Page 143 of 242 FirstFirst ... 4393133141142143144145153193 ... LastLast
Results 2,841 to 2,860 of 4840

Thread: The Politics/Religion/Conspiracies Deathmatch Thread

  1. #2841
    aka WLG pv4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7,445
    Quote Originally Posted by plague View Post
    Its funny that these are the 'corporations' that the hippies all warned you about and yet those same hippies are the ones that enabled them the most.
    OK

  2. #2842
    infant member plague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    14,070
    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.

  3. #2843

  4. #2844
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by The Dunster; 22-06-2017 at 04:44 PM.

  5. #2845
    infant member plague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    14,070
    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.



    *of course they are too.
    Quote Originally Posted by MFKS View Post
    And I don't argue with FR. The bloke is a legend and deserves great praise for his contributions to football in the Hunter.
    He is also the second best poster on the entire Foz behind you
    Quote Originally Posted by parksey View Post
    sometimes there's more to life than just winning
    Quote Originally Posted by ForeverRed View Post
    What a deadset ****ing coward **** you are
    Quote Originally Posted by MFKS View Post
    Seems like I am WRONG

  6. #2846
    aka WLG pv4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7,445
    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
    OK

  7. #2847
    infant member plague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    14,070
    Quote Originally Posted by pv4 View Post
    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
    Oh it's gone to whole 'nuther level.

    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.

  8. #2848
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,090


    Last edited by The Dunster; 28-06-2017 at 02:49 PM.

  9. #2849
    Senior Member Bon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    3,615
    This shirt seems pretty relevant right about now..


  10. #2850
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    17,380
    Who was that other terribly arty aussie thesbian that sang the song

  11. #2851
    infant member plague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    14,070
    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.

  12. #2852
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    825
    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.

  13. #2853
    infant member plague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    14,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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.

    He's a buffoon, but the overreaction is actually gaining him sympathy.

    It's a brilliant strategy.

  14. #2854
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    571
    Quote Originally Posted by plague View Post
    This post is exactly why Trump won.

    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?

  15. #2855

  16. #2856
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by The Dunster; 06-07-2017 at 09:54 AM.

  17. #2857
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dunster View Post

    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.
    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 View Post
    Finally, the assumption that governments / RBA need to fund their spending or require a source of revenue is misguided as well.
    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.

    Thoughts on the principle of the article - providing a wholesale / no-frills bank to the public?

  18. #2858
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    I thought it addressed this when it said only 3% of money came from printed money. The rest was created by banks providing loans.



    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.

    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.

    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

  19. #2859
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dunster View Post
    Don't get me wrong - I liked the article because it showed someone actually having a go rather than regurgitating textbook myths.

    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].
    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?

    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.

  20. #2860
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,090
    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/
    Last edited by The Dunster; 07-07-2017 at 11:43 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •