massive fireballs of inflation

the crisis isnt over. inflation is still going to happen. just time scales are bit longer than i originally thought.

The problems that have caused the first crisis have not been fixed. Therefore it will lead to another crisis in the future. Only this time it's going to be worse because confidence will be way lower.

On July 18 2014 02:36 ShadowDrgn wrote: Show nested quote + So corporate welfare increases as we curtail welfare for the poor. Congress maintains subsidies for rich farmers as we cut back on nutritional support for the needy. Drug companies have been given hundreds of billions of dollars as we limit Medicaid benefits. The banks that brought on the global financial crisis got billions while a pittance went to the homeowners and victims of the same banks’ predatory lending practices. This last decision was particularly foolish. There were alternatives to throwing money at the banks and hoping it would circulate through increased lending. We could have helped underwater homeowners and the victims of predatory behavior directly. This would not only have helped the economy, it would have put us on the path to robust recovery. Nothing pisses me off politically more than that right there. I could never get behind the Occupy Wall Street movement because too many of them seemed to blame capitalism and free markets for problems that were being caused by government's perversion of the market for the benefit of the wealthy elite. It also disgusts me how hypocritical and/or blind to their hypocrisy Republicans can be on these issues and how little traction they get in the media and in the public debate. It's easy to see aid to the poor or common person in direct dollar terms but a lot harder to track the indirect subsidies provided to the rich through monetary policy, trade policy, etc. Against my better judgment, I looked at the comments on the Stiglitz article only to see that people still didn't get it. The message is out there for everyone to read, but I suppose people have their preconceived notions of reality and will conveniently fit anything they read or hear into those preconceptions. Given that, it's hard to blame the media for not focusing on issues like this.

This, people are retards. Antifragility by Taleb is a lot about how the politians and many industries (banking mostly) have free long options on the poor. When things go good, they all get rich, and when shit hit the fans the average citizen get screwed.

The inherent "goodness" on real free market is the fact that you have options on yourself; you run the high-risk high profit investment, but when it goes bad you are responsible.

On July 18 2014 10:02 GoTuNk wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2014 02:36 ShadowDrgn wrote:   So corporate welfare increases as we curtail welfare for the poor. Congress maintains subsidies for rich farmers as we cut back on nutritional support for the needy. Drug companies have been given hundreds of billions of dollars as we limit Medicaid benefits. The banks that brought on the global financial crisis got billions while a pittance went to the homeowners and victims of the same banks’ predatory lending practices. This last decision was particularly foolish. There were alternatives to throwing money at the banks and hoping it would circulate through increased lending. We could have helped underwater homeowners and the victims of predatory behavior directly. This would not only have helped the economy, it would have put us on the path to robust recovery. Nothing pisses me off politically more than that right there. I could never get behind the Occupy Wall Street movement because too many of them seemed to blame capitalism and free markets for problems that were being caused by government's perversion of the market for the benefit of the wealthy elite. It also disgusts me how hypocritical and/or blind to their hypocrisy Republicans can be on these issues and how little traction they get in the media and in the public debate. It's easy to see aid to the poor or common person in direct dollar terms but a lot harder to track the indirect subsidies provided to the rich through monetary policy, trade policy, etc. Against my better judgment, I looked at the comments on the Stiglitz article only to see that people still didn't get it. The message is out there for everyone to read, but I suppose people have their preconceived notions of reality and will conveniently fit anything they read or hear into those preconceptions. Given that, it's hard to blame the media for not focusing on issues like this. This, people are retards. Antifragility by Taleb is a lot about how the politians and many industries (banking mostly) have free long options on the poor. When things go good, they all get rich, and when shit hit the fans the average citizen get screwed. The inherent "goodness" on real free market is the fact that you have options on yourself; you run the high-risk high profit investment, but when it goes bad you are responsible.

so what do good do? i tried to be more active back in college, but it felt like you had to get on your hands and knees and beg people to let them help you (not a good feeling at all)

after my first internship i remember one of my managers said something along the lines of "i didn't create the fucking rules, i just play the fucking game" in a really bitter way, as if he also tasted the bitterness of trying to change/help the world.

