Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
you used to have well-reasoned, thought out posts; posts i would often disagree with, but something that could be debated at length. along with the occasional (well, more than occasional) crude, snarky one-liner posts which we all know and accept to be part of the Dalem Posting Experience.
but if you're just going to do the latter, especially when it has nothing to do with the topic on hand, i have no compunction in deleting the posts in question-- as i'll do now.
and lest you start screeching "censorship" and try to strike a martyred pose, allow me to point out that despite my complete and utter disagreement with what snapper is saying, i've not interfered with her posting in the least because she is quite civil and will remain on topic.
So really what you're saying (in this thread and not as a PM, as you will no-doubt chastise me for doing as well) is that you get to decide what is on-topic and what is not, and that you get to reply to such "off-topic" posts and I do not.
Have I got that right? I just want to understand the rules.
you used to have well-reasoned, thought out posts; posts i would often disagree with, but something that could be debated at length. along with the occasional (well, more than occasional) crude, snarky one-liner posts which we all know and accept to be part of the Dalem Posting Experience.
but if you're just going to do the latter, especially when it has nothing to do with the topic on hand, i have no compunction in deleting the posts in question-- as i'll do now.
and lest you start screeching "censorship" and try to strike a martyred pose, allow me to point out that despite my complete and utter disagreement with what snapper is saying, i've not interfered with her posting in the least because she is quite civil and will remain on topic.
Really? That does surprise me considering the enormous amount of snide remarks in this thread by BF, Dor and yourself toward Snapper, all backslapping yourselves in the process. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the odd snide snark myself, but surely in dales case methinks thou dost protest to much?
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
So really what you're saying (in this thread and not as a PM, as you will no-doubt chastise me for doing as well) is that you get to decide what is on-topic and what is not,
15. make sure your post is relevant to the thread you are posting in, please try not to post off-topic comments, make tangential remarks, or otherwise derail a discussion.
7. the staff reserves the right to intervene in discussions lacking blatant rule violations to preserve the quality of discussion, which includes requesting that an unruly member exit a discussion.
and the possible consequences:
1. the administration of the World Affairs Board, without any previous notice, reserves the right to delete any topic or post and ban any user at any time.
----
and that you get to reply to such "off-topic" posts and I do not.
technically yes, especially if it means ending the off-topic discussion. the WAB is NOT a democracy, as the very first sentence of the Forum Guidelines states. HOWEVER, i as well as the rest of the WAB staff will do our utmost to hold to the principles that we'd expect the rest of WAB to follow.
in this instance, note that i was addressing snapper's assertion, not trying to turn this into a media-hypocrisy/GWB vs obama comparison.
finally, dale, i'd like to state that because you are a long-time member of WAB, a Senior Contributor, we DO put weight on your concerns, and will also occasionally look the other way, something which we're not inclined to do for a newbie. this -personally- applies to my actions regarding your posting, as well; feel free to contact the moderators here if you don't believe me, but in past cases i've seriously bent over backwards to ensure that you get a fair ruling-- especially if i believe that i can't be the one that would give you the fair ruling.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Really? That does surprise me considering the enormous amount of snide remarks in this thread by BF, Dor and yourself toward Snapper, all backslapping yourselves in the process. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the odd snide snark myself, but surely in dales case methinks thou dost protest to much?
re-read my post to dale. i don't mind the snark if it's actually accompanied by an on-topic argument.
if it's a drive-by, off-topic snark, i have considerably less tolerance for that. i don't care who does it.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
re-read my post to dale. i don't mind the snark if it's actually accompanied by an on-topic argument.
if it's a drive-by, off-topic snark, i have considerably less tolerance for that. i don't care who does it.
So if I'd made another post related to economics, as I've already done a few times in this thread, and ALSO commented on your off-topic reply to snapper's apparently off-topic remark, then you would have left me alone?
So if I'd made another post related to economics, as I've already done a few times in this thread, and ALSO commented on your off-topic reply to snapper's apparently off-topic remark, then you would have left me alone?
