any ethical or unethical advantage they can find to screw everyone else for their own benefit.
I agree. And we need a government to prevent fraud. Point being?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think the bubbles prove beyond a doubt that people do stupid things, given the opportunity.
Was I arguing that? My argument is that there's more to the picture. Open your mind.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
With your philosophy, the average lending rate would be determined by the free market. Supply and demand and competition would cause the market to eventually "settle" on an average lending rate that reflects the economic situation. It wouldn't be an enforced rate, but just like the price of, say, a loaf of bread, it would eventually stabilize to a certain number. As the situation changed (Wars here and abroad, weather affecting crops and tourism, natural disasters, political changes, businesses growing and failing), this rate would fluctuate, just as it does now.
Yup.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
There are two problems right now... The debt and the wall street firms... The firms are STILL too intertwined to allow any of them to fail, and the debt is just ridiculous. The Fed can't fix this. If the currency deflates, the debt kills us. If interest rates go up, the banks kill us. I don't know what the solution is, but yeah, unless someone gets one hell of a great idea, we're all screwed sooner or later.
You're missing the one thing that WILL happen. These two scenarios just w
josda1000 wrote:
So you agree that most of the world is uneducated. Do you agree that you (and I) could be better educated, and therefore may not have the right answers here? Maybe if we free up the markets, things would actually be a bit better in our daily life?
And maybe they could be worse. Different isn't necessarily better. I honestly don't know whether it'll be better or worse, but I don't think it's a magical solution to all of life's problems.
josda1000 wrote:
I agree. And we need a government to prevent fraud. Point being?
Fraud, collusion, worker exploitation, price gouging, predatory lending... There are all sorts of ways that people and companies can screw each other, with and without fraud. Which do you regulate, and where do you draw the line on the rest?
josda1000 wrote:
BUT! Interest rates at the Fed are so low, they can only go up. Once that happens (and it will), interest rates at the banks will go up, causing deflation. Therefore, this is what you have to look out for. There's no reason why inflation will happen (not saying you said it would, but I want to cover all four bases). It already did, but the effects will not be felt in rising prices, because the cash is being sat on at the banks
The Fed governors aren't stupid. They know the consequences of raising interest rates, and they'd have to be complete morons to raise them NOW. They've already said in recent statements that interest rates aren't a useful tool at this time, and they're using other avenues to try to "fix" the economy. Here's what's most likely to happen... The debt continues to increase because of all these new social programs. The rest of the world starts to think that MAYBE the US isn't going to bother paying it back. As soon as treasury bonds are no longer risk-free, credit spreads across the board (Which are all based on the risk-free rate) skyrocket, and the market goes into freefall. And no, not talking about China here. They could kill our economy at any time, but it would kill theirs too. You know the old saying... "If someone owes you a thousand dollars, you own them. If they owe you a billion dollars, they own you." So yes, we're screwed... That much, I think we all agree on.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
-
I have Keynes' "ultimate book" The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Most of it I highly disagree with, for obvious reasons.
Christian Graus wrote:
I have a good number of stocks. It's not the point. We've deviated far from my point. My point is that in a depression, the government cares more about saving lives than saving markets, as it should.
And my point was, that it should care about the markets, because markets drive the economy, helping the average man much more than handouts stolen from some people by governments to give to other people.
Christian Graus wrote:
*grin* I am actually a pretty happy and positive person. At least, I think I am.
I don't know you well enough to know lol
Christian Graus wrote:
Not at all. I started a company that did not list. But, I thought we were talking about bubbles in stocks, and government interference in the stock market.
See, that's the problem. Bubbles can occur in any market... as you said, with supply and demand. It's the same concept.
Christian Graus wrote:
The only problem is that the customer is not always served, they are often defrauded. Which is why some government regulation is needed. Yes, only a few commit fraud, by and large. I suspect more did when there was less regulation, proving my point.
That doesn't prove a point when you just 'suspect' something. Find the facts. As to, "The only problem is that the customer is not always served, they are often defrauded.", "always" and "often" are two very different words. Please reiterate. And the reason why this "liberty movement" is continuing is because there is way too much "law and legislation" out there. It's ridiculous. People my age see this and are scared to death to even bother starting a business to try to fit in all the loopholes of the regulations. I'd love to start a business, but why bother when there's such a great chance of being taken to court over any one law you miss?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I am on my ipad, so i won't wax on. However, people have ALWAYS found excuses to not start a business. I started one, I don't recall any excessive laws or red tape.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I am on my ipad, so i won't wax on. However, people have ALWAYS found excuses to not start a business. I started one, I don't recall any excessive laws or red tape.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
So you agree that most of the world is uneducated. Do you agree that you (and I) could be better educated, and therefore may not have the right answers here? Maybe if we free up the markets, things would actually be a bit better in our daily life?
And maybe they could be worse. Different isn't necessarily better. I honestly don't know whether it'll be better or worse, but I don't think it's a magical solution to all of life's problems.
josda1000 wrote:
I agree. And we need a government to prevent fraud. Point being?
