mersenneforum.org Ye Olde Mystery economic theatre 2014
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2014-02-12, 04:46 #12 LaurV Romulan Interpreter     "name field" Jun 2011 Thailand 2·5,059 Posts Stay calm, buy at 500, then buy again at 200 Disclaimer: This is a joke only traders may understand. Don't invest your money before doing your own due diligence. Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2014-02-12 at 04:47
2014-02-12, 10:08   #13
gd_barnes

May 2007
Kansas; USA

2·32·631 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kladner Well put, Richard.
+1 Richard!

I am 52 and self-employed. I couldn't be happier with the ACA. I don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions and in down years for my business, the tax credits for my health care will help me out.

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2014-02-12 at 10:10

2014-02-13, 17:31   #14
kracker

"Mr. Meeseeks"
Jan 2012
California, USA

32×241 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ewmayer Interesting goings-on in Bitcoinlandia: Another Bitcoin Flash Crash Imminent? Second Major Exchange Follows MtGox In Suspending Withdrawals One wonders whether the touters of the "stateless" aspect of BTC envisioned the above state-machine interpretation of that term.
Wheee.

2014-02-15, 00:00   #15
Fusion_power

Aug 2003
Snicker, AL

26×3×5 Posts

This one gets to the heart of the economic malaise that grips America.

http://www.guernicamag.com/daily/rob...ere-forgotten/

Quote:
 First, America’s real job creators are consumers, whose rising wages generate jobs and growth. If average people don’t have decent wages there can be no real recovery and no sustained growth. In those years, business boomed because American workers were getting raises, and had enough purchasing power to buy what expanding businesses had to offer. Strong labor unions ensured American workers got a fair share of the economy’s gains. It was a virtuous cycle. Between 1946 and 1974, the economy grew faster than it’s grown since, on average, because the nation was creating the largest middle class in history. Second, the rich do better with a smaller share of a rapidly-growing economy than they do with a large share of an economy that’s barely growing at all. Between 1946 and 1974, the economy grew faster than it’s grown since, on average, because the nation was creating the largest middle class in history. The overall size of the economy doubled, as did the earnings of almost everyone. CEOs rarely took home more than forty times the average worker’s wage, yet were riding high. Third, higher taxes on the wealthy to finance public investments—better roads, bridges, public transportation, basic research, world-class K-12 education, and affordable higher education—improve the future productivity of America. All of us gain from these investments, including the wealthy.

 2014-02-15, 22:14 #16 ewmayer ∂2ω=0     Sep 2002 República de California 267378 Posts
2014-02-15, 22:43   #17
ewmayer
2ω=0

Sep 2002
República de California

11,743 Posts

@Fusion:
Unions were indeed crucial in the transition from the early English-style smokestack/labor-exploitation industrial economy, but during the halcyon post-WW2 period you mention slowly succumbed to greed and entitlement addiction, rendering large sectors of US industry uncompetitive and long-term unviable in the can-they-survive-and-compete-without-government-subsidy sense. For the latest example of how things have changed, here is news from yesterday:

UAW Suffers Big Loss at Tennessee VW Plant
Quote:
 The United Auto Workers union suffered a crushing defeat Friday, falling short in an election in which it seemed to have a clear path to organizing workers at Volkswagen AG VOW3.XE +1.10% 's plant in Chattanooga, Tenn. The setback is a bitter defeat because the union had the cooperation of Volkswagen management and the aid of Germany's powerful IG Metall union, yet it failed to win a majority among the plants 1,550 hourly workers. "If the union can't win [in Chattanooga], it can't win anywhere," said Steve Silvia, a economics and trade professor at American University who has studied labor unions.
----------------------

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ewmayer How To Make Higher Education Free Without New Taxes Or More Government Spending | naked capitalism

2014-02-23, 22:18   #18
ewmayer
2ω=0

Sep 2002
República de California

11,743 Posts

CBO removes last vestiges of reality-based forecasting from
Quote:
 For 50 years or so the federal government has deliberately and to an increasing extent misstated probable future budget deficits. Democrats and Republicans are guilty. The White House is guilty. And so is Congress. Private firms that deliberately misrepresent their financial statements in this fashion would be guilty of a crime… The magnitude of the misrepresentation is breathtaking. - Former St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President William Poole, writing in the Wall Street Journal last April We’re guessing he was especially miffed with the annual budget outlook released by the CBO on February 5th. Consider that Poole favored the “alternative scenario” that can sometimes be found deep within CBO reports and spreadsheets. This scenario corrects for at least a few of the absurd assumptions in the primary budget projections (the “baseline scenario”) that receive 99% of the media’s attention. Poole called the alternative scenario “the only truly honest and useful effort in town.” Alas, the alternative scenario is no more – the CBO removed it from their annual outlook. Taxpayers can no longer find meaningful budget projections anywhere in the CBO’s work. Let’s see if we can fill in the gap. We’ll start with the baseline from this month’s report: real world versus baseline chart 1 The chart shows a shrinking deficit over the next couple of years, but don’t get too excited. Apart from other issues we’ll discuss, this is explained by a long-standing prediction for a robust economic recovery, which hasn’t yet come to pass. It’s not so much a budget outlook as a hopeful forecast...
There was a related Reuters piece earlier this month which I dug into a bit. The long-term CBO forecasts cited therein are a huge joke as always - but I wondered how that "fiscal 2013 deficit of $680 billion" compares to the actual debt numbers for FY2013 - including the several$100 Bln deferred by the Treasury via various debt-ceiling-avoiding accounting dodges - from the Treasury's own (and thankfully still available) debt-to-the-penny site. I still don't see a FY2013 summary there, but the rolling numbers for the last days of the previous two fiscal years show these totals:

