https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Drop_2016.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
Printable View
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Drop_2016.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
It actually wasn't a dig at the hippies (well maybe just a little dig) but seeing people fight against GST on internet sales, and seeing people embrace Uber was interesting.
Because now that Amazon is owning media companies (uh oh controlling the message) and Uber has ratcheted up their pricing as well as a few drivers getting a bit 'gun massacrey' and 'rapey', people are like "whoa, utopia don't look so kewl anymore".
I mean Zuckerberg is gonna get hoisted up as President in a few short years and he's gonna then turn around and murder anyone who didn't vote for him (because he'll know) and people will be like "well that's not how I thought this go down".
These 'little' startups are just 'big' corporations waiting to happen, and dictators gonna dictate.
Choose your poison wisely.
http://neweconomics.net.nz/index.php...ted-economics/
Interesting read.
The Greg Mankiw text being a pile of shit is well known - much like his mate Fred Mishkin's text on Finance and Banking being more akin to Alice in Wonderland than anything resembling the monetary financial sector.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
The reason why they continue to flog the loan-able funds model is that it traps governments into adopting fiscal and monetary policies that favour the leisure classes [Billionaires] - i.e mass unemployment, low wages, rising profit share of income.
Unfortunately, most of those mentioned in the article supposedly against the orthodoxy spend just as much time fighting each other.
As for Henry George the orthodox economists could not thank him enough because his shit book directed people away from Marx's Capital Vol. 1.
anyone else notice CNN sacking journos for faking Trump news?
but everyone kept telling me Fox News were the sensationalists*.
anyway, at least some people are staying woke.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBaX4BtUAAE4nd6.jpg
*of course they are too.
The most confusing thing for me still is when it went from people wearing those Make America Great Again hats as a pisstake to people wearing them legit. Or is it still for the pisstake that has been taken this far. I just can't work it out :rof:
Oh it's gone to whole 'nuther level.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
Remember the recent video of the old dude crossing the road yelling at the car then he runs into the pole?
Anyway it first came to my attention because it was posted from some anti-Trumpers on Twitter all like "duhhh look at this stupid Trump supporter" except it was just a dude in a red hat. People didn't even take the time to check that
a) it was just a red hat.
b) it was shot in Adelaide.
When it was pointed out to them they went straight back to "yeah well bhuuhhh RUSSIA".
That red hat has to be one of the greatest marketing tools in the history of politics. It's got everyone shook.
Genius.
This shirt seems pretty relevant right about now..
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/077...g?v=1460615871
Who was that other terribly arty aussie thesbian that sang the song
Anyone who didn't enjoy the Trump twitter-fest over the weekend is a sad individual who I don't think I can ever be friends with.
Just amazing.
More please Mr President.
I am not a Trump fan by any stretch.
But even I had to laugh turning on news breakfast this morning and seeing that he'd tweeted essentially a meme gif (which I found mildly amusing), and is now being accused of inciting violence against journalists. Give me a break.
This post is exactly why Trump won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
He's a buffoon, but the overreaction is actually gaining him sympathy.
It's a brilliant strategy.
Exactly people need to pick their battles, who cares what the Dear Leader tweets?Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Holy crap I'll overload on this. Brilliant. Good to see people actually having a think about what they write rather than being sheep like most journos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
A few problems with the article though is that it sort of still refers to the loanable funds myth of how banks operate.
The truth is that loans create deposits. Deposits do not create loans.
The majority of bank lending is through securitisation. Banks simply look for credit worthy borrowers first - then they buy the reserves. Holding excess balances in their exchange settlement accounts is simply not done because the RBA will remove them to maintain the target cash rate they set at their previous meeting - and banks certainly won't hold idle balances either as they earn no interest for them.
Another problem is that the article implies a link between printing money and the government / RBA spending. This is not really the case. The majority of transaction are simply electronic whereby one account is debited and another is credited.
Finally, the assumption that governments / RBA need to fund their spending or require a source of revenue is misguided as well. The only economic constraints governments like ours face are concerned with productive capacity and the natural environments ability to sustain the forms of production we choose.
