Jump to content
BANGKOK

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Scott

Do you think Trump will be impeached or forced to resign?

Do you believe Trump will be impeached or forced to resign?  

511 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

What's wrong with the occasional recession? It is an integral part of the business cycle. It is the attempt to do away with shallow, periodic recessions that has so distorted the economy and guarantees more severe downturns to come. If the Fed had started their tightening cycle at the end of 2013 when they should have, maybe we'd already be on the other side of a recession now on a much stronger footing.

What's wrong with recessions?  Unemployment, bankruptcies, declining tax revenues and increasing demands for government services, stuff like that.

 

If I understand you correctly, you think there should be a recession just because it is the natural order of things.  That is one view, not shared by all. 

 

An alternative view of the low interest rates is that they are caused by a surplus of savings, both by developing economies (primarily China) eager to maintain cash buffers against another 1997 style crisis, and major companies enjoying record profits and sitting on them rather than investing them.  Raising interest rates would encourage further savings, possibly cause a recession, and increasing distortions, notably in the government deficits.

 

Raising interest rates is one way of dealing with an overheating economy.  Another way is government austerity, either by reducing spending (not advisable considering the US infrastructure needs) or raising taxes.  Trump's tax cut for rich people and already cash-rich corporations is the opposite of what the economy needs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, heybruce said:

What's wrong with recessions?  Unemployment, bankruptcies, declining tax revenues and increasing demands for government services, stuff like that.

 

If I understand you correctly, you think there should be a recession just because it is the natural order of things.  That is one view, not shared by all. 

 

An alternative view of the low interest rates is that they are caused by a surplus of savings, both by developing economies (primarily China) eager to maintain cash buffers against another 1997 style crisis, and major companies enjoying record profits and sitting on them rather than investing them.  Raising interest rates would encourage further savings, possibly cause a recession, and increasing distortions, notably in the government deficits.

 

Raising interest rates is one way of dealing with an overheating economy.  Another way is government austerity, either by reducing spending (not advisable considering the US infrastructure needs) or raising taxes.  Trump's tax cut for rich people and already cash-rich corporations is the opposite of what the economy needs.

 

 

I'll give you that Trump's tax "reform" wasn't nearly comprehensive enough and that it failed at the top end and will likely lead to greater budget shortfalls in a year or two, but that first paragraph reads like something out of The Economist. A periodical that has done more damage to people's wealth than any other. I don't think they've ever got a major turn in the economy right.

 

Interest rates are going to get raised whether the Fed leads or lags the market. You may have inadvertantly pinpointed when America began its decline; when people accepted the notion that savings are bad for your economic health.

 

You're probably thinking of the "Paradox of Thrift" with regard to savings.  That is a warning with respect to savings during a recession, not during an expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I'll give you that Trump's tax "reform" wasn't nearly comprehensive enough and that it failed at the top end and will likely lead to greater budget shortfalls in a year or two, but that first paragraph reads like something out of The Economist. A periodical that has done more damage to people's wealth than any other. I don't think they've ever got a major turn in the economy right.

 

Interest rates are going to get raised whether the Fed leads or lags the market. You may have inadvertantly pinpointed when America began its decline; when people accepted the notion that savings are bad for your economic health.

 

You're probably thinking of the "Paradox of Thrift" with regard to savings.  That is a warning with respect to savings during a recession, not during an expansion.

I have greater faith in the expertise of The Economist than whatever expertise you claim.  Perhaps you could improve your credibility by identifying what is incorrect in that first paragraph.

 

I didn't post that America was saving too much.  Where did you get that idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I have greater faith in the expertise of The Economist than whatever expertise you claim.  Perhaps you could improve your credibility by identifying what is incorrect in that first paragraph.

 

I didn't post that America was saving too much.  Where did you get that idea?

What was wrong with it was that you failed to mention that recessions remove excesses while at the same time creating opportunities.  That's what makes an economy healthy.  Most of my networth was created by taking advantage of the opportunities that down cycles provide. You know, like Warren Buffet does.  I can't think of anything worse for keeping poor people poor than never getting a pullback that allows them to build wealth. An ever expanding economy just leaves them further and further behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

What was wrong with it was that you failed to mention that recessions remove excesses while at the same time creating opportunities.  That's what makes an economy healthy.  Most of my networth was created by taking advantage of the opportunities that down cycles provide. You know, like Warren Buffet does.  I can't think of anything worse for keeping poor people poor than never getting a pullback that allows them to build wealth. An ever expanding economy just leaves them further and further behind.

Warren Buffet isn't poor, you know that don't you?

 

I don't know what world you live in, but in the world I live in the poor people suffer the most during recessions, and are in no position to make stock market investments after they lose their jobs and possibly homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Warren Buffet isn't poor, you know that don't you?

 

I don't know what world you live in, but in the world I live in the poor people suffer the most during recessions, and are in no position to make stock market investments after they lose their jobs and possibly homes.

I'm not talking about the stock market, but homes, sure. What allows people, rich or poor, to keep their homes in downturns is equity. Initial equity comes from savings. If it doesn't it is merely speculation on the future value of your home. The last financial crisis in housing was a direct result of people either buying homes with little down(equity) or pulling equity out of their homes to consume, speculate or otherwise live beyond their means. This was done by rich and poor alike. People like me bought those homes and commercial buildings. Pretty good for a kid from the projects.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I'm not talking about the stock market, but homes, sure. What allows people, rich or poor, to keep their homes in downturns is equity. Initial equity comes from savings. If it doesn't it is merely speculation on the future value of your home. The last financial crisis in housing was a direct result of people eother buying homes with little down(equity) or pulling equity out of their homes to consume, speculate or otherwise live beyond their means. This was done by rich and poor alike. People like me bought those homes and commercial buildings. Pretty good for a kid from the projects.