On July 18 2014 03:43 Spitfiree wrote: the $ is used too much on an international level, things are starting to change now, especially if the upcoming currency board( or w/e its called in english ) @ BRIC decides to use BRICSO instead of the $ once the $ loses its power in international trading, the US s gonna have a bad time

The dollar losing value would help fix the US trade deficit, which would employ more people and boost the economy. It'd be bad for Walmart and rich people that spend lots of money overseas, but good for regular folks. There would be downsides too (more expensive debt, namely), but hardly a doom and gloom scenario.

On July 18 2014 20:37 ShadowDrgn wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2014 03:43 Spitfiree wrote: the $ is used too much on an international level, things are starting to change now, especially if the upcoming currency board( or w/e its called in english ) @ BRIC decides to use BRICSO instead of the $ once the $ loses its power in international trading, the US s gonna have a bad time The dollar losing value would help fix the US trade deficit, which would employ more people and boost the economy. It'd be bad for Walmart and rich people that spend lots of money overseas, but good for regular folks. There would be downsides too (more expensive debt, namely), but hardly a doom and gloom scenario.

the inflation always makes the poor poorer.

On July 18 2014 20:41 spets1 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2014 20:37 ShadowDrgn wrote:   On July 18 2014 03:43 Spitfiree wrote: the $ is used too much on an international level, things are starting to change now, especially if the upcoming currency board( or w/e its called in english ) @ BRIC decides to use BRICSO instead of the $ once the $ loses its power in international trading, the US s gonna have a bad time The dollar losing value would help fix the US trade deficit, which would employ more people and boost the economy. It'd be bad for Walmart and rich people that spend lots of money overseas, but good for regular folks. There would be downsides too (more expensive debt, namely), but hardly a doom and gloom scenario. the inflation always makes the poor poorer.

inflation makes everyone poorer, the rich and poor alike

The US economy will tank, its not a matter of opinion its a fact, a Keynesian economy its quite unstable and fragile but it can seem to greatly outperform a production based linear economy but ultimately its a terrible thing because it subjects the people to big economic swings plus by its debt based nature its very frail.

On a macroscopic scale a a nation's economy its quite similar to a personal economy, you can ask for a loan to build a business and grow faster than your neighbor, pay back and continue this cycle, but if at some point the loans are so big that you cant pay them back, yet you still take those loans and from there pay the interest rate its only a matter of time before your economy absolutely collapses.

The only way out of that situation would be to sell part of your business and dedicate a great part of your profits to liquidate your debt (deflation and stagnant economy) but here lies the problem, this same process happens over the span of decades in the economy of a country and what administration would willingly take the hit? If you were in office would you rather keep train going for another term or would you become the most hated president in history, with record unemployment, deflation and a second great depression? (This is somewhat what Greece is trying to do)

So if you want an indicative of a long term economy see your debt (internal and external) inflation is irrelevant, and hyperinflation isnt a sign of a sick economy, when hyperinflation shows your economy is already destroyed and beyond repair

the only reason why the us eco will tank is because simply it was born, therefor it must die one day. other than that is buying into anti-american american propaganda. (yes, anti-american american, as in domestic)

On July 18 2014 23:26 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2014 20:41 spets1 wrote:   On July 18 2014 20:37 ShadowDrgn wrote:   On July 18 2014 03:43 Spitfiree wrote: the $ is used too much on an international level, things are starting to change now, especially if the upcoming currency board( or w/e its called in english ) @ BRIC decides to use BRICSO instead of the $ once the $ loses its power in international trading, the US s gonna have a bad time The dollar losing value would help fix the US trade deficit, which would employ more people and boost the economy. It'd be bad for Walmart and rich people that spend lots of money overseas, but good for regular folks. There would be downsides too (more expensive debt, namely), but hardly a doom and gloom scenario. the inflation always makes the poor poorer. inflation makes everyone poorer, the rich and poor alike

That is absolutely not true, as someone who has lived through hyper inflation many many times. Inflation is pretty much a zero some game. So there are always winners and loosers. And the gains are HUGE. The winners are almost always individuals well connected within government.

