Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Green Monster

David4 Wrote: Aug 27, 2014 1:27 PM
They used to take it out to sea and dump it. They also dump it at Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. I doubt that is the complete statement of what they do with their trash.
In response to:

We Don’t Have to Have More Fergusons

David4 Wrote: Aug 25, 2014 1:43 PM
We will have more Ferguson MO-s because the black community has a lot of "Black Nationalism" thought that rebels against the law as the rest of us understand it. The situation is not helped by us having an excess of laws providing a pretext for the police to stop and question us. ...
In response to:

This Is No Time to Avert Our Gaze

David4 Wrote: Aug 25, 2014 1:25 PM
Stan306 wrote "Think about this the next time we start a "police action" in a Muslim state." -- Yes, most definitely think about it, and think about the number of panty-waists we have in our population and media that will stop any old-fashioned war to defeat the enemy. I have seen it enough times to conclude that we should NOT fight a war unless they have brought the war TO us, and we are fighting them HERE. (Sigh)
In 2007-2008 we ran into a situation where what "we" (people making decisions) wanted and what the system would do were in conflict. So the deciders tossed out the rule book and pulled tactics out of their rear end. A few of the problems we faced were * The econo-populists want to protect ordinary people from the consequences of mistakes. Those consequences can only fall on better-off people, rich people. * The deciders don't have a contingency plan should large numbers of banks go insolvent and have to close. Should a credit freeze happen. That is the root of 'too big to fail'. BTW, I do not agree that there would have been a "total collapse of the monetary system, and rioting in the streets." But a good argument can be made for self-financing and keeping some money outside the system.
History repeats itself. This sort of thing happened during the 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'.
True Keynesians do not appear to realize that resources are limited, and that what is spent on one thing can not also be spent on another thing. They also look at "un-used capacity" and do not appreciate that the public already has an excess of that sort of widgets and doesn't need any more.
In response to:

Occam's Razor and Bank Lending

David4 Wrote: Aug 25, 2014 11:43 AM
A bit of doubtfulness. It looks to me like the Central Banks want 1) funded governments, 2) economic health, as in improved employment, increased wages and increased tax revenues. -- In a "If what you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" sense, Central Banks can make easy money, but they can't explain why or why not easy money affects object #2, improved economic health. As for the banks, they have lots-of-money, and do not lend it into their home economies for the reasons Mike Shedlock mentions. But since they have to pay interest FOR that lots-of-money they look for some way to make money off of money. Abroad they might lend it to governments. Maybe under duress, maybe not. Here in the US they might leave it on deposit at the Federal Reserve and receive interest on it from the Fed. Either case they might lend it to "good credit-worthy" customers outside their country. As they judge credit-worthiness. I am reminded of several years ago when the French Credit Lyonnaise Bank was about the only source of funding for some Hollywood projects. If only one bank is doing it you've got to wonder about the credit-worthiness of the borrowers. Credit Lyonnaise had access to easy money, and made a bad judgment and took losses.
In response to:

The Obama Bank Shakedown

David4 Wrote: Aug 25, 2014 11:30 AM
Regarding "But the solution is not to call them names.", etc. It depends on your object. For Holder and Obama, the root of it is probably Chicago-style corruption, dressed up in economic populism. For many Americans there is an element of believing that once a person gets "rich" it is wrong for that person to get "richer". Instead that person should be devoting effort towards helping other people get better off. ...
In response to:

The Obama Bank Shakedown

David4 Wrote: Aug 25, 2014 11:26 AM
Well, Timothy32, under the concept of 'investor responsibility', you or your fund manager were supposed to watch those corporations and their managements like a hawk to stop them from doing bad things. Or move your money to someplace that only invests in credit unions and Whole Foods. :-)
Regarding the last sentence, "Who controls the printing press in the US and who controls the press in Spain?" , Paul Krugman says that that is the fatal mistake that has gotten the PIIGS into trouble: they do not have the power to run a printing press at a higher speed. -- As if prosperity comes out of the output of a printing press. This article provides subject matter to think about the meaning of "savings". Unless you are a hyper-Mormon survivalist, and put vast quantities of provisions into a cellar for future risks, 'savings' amount to a trust relation. You loan your current production to someone else on the promise that they will pay you back at some point in the future. Not much different than 'Pay as you go'. The only difference is in the trust and surety of the payback promise. -- Now government, Spain is today's example, is showing that their promises are worth == a soiled piece of toilet paper. -- So, what to do? What to do?
And long past time we de-authorize their authority to spend money for those other things. -- It is "easy" to de-authorize spending on military and war. -- But what about those OTHER big big spending items?
Previous 11 - 20 Next