Again, just trying to understand the rules.
this is not that hard to understand.
snapper's remark wasn't off-topic; neither was my response. they're all connected to her former assessment that the bubble was engineered/worsened in part due to a conspiracy.
-your- response was off-topic. if you wish to discuss media hypocrisy regarding the AP incident, you can make a new thread and comment away to your heart's content.
i had no issues with your on-topic posts.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
What's the % of Bush cuts on the income side of the budget?
Are they higher then the deficit?
Would the spending be the same if the income side of the budget was higher?
Finally, would the tax base be the same? Or higher? Or lower?
.
In 2002, when the first Bush budget came into play, revenues fell 6.9%, and a further 3.8% in 2003. Over 8 years, the average was +0.8% p.a. Spending, on the other hand, rose 7.4% in 2002, 8% in 2003 and an average of 8.3% p.a. throughout his two terms.
In 2002, revenue fell $137.9 bn while the deficit increased by $286.0 bn. In 2003 it was $70.8 bn down on income and a $219.8 bn increase in the deficit. Over 8 years, income rose $498.8 billion and the deficits totaled $694.8 billion.
Can’t answer the other two questions without a whole bucket load of economic assumptions.
Consider government spending, consumer spending and corporate spending. If consumers and corporates are spending like there’s no tomorrow, the obvious thing would be for government to pull back and avoid contributing to over-heating.
But, when households and businesses pull back in fear, the choice is for government to step up its spending, or to let the entire economy slide into depression. We learned not to let the latter happen.
.
If your ATM still works, then the QE solution does, too. Sitting back and watching the financial system implode – or worse, lighting the fuse – is, um, “contraindicated.”
.
Greenspan lowered interest rates to deal with the recession. Since it was an investment-led recession, rather than the usual consumer-led one, rates stayed low for much longer than usual.
IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row
.
By Julie Bykowicz & Jonathan D. Salant - May 15, 2013 9:42 AM GMT+0800
The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status.
One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.
in light of all the talk we just went through regarding being on-topic...let's create a new thread for discussions on the AP issue/IRS/etc. thanks.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Bank thoughts the shift in 'corporate governance' about splitting chairman/ceo roles is future telling. I know this is not linear but my feeling there is some push for separation of utility/investment banking or at least clearly defined leverage ratios for capital that will conflict with B(ullsht)asel 3.
The interesting thing is there seems to be shareholder control assertion over banks that here to for was not present. Ergo there is clear seeking of purchasing power transfer down to shareholder level, more so than usual. In some sense this puts CEOs in the hot-seat for continued pilfering of the public to boost profits short/long term to keep their spots where as it seemed they were the masters of their universes right now it is getting to the point where the hunger for yield by holders of their common is pushing reality upon them which has not been forthcoming from the regulators.
They see the horizon, lending is down to all sectors, asset shifting through the market is coming to an end once the Fed QE stops, there seems a glint of worry in their eyes.
they're all connected to her former assessment that the bubble was engineered/worsened in part due to a conspiracy.
I never alleged that the 2008 crash was a 'conspiracy' as you should be aware astralis - merely a mistaken economic theory. I did allege that the gold 'smack down' may have been the result of orchestration which is when you accused me citing conspiracy theories. I am NOT sure whether it was orchestrated but if I had to bet on yes or no I would go with the former given that it was it was sigma 7 probability and 'came in handy' to some. The thread title does relate to gold so clearly I posted in the correct space as it were. I fear I may have erred when replying to your somewhat provacative retort by mentioning the IRS and AP 'conspiracies' in this thread so mea culpa on this matter if so.
I 100% agree with Pari though that you have permitted totally irrelevant remarks by others toward myself and a whole body of thought that you refuse to recognise and your judgement with Dale is therefore somewhat 'questionable'. I have no objection to all having a free say; you let BF so the same should apply to others - with you or against you. I will not comment more on this here or elsewhere on the forum. It's my fault - normally - so probably is now.
Consider government spending, consumer spending and corporate spending. If consumers and corporates are spending like there’s no tomorrow, the obvious thing would be for government to pull back and avoid contributing to over-heating.