I thought it addressed this when it said only 3% of money came from printed money. The rest was created by banks providing loans.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
I assumed it was just referring to this paradigm for ease of understanding. While they may not technically need to collect money to spend it, in a sense their need to collect money is real is it not? To control inflation or whatever the technically correct reason is. Whether they brand it as "revenue" or whichever term is more accurate, the collection of money is still necessary if my (limited) understanding is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
Thoughts on the principle of the article - providing a wholesale / no-frills bank to the public?
Don't get me wrong - I liked the article because it showed someone actually having a go rather than regurgitating textbook myths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
The first point only implies a very weak link to securitisation - however, a lot of people would probably think of it as a money multipier process [which is definitely not the case].
The second point you are correct on - the government collects money to destroy it so that they can control inflation. They also collect it as a means to create demand for the money they issue - in that everyone is forced to pay taxes using the money the government issues.
Your understanding is very good you should probably have a look at some of the papers from the two below.
Warren Mosler a former Hedge Fund operator [a big one as well] has some good stuff to read on his website: http://moslereconomics.com/
Randy Wray as well is an expert on this stuff and was a former student of Hyman Minsky - http://www.levyinstitute.org/publica...l-randall-wray
I don't fully grasp the first part - you're correcting me by mentioning securitisation as the mechanism by which the banks issuing loans creates money? (my paraphrasing after googling securitisation :P) And then saying that securitisation is incorrectly thought of as a money multiplier?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
I had a look at a couple of things on the Mosler site - I can see a lot of concepts and phrases that you have brought up before in there, such as Govt deficit = private surplus. Was interesting seeing the relationships he outlined between US Govt deficit, oil prices, US exports, private debt combining for the GFC. Could you give me a brief run down on terms of trade? My search gave me that its a ratio of exports:imports. Its factors are ? currency exchange rates, labour costs, various govt policies (tariff/subsidy) ?
Its significance in the larger scheme of things? ie. Why having low TOT is bad
On another unrelated note, you mentioning the hedge fund manager reminded me. I've been watching some youtube shit and doing some reading the last few days on investing / trading / hedge funds etc and am interested to know more, both from curiosity and possible application. I have some small investments in blue chip stocks which I have paid no attention to for a few years but am considering becoming more actively involved in some investments or trading. Do you have any resources you would recommend to increase my understanding in these areas? I was looking last night for a demo trading platform for instance, which I had assumed there would be shitloads of but I couldn't really find any free ones.
I only have undergraduate textbook knowledge on International Trade Theory so don't take anything I say as being how things actually work in the real world. I've tutored in the subject but never lectured or written a peer reviewed paper on the subject.
ToT is the international exchange ratio - it tells us how many of one good will exchange for another good in the world economy.
The price of exports divided by the price of imports is called the "commodity terms of trade".
IF you multiply the commodity terms of trade by the quantity of exports you get the "income terms of trade"
The domestic exchange ratio tells us how many of one good will exchange for another good in a different country.
Having a poor terms of trade is bad because it means you are at a relative disadvantage to other nations when it comes to producing goods.
If you read up on absolute and comparative advantage it might make more sense to you. Briefly,
Comparative advantage measures what a country can do best relative to another country or relative to the rest of the world. So assume Australia needs 5 inputs to produce wheat and ten inputs to produce textiles. Assume NZ requires 10 and 30 inputs respectively to make wheat and textiles - We then would say that Australia has a comparative advantage in producing textiles because Australia finds it twice as hard to produce textiles and NZ finds it 3 times as hard [Domestic exchange ratio].
With respect to Absolute Advantage -the example above tells us that Australia has an absolute advantage in both commodities because it can produce either commodity with fewer inputs than NZ.
This is very simple though and their is a mass of research and evidence showing that it's nowhere near as simple for reasons that are beyond my comprehension to do with how peoples decisions are rarely rational and how tastes and preferences are not universal
I don't know anything about trading or hedge funds - Mike Norman is a successful trader in NY and a good guy with a website you could check out.
https://www.pitbulleconomics.com/videos/
I'm not a city person so the further away from civilisation I can get the better. My next house will probably be Paterson or East Gresford with some river frontage - Just need to come out of retirement for a year or two down the track and load up the coffers a little.