09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32

The difference thus indeed shows FY2013 accumulation of $632 Bln, close to the touted$680 Bln. But on 1/30 we were here:

01/30/2014 17,249,265,796,405.00

Meaning an additional $511 Bln was added in just the 4 months since. Thus we had at end of January for all intents and purposes already hit the$514 Bln predicted by CBO for all of FY2014!

I believe much of that "frontloading" is the result of the aforementioned debt-ceiling-related accounting games, but bottom line: Either FY2013 debt addition [with debt-ceiling money games accounted for and rolled back into the FY2013 numbers] was in fact much more than $632 Bln, or FY2014 is on target to be much worse than the official estimates. You can't have it both ways. And a nice topic-related piece [also relevant to the neighboring "spying on its own" thread] by Bill Moyers: Anatomy of the Deep State Last fiddled with by ewmayer on 2014-02-23 at 22:19 2014-02-24, 12:36 #19 cheesehead "Richard B. Woods" Aug 2002 Wisconsin USA 22·3·641 Posts Quote:  Originally Posted by ewmayer 09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32 The difference thus indeed shows FY2013 accumulation of$632 Bln, close to the touted $680 Bln. But on 1/30 we were here: 01/30/2014 17,249,265,796,405.00 Meaning an additional$511 Bln was added in just the 4 months since.
But one needs to take into account the accounting reality of the annual January-February-March extra payout to folks who are due to receive income tax refunds (and file their returns earlier than folks who must include extra payment with their returns).

Treating the end-of-January/-February/-March debt totals as though they could be used, unadjusted for the tax refund surge, for a linear extrapolation through the rest of the fiscal year (or for speculation about accounting games) is unjustified.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2014-02-24 at 12:44

2014-02-24, 23:35   #20
ewmayer
2ω=0

Sep 2002
República de California

2DDF16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cheesehead But one needs to take into account the accounting reality of the annual January-February-March extra payout to folks who are due to receive income tax refunds (and file their returns earlier than folks who must include extra payment with their returns). Treating the end-of-January/-February/-March debt totals as though they could be used, unadjusted for the tax refund surge, for a linear extrapolation through the rest of the fiscal year (or for speculation about accounting games) is unjustified.
That is a partial explanation, but net add between the same 2 dates one year earlier was "only" $366 Bln, roughly$150 Bln less.

 2014-02-25, 08:19 #21 Fusion_power     Aug 2003 Snicker, AL 26×3×5 Posts I need to print this out and frame it. I think Richard just caught Ewmayer in a Faux Pas. Almost. I'm wondering if anyone else is seeing the malaise that I see in the economy. Things are running like a person eating a high sugar diet. It works for a while, but eventually, lack of protein and vitamins and such lead to serious physical problems. Similarly, our economy has been juiced with so much injected money that it has run very high without the underpinning to maintain the current lofty valuations. Comments?
2014-02-25, 09:11   #22

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Fusion_power I think Richard just caught Ewmayer in a Faux Pas. Almost.
I was just startled that Ernst didn't mention, or adjust for, the annual tax-refund bulge in outlays. In the past, I might've questioned whether just 15 days of refunds in the last half of January would be significant, but nowadays we have "electronic" filing and refunds. Back in January, businesses were inviting customers to spend their tax refunds.

Ernst points out that the previous year's Oct/Nov/Dec/Jan comparable figure was $150 billion less. Unless someone else can point out a substantial year-to-year difference in tax-refund payments, that$150 billion might indeed say something about accounting games.

Quote:
 I'm wondering if anyone else is seeing the malaise that I see in the economy. Things are running like a person eating a high sugar diet
... or like a corporation exporting jobs overseas?

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2014-02-25 at 09:22

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ewmayer Soap Box 156 2019-12-14 22:39 ewmayer Soap Box 42 2017-12-30 06:07 ewmayer Soap Box 90 2017-01-01 01:46 ewmayer Soap Box 200 2015-12-31 22:49 Fusion_power Soap Box 309 2014-01-17 20:51

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:47.

Fri Sep 30 12:47:42 UTC 2022 up 43 days, 10:16, 0 users, load averages: 1.17, 1.51, 1.32

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