But, when households and businesses pull back in fear, the choice is for government to step up its spending, or to let the entire economy slide into depression. We learned not to let the latter happen.
Yes David I understand Keynesian theory I simply don't see it - and it's counterpart; this nouveau marcro monetarist policy is doing - as a repetition of past mistakes.
If your ATM still works, then the QE solution does, too. Sitting back and watching the financial system implode – or worse, lighting the fuse – is, um, “contraindicated.”
So no unemployment threshold for you? I mean keeping my ATM working seems a pretty easy problem to me; stop the fractional banking system. Make some bank accounts such that I can withdraw and deposit any time I wish, send it abroad etc - all that jazz. Those deposits the banks must keep say 50% of at any one time and people would pay a charge for the services. Other deposits would be optionally 1-30 years say and you would only be able withdraw your deposit after the term agreed or perhaps in emergency sooner with loss of interest. Banks would then have these deposits to 'gamble' with but be required to keep say 20 -30%. In the event of default the long term depositors get eaten and the paying 'customers' are protected. Just an idea...
Greenspan lowered interest rates to deal with the recession. Since it was an investment-led recession, rather than the usual consumer-led one, rates stayed low for much longer than usual.
So what is the recession now? Clearly not "investment-led" as Wall St proves. How does QE help the man on the street that you claim to be concerned about? Because he still take money out of his ATM? He buys less food and fuel with it though which rightly or wrongly is not reflected in the US CPI statistics. It certainly effects his/her spending though and thus the prospect of any real recovery.
snapper,
What part of the preventing global financial implosion demands full employment? Please respond in detail.
Ending the financial and monetary system that has created the greatest explosion of wealth and stability the world has ever seen is, um, "contra-indicated." For one thing, it would put an end to your ability to move your money between countries (at least, without an armed guard).
Recession: You're not paying attention. I've repeatedly explained that thinking of what happened in 2007+ (it ain't over yet) as a recession is far too simplistic. For better comprehension, think of it as a depression. The economic technicians might quibble, but casual discussion will be much better served if we stop expecting a 3-quarters-and-out type of recession caused by over-enthusiastic consumption.
snapper,
What part of the preventing global financial implosion demands full employment? Please respond in detail. Ending the financial and monetary system that has created the greatest explosion of wealth and stability the world has ever seen is, um, "contra-indicated." For one thing, it would put an end to your ability to move your money between countries (at least, without an armed guard).
Recession: You're not paying attention. I've repeatedly explained that thinking of what happened in 2007+ (it ain't over yet) as a recession is far too simplistic. For better comprehension, think of it as a depression. The economic technicians might quibble, but casual discussion will be much better served if we stop expecting a 3-quarters-and-out type of recession caused by over-enthusiastic consumption.
.
Greetings from Nanjing!
Wealth is created by individuals producing in excess and trading with others to maximize purchasing power.
Financial systems extract said wealth and waste it by unproductive distribution.
I stopped arguing with you because you clearly wholeheartedly believe that systemic primacy is the be all and end all. You do not want to see the truth because your worldview is too dear to you, its ok live and learn on my end.
Financial systems collapse all the time, productivity and individuals recover. Russia, East Asia(Thailand, Korea, etc). U.S. after the civil war, U.K., etc... Destruction of monetary value does not destroy productive capacity usually. What happens is working capital is zeroed out and you need to shift how you work and get paid.
Asset prices going parabolic because of liquidity machinations is not consumer consumption that is normalized. Central banks work to create a festering perception of present value so you buy now and maximize productivity now irrespective of forward shifting in demand and what happens when you reach the rift when nobody wants an extra widget. Liquidity plays do not work when they do not escape the bounds of the electronic system and psychological palate of inducement through news sensationalize a la Bloomberg and MSNbc.
The reason to avoid systemic collapse is that we have nothing better with which to replace it. Hence, we either would have to rebuild the same system or we would have to build and accept an inferior one. Tweaking the one we have is the better answer, as it avoids so much unnecessary starvation.
Citing a series of minor, mostly single-nation balance of payments crises is not useful.
Tweet
Comment