Gyroscopic Investing

Bummer.  I thought it was his Presidential platfom.

He's basically promoting austerity.  How well did that work in the EU?

Yes, that is his Presidential platform.

No, he is promoting growth by shrinking the size and intrusiveness of government.

Any other questions?

MachineGhost wrote: Bummer.  I thought it was his Presidential platfom.

He's basically promoting austerity.  How well did that work in the EU?

Is there somewhere that austerity was actually tried and failed in the EU?

Just asking.

madbean2 wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: Bummer.  I thought it was his Presidential platfom.

He's basically promoting austerity.  How well did that work in the EU?

Is there somewhere that austerity was actually tried and failed in the EU?

Just asking.

Greece, I think. Maybe Spain and Spain Portugal as well, I'm not sure. Depends on your definition of failure, I suppose, but Greece (and maybe the others?) is doing worse, not better, after years of austerity policies.

Simonjester wrote:

madbean2 wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: Bummer. I thought it was his Presidential platfom.

He's basically promoting austerity. How well did that work in the EU?

Is there somewhere that austerity was actually tried and failed in the EU?

Just asking.

probably nowhere that it can be said it was tried wholeheartedly, or without so many extenuating circumstances and confounding (and unaccounted for) variables that its failure is a given. that being said.. the same is undoubtedly true for a government spending its economy into success/prosperity as well.

i thing the real answer (given my limited understanding of MR and imaginary dollar economics) is that the answer is neither government austerity or increased spending but increased government efficiency.. in order for spending to truly match economic need, it must cut down on its spending in areas that it interferes, creates regulatory drag, and generates all manner of horrible unintended consequences and up its spending on functional and working projects that are demonstrably needed and achieve success at their goals, if to few (or none) of those actually exist... then citizen dividend for everyone

In that case I think the U.S.A. is really screwed. "Government Efficiency" - isn't that an oxymoron by now? Maybe in a small country you could have such a thing but in a country as large as the U.S. with a democratic form of government the idea of ever having an efficient federal government strikes me as a total fantasy.

Simonjester wrote:

madbean2 wrote:

Simonjester wrote: i thing the real answer (given my limited understanding of MR and imaginary dollar economics) is that the answer is neither government austerity or increased spending but increased government efficiency..

In that case I think the U.S.A. is really screwed. "Government Efficiency" - isn't that an oxymoron by now? Maybe in a small country you could have such a thing but in a country as large as the U.S. with a democratic form of government the idea of ever having an efficient federal government strikes me as a total fantasy.

somewhere between really screwed and unobtainable ideal, if we don't try we get the former, if we keep working at it we get the latter.. perpetually under repair and perpetually in need of further fixing...

immigration is making who and what politicians stand for unintentional transparent, a pox on them all

There is no mention of stopping illegal and legal immigration with border enforcement, employer enforcement, and a moratorium.

There is no use having austerity measures when you import millions of new poor people a year that use government services. Then also allow at least 30 million current illegals to remain that on average use more social services than American citizens. Finally, why also import millions legally that displace American workers, depress wages, and force those put out of work to also use government services? Lower wages and unemployment benefits for citizens does not help the bottom line.

The fact that no GOP candidate is seriously talking about immigration (outside of Scott Walker and Donald Trump) shows how detached from reality many of them are, including Rand Paul. So, no vote from me.

I would vote for the biggest flaming socialist alive if I was certain they would enforce the border, severely punish employers hiring illegals, enforce public charge laws against legal immigrants using welfare services, and shut down the H1B program which is only used to fire Americans and replace with cheaper skilled labor. Finally, they must repeal the 1965 Immigration Act entirely as it is a complete and total disaster created by Ted Kennedy.

Right now, many companies use the cheap labor to save some bucks but the true cost of those workers is borne by the taxpyers by supporting those workers with supplemental income through food stamps, housing assistance, free education, healthcare, etc. These companies abusing immigration rules need to bear the full cost of their workers and not be allowed to make taxpayers subsidize their profits. I think some big fines, jail time, and shutting down some businesses entirely would go a long way to sending the right message.

