From the Blackface thread: LOL! Lemme guess w****-Hey......as an HR Rep? Assistant to the Travelling Executive Secretary?? Seeing as how your posts are dripping in latent insecurity, not to mention the frequent tawdry boasts of your piddly little 'luxxxury SUV', it's quite doubtful indeed that you have any "business experience at the highest points of contact", much less "extensive." More likely, in fact is that you own or control nothing, have little to no personal equity to speak of, and instead run around all day kissing up to middle managers named Lumberg. I don't know if RM95 should accept a bet with such a duplicitous liar The Fed is currently inflating the money supply at the rate of 1.2 TRILLION dollars a year. That is more than twice our annual growth in GDP. So it's taking more than 2 dollars in debt just to produce every dollar of GDP. Yet for some reason you believe that going 2+ dollars into debt in order to make a buck is good business. Maybe if you concentrated more on the econ courses and less on criminology at your little Rice Univ, it would've helped you out more in this thread
Yes but the point is that the collapsing savings gap is shifting more and more control of American debt to foreigners because Americans simply don't save anymore. I suppose I overstated it as you pointed out but that doesn't necessarily answer my argument. Also your article proves my point. "It is common for individual Americans and businesses to buy bonds and other securities, though much of the debt is now held overseas" Your argument doesn't change the fact that a significant chunk is controlled by overseas investors. Although I'm extremely happy with the fact that you actually made a coherent argument supported by actual facts and statistics. Well Done.
You know, this is the problem with being an expert in a topic -- you get novices who want to take a run at you with the type of trash that pippendagimp just posted. What a load. I realize everyone wants to attempt to match wits with the best in the business, but as a matter of course, I simply don't have time to educate people. There are just too many learning curves that rookies like pippendagimp need to climb before they can hold an intelligent conversation. Posting garbage like an increase in the money supply = a 1-1 increase in debt is just idiotic. Thanks for the laugh, rookie. Please, research how the money supply rises and falls (think required reserve ratios at banks, interest rate movements, discount rate / fed funds rate movements). So you know, when the government issues debt to the public, that is taking money out of the short term money supply. Let that be a start for your education process.
What's this w****-Hey? No explanation of your duplicitous Lie? I for one believe you owe the board an apology. I tell you, the dishonesty and pathological lying by you neocons is absolutely despicable! Doesn't Rice have an 'Honor System' too? And on top of simple business arithmatic, you could not even pick up on Business Ethics? Very sad. And I thought Rice was supposed to be a good little middle level tier school, too. These are the future HR leaders of tomorrow they are producing?
Aw man now you broke your streak. I congratulated you on a successful post and there you go and blow it. Oh well, I guess I expected too much. I like how you're dropping terms left and right buut you really need to make arguments rather than naming terms. You seem to have plenty of time to educate us "novices" considering your post count. However, all you really do is continue your lovely trend of bashing people rather than answering arguments. You almost just almost changed that earlier but I got ahead of myself. By the way, the fed ditched the discount rate. its now referred to primary and secondary credit loans. In an effort to make the Fed more attractive as a loaner, it simplified the process and created two tiers of loans based on your credit history and financial situation. Also they altered it to where now the fed's rates of loans are higher than the federal funds rate as opposed to the opposite before the switch. Sorry I just couldn't resist dropping random terms and facts since you like to do that.
I'm not sure what the argument is about? The top of the pile is doing fine and the rest of the population is not starving/rioting. Have we not figured out that this admin and it's supporters don't give a CRAP about the middle class/poor? This issue can't be made about this countrys long term fiscal health when that does not matter. So long as the rich (or blind followers) do well they will see the economy as booming. Again The top 5% are doing great yadda yadda something about disappearing health insurance, high energy prices, and average people with less earning power SNORE
this isn't anything new. look at the reagan years. the top 1% increased their net income by something like 150k but the bottom 40% actually lost money.
Hmmm, the same transfer of income from the bottom 40% to the top. I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. How can this be? I though Reagan and Dubya are such good hearted Christians all concerned with average folks?
dubya would sell out the christian right in a heartbeat. he's in the pocket of wall street. as are most politicians. money makes the world go round.
Hypothetically speaking, because of large immigration to the US, everyone could have moved up a notch in the income bracket and these statistics could still be the same, with new immigrants replacing the lower class. Then saying that things are going badly for the poor and middle class would be very misleading.
Again, this is ridulous. The bottom 40% from 5 years ago aren't the same as the bottom 40% of today. Many of them have surely moved up income brackets.
Is there any statistic saying that immigrants replacing the lower class? I know it's not the case in Canada, because you need to have education, working experience, language knowledge, and some savings to be qualified as independent immigrants. I don't know about US though.
Why is it relavant who's in the bottom 40% or top 5%? Of course they are different over the time. The whole class or the whole two classes are worse off, that was the point. Besides, I don't think US acquires 40% of working population through immigration each year.
who cares? the fact is the bottom 50-60% of the country does not benefit from any of these economic booms. i dont want bill gates to live on 10k a year for the rest of his life just because he had some hightimes before. i want the entire population to live on something that befits citizens of the largest economy of the world.
Excellent post. I get so tired of folks claiming that we do so well with poverty because we do better than, say Mexico. When all is said and done the Bushies and their ilk want the US to essentially be the richest country of the Third World.
You seem to be arguing that it shouldn't matter because there is an upward mobility available for the lower income brackets in the U.S. Historically that may have been the case, but what this is showing, is that upward mobility isn't being helped recently. In fact the trend for the lower income brackets isn't an upward mobility but a downward mobility. While the trend is for the top 5% to move upward. Furthermore the amount of people in the brackets are fluid. It isn't like one day we can all make it to the top 5%. I might be confused, but it sounds like you are saying there is an upward mobility and more people can join the top 5%.
However, as you well know (and conveniently left out), most of the bonds that go to finance the deficit these days are bought by the Fed, not the public. Since the Fed has shown very little sign of constricting the money supply by in turn selling these securities to the public, the net effect is exactly the same as if the Treasury just turned on the printing presses and ran off a whole slew of greenbacks. Of course, as an "expert" in this field you already knew that. Your failure to mention the effects of monetizing the debt in this way shows you for the duplicitous snake we all know.