On July 18 2014 20:37 ShadowDrgn wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2014 03:43 Spitfiree wrote: the $ is used too much on an international level, things are starting to change now, especially if the upcoming currency board( or w/e its called in english ) @ BRIC decides to use BRICSO instead of the $ once the $ loses its power in international trading, the US s gonna have a bad time The dollar losing value would help fix the US trade deficit, which would employ more people and boost the economy. It'd be bad for Walmart and rich people that spend lots of money overseas, but good for regular folks. There would be downsides too (more expensive debt, namely), but hardly a doom and gloom scenario.

If anyone cared about the regular man things wouldn't have reached this point anyway. When you have the interests of billion dollar corporations which hold the control over ridiculous amount of sectors things will never develop smoothly

On July 18 2014 23:26 Baalim wrote: inflation makes everyone poorer, the rich and poor alike

That's not true. Inflation basically opens the door to rich, well connected people to become even richer

i'd bet on slight deflation in the next couple decades tbh
watch the dollar index

On July 18 2014 13:56 mnj wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2014 10:02 GoTuNk wrote:   On July 18 2014 02:36 ShadowDrgn wrote:   So corporate welfare increases as we curtail welfare for the poor. Congress maintains subsidies for rich farmers as we cut back on nutritional support for the needy. Drug companies have been given hundreds of billions of dollars as we limit Medicaid benefits. The banks that brought on the global financial crisis got billions while a pittance went to the homeowners and victims of the same banks’ predatory lending practices. This last decision was particularly foolish. There were alternatives to throwing money at the banks and hoping it would circulate through increased lending. We could have helped underwater homeowners and the victims of predatory behavior directly. This would not only have helped the economy, it would have put us on the path to robust recovery. Nothing pisses me off politically more than that right there. I could never get behind the Occupy Wall Street movement because too many of them seemed to blame capitalism and free markets for problems that were being caused by government's perversion of the market for the benefit of the wealthy elite. It also disgusts me how hypocritical and/or blind to their hypocrisy Republicans can be on these issues and how little traction they get in the media and in the public debate. It's easy to see aid to the poor or common person in direct dollar terms but a lot harder to track the indirect subsidies provided to the rich through monetary policy, trade policy, etc. Against my better judgment, I looked at the comments on the Stiglitz article only to see that people still didn't get it. The message is out there for everyone to read, but I suppose people have their preconceived notions of reality and will conveniently fit anything they read or hear into those preconceptions. Given that, it's hard to blame the media for not focusing on issues like this. This, people are retards. Antifragility by Taleb is a lot about how the politians and many industries (banking mostly) have free long options on the poor. When things go good, they all get rich, and when shit hit the fans the average citizen get screwed. The inherent "goodness" on real free market is the fact that you have options on yourself; you run the high-risk high profit investment, but when it goes bad you are responsible. so what do good do? i tried to be more active back in college, but it felt like you had to get on your hands and knees and beg people to let them help you (not a good feeling at all) after my first internship i remember one of my managers said something along the lines of "i didn't create the fucking rules, i just play the fucking game" in a really bitter way, as if he also tasted the bitterness of trying to change/help the world.

Yeah I've given up aswell, I just try to not get screwed by the government (taxes) and live life according to values that make me feel in peace. It's not like we live in North Korea or something.