Reducing the low end labor market by tens of millions with deportation and self-deportation, combined with protecting middle class jobs being in-sourced with imported labor, would do far more than trimming a little off the federal budget. Wages would increase, unemployment would plummet, and many government services could recover back into serviceable territory by doing just this alone.

Heck, I bet even Obamacare would work if it wasn't being asked to support millions of indigent immigrants (legal and illegal) and their children.

craigr wrote: The fact that no GOP candidate is seriously talking about immigration (outside of Scott Walker and Donald Trump) shows how detached from reality many of them are, including Rand Paul. So, no vote from me.

Carly Fiorina doesn't sound too bad on immigration. I think I heard her say the other day that nobody who entered the U.S. illegally should ever be eligible for citizenship which is exactly my position.

I think we may have reached a tipping point where Americans might actually be ready to start caring enough about this issue to actually let it influence how they vote. It would definitely be interesting to see a candidate take the ball and run with it but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

madbean2 wrote: I think we may have reached a tipping point where Americans might actually be ready to start caring enough about this issue to actually let it influence how they vote. It would definitely be interesting to see a candidate take the ball and run with it but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

Things have to get much worse before people will start attacking and blaming immigrants.  EU is ahead of us in this respect (i.e. right-wing nationalist parties).

Anyway, we operated under this immigration policy between 1921 and 1965: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act

I'd say it was rather effective.

madbean2 wrote:

craigr wrote: The fact that no GOP candidate is seriously talking about immigration (outside of Scott Walker and Donald Trump) shows how detached from reality many of them are, including Rand Paul. So, no vote from me.

Carly Fiorina doesn't sound too bad on immigration. I think I heard her say the other day that nobody who entered the U.S. illegally should ever be eligible for citizenship which is exactly my position.

I think we may have reached a tipping point where Americans might actually be ready to start caring enough about this issue to actually let it influence how they vote. It would definitely be interesting to see a candidate take the ball and run with it but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

I think what Libertarians/Quasi-Libertarians like Rand Paul and others just don't get is that the the vast majority of the planet is not libertarian and small government inclined. Most all third world cultures are not what you would describe as supporting small government. In fact, they are often quite the opposite. They like big government.

When you draw on those people as your primary immigration feedstock you are guaranteed long term to have a voting bloc that will never vote for small government polices. So the idea of supporting ideas like open borders means these Libertarian types are just laying down planks on their own gallows. Clueless doesn't begin to describe them.

America really needs a strong leader at this point to take control of the situation and put American workers and citizens first.

Desert wrote: The problem with economics is that we can't run two parallel experiments.  Would Greece be doing better today without austerity?  We can argue about it, but we'll never know.  It's frustrating.

Of course Greece would be doing better!  We have plenty of historical evidence on how countries rapidly recover after devaluing their currency and then become more competitive on the global stage, starting with the collapse of the so-called fourth gold standard (fixed exchange rates) in the 1920's and 1930's.  Greece is literally priced out of everything with a fourth world economy and first world currency.  Greece's austerity is purely a creature of government intervention just as fixed exchange rates were.

MachineGhost wrote:

Desert wrote: The problem with economics is that we can't run two parallel experiments.  Would Greece be doing better today without austerity?  We can argue about it, but we'll never know.  It's frustrating.

Of course it would be doing better.  We have plenty of historical evidence on how countries rapidly recover after devaluing their currency and they become more competitive on the global stage.

Like Iceland did, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–11_I ... ial_crisis

Pointedstick wrote: Like Iceland did, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–11_I ... ial_crisis

By mid-2012 Iceland was regarded as one of Europe's recovery success stories. It has had two years of economic growth. Unemployment was down to 6.3% and Iceland was attracting immigrants to fill jobs. Currency devaluation effectively reduced wages by 50% making exports more competitive and imports more expensive. Ten-year government bonds were issued below 6%, lower than some of the PIIGS nations in the EU (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain). Tryggvi Thor Herbertsson, a member of parliament, noted that adjustments via currency devaluations are less painful than government labor policies and negotiations. Nevertheless, while EU fervor has cooled the government continued to pursue membership.[245]

The currency cannot adjust for inflation or wage disparities or what have you under a fixed exchange system, including a so-called gold standard.  That's unfair and unjust.  The real interest rate in Greece is a whopping 13.5%!  That's crushing.