Fraud, collusion, worker exploitation, price gouging, predatory lending... There are all sorts of ways that people and companies can screw each other, with and without fraud. Which do you regulate, and where do you draw the line on the rest?
josda1000 wrote:
BUT! Interest rates at the Fed are so low, they can only go up. Once that happens (and it will), interest rates at the banks will go up, causing deflation. Therefore, this is what you have to look out for. There's no reason why inflation will happen (not saying you said it would, but I want to cover all four bases). It already did, but the effects will not be felt in rising prices, because the cash is being sat on at the banks
The Fed governors aren't stupid. They know the consequences of raising interest rates, and they'd have to be complete morons to raise them NOW. They've already said in recent statements that interest rates aren't a useful tool at this time, and they're using other avenues to try to "fix" the economy. Here's what's most likely to happen... The debt continues to increase because of all these new social programs. The rest of the world starts to think that MAYBE the US isn't going to bother paying it back. As soon as treasury bonds are no longer risk-free, credit spreads across the board (Which are all based on the risk-free rate) skyrocket, and the market goes into freefall. And no, not talking about China here. They could kill our economy at any time, but it would kill theirs too. You know the old saying... "If someone owes you a thousand dollars, you own them. If they owe you a billion dollars, they own you." So yes, we're screwed... That much, I think we all agree on.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And maybe they could be worse. Different isn't necessarily better. I honestly don't know whether it'll be better or worse, but I don't think it's a magical solution to all of life's problems.
I'm not saying it's magical. I'm saying, this is a matter of history. State education entered our society (and many societies in the west) around the Civil War period. Before this, life was prosperous in the United States (they weren't technologically as advanced as us, but it was a great time to be alive). Life was booming, the economy flourished. And then came the advancement of public education. This created the concept of "government is good" and war propaganda and everything that comes with it. In this case at the very least, I think it would help things, and would allow for people to think for themselves much more than they do today. People are told what to think, as opposed to rationalizing for themselves. This is why, (if Christian is reading this) that many people of my view are against public education outright. I am opposed to such a claim for the very fact that it is against the idea of choosing your education. But to open the markets up to this sector is a great idea, if not downright smart as peanuts.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Fraud, collusion, worker exploitation, price gouging, predatory lending... There are all sorts of ways that people and companies can screw each other, with and without fraud. Which do you regulate, and where do you draw the line on the rest?
Ah I see. Fraud should be prosecuted, absolutely. Regulated? Depends on the meaning, but to commit a crime one must commit fraud, not be in the act of it. So to regulate it, in this interpretation, is a joke. Collusion is not a crime. Not in any way. There are many ways to collude, and usually it just is a dirty word for "partnership". To create a product in a partnership is not a crime. But to commit fraud in collusion is, and both parties should be prosecuted. Worker exploitation is another joke. There's no such thing, IMO. If a worker commits to a contract, and it's in the print (legibly, that is), then this is not exploitation, it was agreed upon. If the employer does tell the worker to do something insane that was not negotiated, then yes, this should be brought up and brought to court. Price gouging?! This is still nonsense. Either the price is fair and the consumer buys into it
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And maybe they could be worse. Different isn't necessarily better. I honestly don't know whether it'll be better or worse, but I don't think it's a magical solution to all of life's problems.
I'm not saying it's magical. I'm saying, this is a matter of history. State education entered our society (and many societies in the west) around the Civil War period. Before this, life was prosperous in the United States (they weren't technologically as advanced as us, but it was a great time to be alive). Life was booming, the economy flourished. And then came the advancement of public education. This created the concept of "government is good" and war propaganda and everything that comes with it. In this case at the very least, I think it would help things, and would allow for people to think for themselves much more than they do today. People are told what to think, as opposed to rationalizing for themselves. This is why, (if Christian is reading this) that many people of my view are against public education outright. I am opposed to such a claim for the very fact that it is against the idea of choosing your education. But to open the markets up to this sector is a great idea, if not downright smart as peanuts.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Fraud, collusion, worker exploitation, price gouging, predatory lending... There are all sorts of ways that people and companies can screw each other, with and without fraud. Which do you regulate, and where do you draw the line on the rest?
Ah I see. Fraud should be prosecuted, absolutely. Regulated? Depends on the meaning, but to commit a crime one must commit fraud, not be in the act of it. So to regulate it, in this interpretation, is a joke. Collusion is not a crime. Not in any way. There are many ways to collude, and usually it just is a dirty word for "partnership". To create a product in a partnership is not a crime. But to commit fraud in collusion is, and both parties should be prosecuted. Worker exploitation is another joke. There's no such thing, IMO. If a worker commits to a contract, and it's in the print (legibly, that is), then this is not exploitation, it was agreed upon. If the employer does tell the worker to do something insane that was not negotiated, then yes, this should be brought up and brought to court. Price gouging?! This is still nonsense. Either the price is fair and the consumer buys into it
josda1000 wrote:
Before this, life was prosperous in the United States (they weren't technologically as advanced as us, but it was a great time to be alive).
Yeah... We had slave labor, quite literally. Are you honestly going to try to convince me THAT era was good? Are you going to try to convince me that people were happier when only a minority of the population could read and write and we had people without rights to do all of the hard work for us?
josda1000 wrote:
Either the price is fair and the consumer buys into it fairly, or the price is something like double what its real value is sensibly set to by the market.
Who determines the "real value"? If all of the companies selling a product agree to double the price, who's to say that isn't now the "real value"? It's not illegal, is it? And for that matter, what about monopolistic practices? It's not illegal to have a monopoly, is it? Gonna start regulating them? As for worker exploitation, we've been through the minimum wage argument. Companies aren't going to pay a dime more than they have to. If you drop minimum wage, unskilled labor wages will drop, guaranteed. Quality of living will suffer, and people at the bottom will, if they're lucky, make enough money to feed themselves, with no possibility of advancement. Christian and rags can debate this one better than me, so I'll just leave it at that.
josda1000 wrote:
I disagree. I realize that they do own us. But they still are a totalitarian state, and would probably like nothing more than to see us crumble to promote itself across the globe. Just my thoughts.
No, you misread the quote. We own them. They own so much of our debt, that if we hyperinflated and devalued it, their economy would die almost as fast as ours. They've invested so much of their money in our economy, that they can't afford to see us drop. Not to mention, we outsource so much of our labor to China, their manufacturing sector would take a dive too. If we die, they die.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)