On July 19 2014 00:24 Gnarly wrote: the only reason why the us eco will tank is because simply it was born, therefor it must die one day. other than that is buying into anti-american american propaganda. (yes, anti-american american, as in domestic)

facepalm

On July 19 2014 03:09 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2014 23:26 Baalim wrote:   On July 18 2014 20:41 spets1 wrote:   On July 18 2014 20:37 ShadowDrgn wrote:   On July 18 2014 03:43 Spitfiree wrote: the $ is used too much on an international level, things are starting to change now, especially if the upcoming currency board( or w/e its called in english ) @ BRIC decides to use BRICSO instead of the $ once the $ loses its power in international trading, the US s gonna have a bad time The dollar losing value would help fix the US trade deficit, which would employ more people and boost the economy. It'd be bad for Walmart and rich people that spend lots of money overseas, but good for regular folks. There would be downsides too (more expensive debt, namely), but hardly a doom and gloom scenario. the inflation always makes the poor poorer. inflation makes everyone poorer, the rich and poor alike That is absolutely not true, as someone who has lived through hyper inflation many many times. Inflation is pretty much a zero some game. So there are always winners and loosers. And the gains are HUGE. The winners are almost always individuals well connected within government.

The fact people involved with a corrupt state can profit from an economical collapse doesnt mean hyperinflation doesnt affect the rich.

If you own many card dealerships and are rich, if you own fucking abercrombie or some huge retail store all your liquid assents quickly depreciate and people stop buying from you.

On July 19 2014 05:20 Spitfiree wrote: That's not true. Inflation basically opens the door to rich, well connected people to become even richer

Again?

When you say the rich, do you mean the hundreds of thousands of rich ppl in the top 1% income bracket who will loose their fortunes in a depression or are we talking about a dozen of corrupt billionares with deep ties with the state?

baalim, you have no idea, do you? everyone's all rooting for america to fail, which is american propaganda. (fiscal cliff, the looming economy, the debt ceiling, the national debt, the unemployment "crisis", etc.)

Think of it like this: if everyone expects you to have aces, do you really not want to set up a play to not have aces, but make it seem like you have aces, and then people are trying to trap your aces, and voila, you've trapped them? If EVERYONE is expecting the us eco to fail, then who's selling the fall, WHEN EVERYONE IS BUYING?

/facepalm

On July 18 2014 23:26 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2014 20:41 spets1 wrote:   On July 18 2014 20:37 ShadowDrgn wrote:   On July 18 2014 03:43 Spitfiree wrote: the $ is used too much on an international level, things are starting to change now, especially if the upcoming currency board( or w/e its called in english ) @ BRIC decides to use BRICSO instead of the $ once the $ loses its power in international trading, the US s gonna have a bad time The dollar losing value would help fix the US trade deficit, which would employ more people and boost the economy. It'd be bad for Walmart and rich people that spend lots of money overseas, but good for regular folks. There would be downsides too (more expensive debt, namely), but hardly a doom and gloom scenario. the inflation always makes the poor poorer. inflation makes everyone poorer, the rich and poor alike

in general inflation wipes out the savings of the middle class. but there are certain instances it can help a "middle class family." the classic example is think of a 30 year mortgage and think about how you can pay off that mortgage (all the sudden within a single year) with inflated borderline worthless dollars.

baal iono when u got so argumentative with so many retards on LP. i tried to follow your lead and just ignore them but you've been on a roll lately

not all inflation is equal. there isn't even such thing as general "inflation" that affects all goods equally. if it happens because a govt prints money then real wealth is just redistributed from people who were in cash to people who were in assets / debt. if it happens because some key inputs in production get more scarce (oil etc) then everyone is indeed worse off. doesn't make sense to talk about inflation as some uniform thing. it's just a symptom of other things going on and it can vary in what and who's affected just like the things causing it are varied.

Of course the inflationists were wrong. that's a given. Austrian economics is propaganda for uneducated people, while neoclassical economics is propaganda for educated people. Both of them are pseudo sciences. And the point of people who have university education in economics should be to critique themselves instead of critiquing the inflationists. That is because corporations rely on the propaganda that is taught in universities as a way of justifying their neocolonial projects around the world. Steve Keen puts it succinctly in his book 'debunking economics' that the neoclassical economists, which make up about 85% of the economics school, are the 'priests of capitalism'