Agreed. A lot of people think the same way and it's getting a little pricey now.Quote:
Originally Posted by online
Did that years ago but it seems that even what was a quiet, rural place like Maitland is just full on development and road works. Not long ago I could wake up to the sound of cows and horses. Now its trucks, cranes, diggers, drills etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by online
Where to next?
You realise that they probably used cranes diggers and drills to build your house too yeah?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmaster
Hunter valley is a industrial machine attempted to be disguised by thin gum saplings. Quiter places with small acreages in Newy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmaster
Try Medowie, great purchase value atm. Sell to China for big profits
http://i66.tinypic.com/ao982f.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
Anyone wanting to know the future market value of their house and land package up in those valley satellite suburbs just take a day drive to the west of Sydney oh and keep your doors locked.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk
Give it 20 years and the Western Newy Wanderers will reinvent football.
shitholes like kings langley meet that criteria and you pay over a million for a 3 bedroom shack there now.
The difference in newy/maitland is that there is still a lot of options that are relatively affordable - closer to town.
Places like Aberglasslyn, Gilleston Heights, and so on to me lose out. Because they have lost their original charm and become much like the cookie cutter suburbs you find everywhere else - only they are more remote.
You live where you can afford though - and if you are lucky you can afford to live where you want.
I was in Sydney yesterday and no amount of money could lure me back. The place is a mess
Never understood the appeal of new estates when you get into the detail. See people forking out $250k/300k plus on 500m2 land alone in places such as Gilleston Heights and Cameron Park when you could head down the road 5 mins to Kurri or West Wallsend and purchase a 1000m2 block with a house for $350k.
http://robertkaplinsky.com/wp-conten...evil_cover.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
Oh, so nowwwwwwwww we care about emails.
Gotcha.
Compared to Nixon signing up Henry Kissinger as National Security Advisor this shit's not even a blip on the political radar.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
The media need to leave this shit alone and start working on getting page three girl pics up and running again on every newspaper that's still in circulation.
Trump supporters 3 months ago: "His campaign had nothing to do with Russia. He never met them. He never talked to them."Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Trump supporters now: "So what they worked with Russia? So what they met them? So what they talked to them?"
Yeah look I haven't read into any detail yet but what I did find interesting was the immediate release of the email chain from Trump Jnr.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve136
It's like when the "grab her by the pussy" tape came out. Trump Snr pretty much immediately said 'yep, that's me, sorry' and it kind of went away.
Through the whole campaign Hillary kept deflecting everything, crying misogyny and blaming everyone but herself for anything that went wrong.
I'm convinced if she just stood up and said 'yep that was me, sorry' she'd be President. I think so many people dropped off her because they thought she was 'dishonest'.
They voted Trump because even though he was a shitbag he at least acknowledged it.
Also, Trumps 2 adult sons are ****s of the highest order merely for the fact that they hunt animals. **** those 2.
But again, America seems ok with them killing an elephant what's a meeting gonna matter?
sorry something just came across twitter was it a fake Russian set up by a reporter? Or have I read that wrong?
Primary's are not what cost Hillary the election - it was the electoral colleges. As far as the primary vote goes Hillary beat Trump by over 2.5 million votes - and she amassed a lead in primary votes over Trump greater than any of the last ten US presidents did. over their opponents.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Hence, it would not have made much of a difference at all what she said. The powers that be wanted Trump in the White House and they put him there.
Yeah but Trump won states back off Obama that Hillary didn't put any time and resources into (granted they were traditional Red states lol how bad may have Romney been).
It's like the Pac-man/Horn fight. Pac landed twice as many punches, 2 diff judging panels gave Horn the fight.
Hillary lost that election. Her inability to own up to knifing Sanders, or the Podesta emails, or the 'secret server' were on her and her team.
Man she was at $1.15 the week of the election, do you know how difficult it is to have even Vegas 'that' fooled.
Still shaking my head over that one.
Now Dunster please stop all this misogyny, we'll get a terse letter from Julia Gillard if we keep it up.
Besides who cares The Rock gonna win in 2020 so we good.
The scary thing about the Electoral College system in the US is that you can become president by winning 270 college votes and theoretically that can be done with only 22% of the primary vote. So much for democracy.
How the hell is anyone not enjoying this?
Hillary would have been so lame and boring.