So we have to add to the short list of being clueless about immigration, also being clueless about money.

Desert wrote: So the solution to the money supply growth problem was to devalue the currency?

Yep, the only way you could do that as a central bank is to reduce interest rates all the way to negative if necessary to stop attracting foreign capital flows, but central banks don't think beyond domestic economy.  Switzerland is the only exception I've ever seen.

That's probably a good argument for them to get out of the interest rate fixing business and do nothing but act as lender of last resort via the discount window.  But, I don't think you can really control in the private economy who pegs onto your interbank lending rate.  So there are ripple effects on interbank lending rate changes.  Then again, central banks are typically behind the yield curve anyway.

Frankly, if we're going to be stuck with central banking, I'd like to see them have the powers they were originally supposed to have, i.e. the independent ability to actually affect the real economy and preserve jobs because we know all the economically illiterate lawyers and attorneys in Congress do such a fantastic, bang up job.  Japan's central bank has pretty busy buying up billions of yen worth of REIT's and ETFs which is utterly useless.

Ught!  I'm convinced living on Earth is a peculiar form of hell.

Desert wrote: Interesting.  So was Volcker wrong in the '70's, in his attempt to break inflation by raising rates? 

No, the dollar was already trash, stocks were junk and no one wanted our bonds.  There were no capital flows to here (other than to buy gold).  Sentiment was so bad the Treasury starting issuing bonds in Swiss Francs.  You think doom porn is bad now, it is nothing compared to back then.  Everyone was convinced the dollar was going to literally evaporate.

There is an inconspicuous black knob down next to the steering column that you pull for starting, just like a choke. Actually, it isn't a choke, but rather a means of advancing injection timing a few degrees for a cleaner kickoff. This avoids the fog-bank of blue and white smoke (unburned fuel and water vapor) that usually marks a Diesel as an automobile with a genuinely nasty morning habit. There's no chance of fumigating your neighbor with the Rabbit on initial start-up, because all that comes out is a small puff of black smoke. Except for the noise, of course, and the Rabbit's preheater system helps make it an exemplary Diesel on this count, but it's still a Diesel just the same. The initial clatter is not unlike being inside a garbage can during a hail storm.  Herb Williamson, VW's press relations man, prefers to call it "the sound of pennies dropping in a piggy bank."

lol  I just can't imagine that passing muster nowadays.

[quote=http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/ ... ID20150620]Tens of thousands of anti-austerity protesters massed outside Britain's parliament on Saturday to demonstrate against the newly re-elected Conservative government's plans for further public spending cuts.

Holding banners saying "End Austerity Now" and "Defy Tory Rule", protesters had marched from the Bank of England in the heart of London's financial district, in a rally which organizers said drew several hundred thousand people.

Police declined to estimate numbers for the event, which featured speeches from celebrities such as singer Charlotte Church and comedian Russell Brand as well as trade unionists and Labour Party leadership contender Jeremy Corbyn.

"Everyone from up and down the country is here because they have had enough of austerity, cuts and privatization," university scientist Gareth Hardy told Reuters Video News.[/quote]

I can't remember, is the UK a currency user or an issuer?

MachineGhost wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/20/us-britain-economy-protest-idUSKBN0P00ID20150620 wrote:Tens of thousands of anti-austerity protesters massed outside Britain's parliament on Saturday to demonstrate against the newly re-elected Conservative government's plans for further public spending cuts.

Holding banners saying "End Austerity Now" and "Defy Tory Rule", protesters had marched from the Bank of England in the heart of London's financial district, in a rally which organizers said drew several hundred thousand people.

Police declined to estimate numbers for the event, which featured speeches from celebrities such as singer Charlotte Church and comedian Russell Brand as well as trade unionists and Labour Party leadership contender Jeremy Corbyn.

"Everyone from up and down the country is here because they have had enough of austerity, cuts and privatization," university scientist Gareth Hardy told Reuters Video News.

I can't remember, is the UK a currency user or an issuer?

UK Pound sterling issued since 1694, of course it has devalued a bit compared to the pound of sterling silver it was originally.

Haven't decided if the austerity bollocks is naive economics, a cynical attempt to run public services into the ground or the ever popular class war. Probably all three.