You are still advocating recessions because they create buying opportunities for people with disposable income, not because they are good for the overall population. 

 

The last financial crisis was caused by many things, but a significant driver was banks making NINJA loans--no income, job or assets loan--to anyone.  Banks then packaged these dud loans with some solid loans and used compliant ratings agencies to pass them off as investment grade.  The banks sold these turd sandwich loan bundles, then made more NINJA loans.  It caused housing inflation and excessive debt.  The Economist, which you apparently hold in low regard, was warning about the housing bubble years before the crisis.

 

Obama imposed regulations to prevent this kind of reckless bank lending from happening again, and Trump is rescinding these regulation.  Obama caused economic stability, which was good for most people but not for opportunists who like market instability.  Trump is laying the ground work for another crisis, which will hurt a lot of people but present investment opportunities for you.

 

In short, you are trying to present your interests as being for the greater good.  I'm not buying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You are still advocating recessions because they create buying opportunities for people with disposable income, not because they are good for the overall population. 

 

 

I'm not saying it is good for the overall population, all the time, I'm saying it is good for a healthy long term economy and that is good for the overall population. It is up to individual members of the population to determine if they are willing do do what is necessary to prosper in that economy. Some will prosper and some will not. That's what the safety net is for. You speak of people as if they were brain addled cripples whom have no self determination of their own futures. Yeah, it is harder if you're coming from a long way back but economic mobility is still possible in America compared to most other places. Immigrants certainly believe that. I wonder when the native Americans stopped believing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I'm not saying it is good for the overall population, all the time, I'm saying it is good for a healthy long term economy and that is good for the overall population. It is up to individual members of the population to determine if they are willing do do what is necessary to prosper in that economy. Some will prosper and some will not. That's what the safety net is for. You speak of people as if they were brain addled cripples whom have no self determination of their own futures. Yeah, it is harder if you're coming from a long way back but economic mobility is still possible in America compared to most other places. Immigrants certainly believe that. I wonder when the native Americans stopped believing that.

You have yet to give a credible reason for why recessions are "good for a healthy long term economy", one that stands up to a cursory analysis.  The only "good" thing you've come up with is that they present buying opportunities for people with disposable income, but these opportunities come at the expense of working people and people that make the kind of long-term investments that a solid economy depends on. 

 

You haven't been specific about the excesses you keep referring to.  The excesses of the 2007 financial crisis were caused by the moral hazard of banks being allowed to shuffle money around, taking a cut with each exchange, but keeping no skin in the game.  Requiring banks to maintain a significant financial stake in the loans they make would greatly reduce the moral hazard, but banks and Republicans are against that.

 

Is the safety net you refer to the one with big holes in it, and that Republicans want to take away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You have yet to give a credible reason for why recessions are "good for a healthy long term economy", one that stands up to a cursory analysis.  The only "good" thing you've come up with is that they present buying opportunities for people with disposable income, but these opportunities come at the expense of working people and people that make the kind of long-term investments that a solid economy depends on. 

 

You haven't been specific about the excesses you keep referring to.  The excesses of the 2007 financial crisis were caused by the moral hazard of banks being allowed to shuffle money around, taking a cut with each exchange, but keeping no skin in the game.  Requiring banks to maintain a significant financial stake in the loans they make would greatly reduce the moral hazard, but banks and Republicans are against that.

 

Is the safety net you refer to the one with big holes in it, and that Republicans want to take away?

 

Most new startups are created during recessions, bringing that "creative destruction" talking heads like to talk about. But have it your way, maybe rewarding the efficient and inefficient alike, savers and spendthrifts alike will  lead to that "permanent plateau of prosperity" as some dead economist once opined. Or maybe as Keynes said  prior to the Great Depression " We will not have any more crashes in our time" .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Most new startups are created during recessions, bringing that "creative destruction" talking heads like to talk about. But have it your way, maybe rewarding the efficient and inefficient alike, savers and spendthrifts alike will  lead to that "permanent plateau of prosperity" as some dead economist once opined. Or maybe as Keynes said  prior to the Great Depression " We will not have any more crashes in our time" .

What sources tell you that "Most new startups are created during recessions"?

 

Recessions punish the efficient and inefficient alike, competition rewards the efficient at the expense of the inefficient.

 

You are replying to things I never posted, and making up reasons why recessions are good that don't make sense.

 

We get it; you like recessions because you have disposable income and you think recessions present investment opportunities.  That does make recessions good in general.  Your buying opportunities come at the expense of the larger economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Most new startups are created during recessions, bringing that "creative destruction" talking heads like to talk about. But have it your way, maybe rewarding the efficient and inefficient alike, savers and spendthrifts alike will  lead to that "permanent plateau of prosperity" as some dead economist once opined. Or maybe as Keynes said  prior to the Great Depression " We will not have any more crashes in our time" .

 

If that were the case then why have seen a steady decline in startups since the financial crisis.  Startups need loans, during recessions the banks don't give as many loans, think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...