surprised? happens every day. qualifications and job success rarely meet. Its jobs for the girls/boys everywhere.Originally Posted by plague
bye dillary, hello disaster
surprised? happens every day. qualifications and job success rarely meet. Its jobs for the girls/boys everywhere.
bye dillary, hello disaster
looking forward to the wacky capers of Chief Justice Peter Thiel
1. Interest rates are endogenously determined by the central bank. The Fed / Government can choose any rate it desires and then increase or decrease liquidity in the system by buying or selling interest bearing alternatives to money [Bonds, Repos, and so on].
2. Government spending puts downward pressure on interest rates because it increases liquidity in the exchange settlement accounts held by private banks at the Central Bank / Fed.
The system you think is in place is called the loanable funds framework - but the reality is that it is a textbook model which does not apply to how the banking sector actually works.
The reality is and endogenously determined money supply which tracks economic activity, and exogenously determined rate of interest, and a floating exchange rate.
Not trying to run you down here but there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support the idea that deficit spending increases interest rates - in fact the reverse is more likely.
Japan as an example, have been running much larger deficits as a percentage of GDP than Australia or the USA for a very long time and their interest rate is essentially zero.
THe myth is that governments function like households - nothing could be further from the truth.
Where people come unstuck is they look at examples such as Wiemar Germany, Zimbabwe, or Brazil which simply do not apply for reasons such as reparations, fixed exchange rates, no excess capacity, agrarian rather than commercial economy... and so on
Last edited by The Dunster; 10-11-2016 at 10:44 AM.
Tell you what....the last 24 hours has confirmed my theory that social media represents the vocal minority.
No matter what you think...the fact remains "The Land of the Free" has democratically elected a new leader, who the majority support.
Yes we can!!! - turned out to be no we can't.
Trump will do fine as long as the banking sector doesn't get complete control over congress. If that happens then he's dead in the water like everyone before him back to 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window.
The banking sector / Wall Street needs households to hold high levels of debt to maintain it's business. If government takes on more debt then households effectively hold less and the banking sector becomes less relevant / liquid.
This is the reason why the banking owned media crap on so much about bringing budgets back to surplus - they want households in deficit so they can make more money off them.
The level of marketing on this bullshit is insane and even filters down to primary school curriculum - to the point whereby group think tanks over.
Last edited by The Dunster; 10-11-2016 at 10:54 AM.
It only represents what circles you roll in, this was a ripper take I read the other day and I'm inclined to agree with it
"Blame Facebook for creating a massive reality-distortion field; for allowing its more than 200 million active North American users to dwell in a fever swamp of misinformation and ridiculous falsehood."
Although not broadcasting it from the rooftops like the vocal minority on either side, the amount of absolute nonsense and outright lies on Facebook that is swallowed up by the silent mass in the middle definitely has an effect.
Fair-dos to the Reps and the Trump campaign for exploiting it as well, people lapped up the Clinton narrative that was whipped up on the Internet, primarily through re-posts on Facebook. The Internet is an amazing leveller, where an article from Infowars can look just as convincing as something from the NYT if you want to believe the narrative. Twitter is overstated in it's effect for mine, but FB is the single biggest media outlet on the planet these days.
What will be interesting now is the legitimising of the Get Clinton rhetoric, where these right-wing pundits take the positions in the mainstream media that they so reportedly despise.
That being said social media is an amplifying echo chamber for the Left as well. In the end everyone who shows up vote counts and Trump absolutely nailed the states he had to win. Hats off.
Agreed, and with the Wikileaks exposure of a huge percentage of mainstream media actively campaigning for and working with the Dems it legitimised that suspicion even more.
Now all of a sudden Alex Jones and the New York Times are just as credible as each other.
What a time to be alive.
A great example of this has been the hippies reaction to Julian Assange. 12 months ago he was a 'freedom fighter deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize' now he's a 'filthy Russian sympathiser and a traitor who is trying to influence an election'.
Blimey.
My logic was based around the idea that due to how safe an investment US debt is perceived to be, the idea that investors would receive less then they were promised by the US government would trigger huge consequences throughout the economy. Thanks for sharing your perspective on this, which seems much more informed then mine. I will take time to think about this more closely and understand it better.
If there's anything comforting to see today, it's that more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. Yet another president who didn't win the popular vote...
Not saying the popular vote is the way to go necessarily, but surely they could explore the possibility of preferential voting or abolishing the archaic electoral college.
This is the real reason why Clinton lost the election and it didn't take facebook or even a graph for them to realise they needed to look at another option. The group think driving the media is beyond laughable when you look at the data - and if you are someone in that bottom 90% your lack of work / life balance is proof enough.
The next piece of the puzzle is to get people to understand how government spending really functions and the role the banking sector plays in the media groupthink debacle. This won't be easy though because the Democrat / Republican Two party dictatorship is ultimately in bed with each other here.
Last edited by The Dunster; 10-11-2016 at 12:08 PM.
I've never overly thought this before, until now (except, you know, social media is the vocal majority for jerks wanting e&c - sup porksey).
Before yesterday around lunch time, I'd barely heard of anyone actually supporting or believing in Trump. All reports I'd heard/read/etc were all the Hillary would win in a landslide and there weren't any sane people who would vote for Trump.
Fast forward to last night & this morning and everyone is all "I knew it was coming, was always going to happen, 3 or 4 swing states were always going to be Hillary's demise, I knew Florida was the worry, knew i should have gotten on Trump at $10, etc". I hadn't heard a single person say any of this shit until yesterday.
But there you have it, a democratic system & the majority have voted in the "71%-29% underdog".
OK
Hey, no doubt Dunster - that data - and the grim reality, fostered with effective, rapid-fire means of communicating it and spreading the dissatisfaction about it got big Donny home imo.
Where does the don go from here? because seriously I still have absolutely zero idea what he is actually going to do
granted there is no perfect system, and preferential voting opens up a whole other bunch of problems, but from what I read Clinton won the popular vote due to big wins in traditional high population Dem states New York and California. They swing the result as Texas does for the GOP.
Clinton lost key Obama held states and now everyone is pointing out how her team put little to no effort in holding them.
That's on her and her team, not the system.
Again, she lost to Donald ****ing Trump, how unlikable must she be?
In Wyoming, there is 143 000 people per electoral college vote.
In California, there is 508 000 people per electoral college vote.
It's a crazy difference in the power of a single vote per state. Agree about her poor campaigning and lack of foresight though - even moreso, the lack of foresight by the Democratic party to elect an establishment candidate when 2016 clearly wasn't the time for that.
Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that could have possibly lost to Donald Trump, and they gave that to him on a platter.
I did hear and read quite a few people adamant that Trump would win, one boffin had tipped every president for 100 years or something and he tipped Trump.
Ross Cameron and Mark Latham on Sky News were tipping him but I always believed it was them shit stirring rather than an informed decision.
Granted though your man on the street etc was no where near it.
I bet hard cash on Hillary and was confident right up until Ohio got called. Then I just laughed.
The Griff works in mysterious ways man.
Yeah it's been a good debate whether Sanders would have beat Trump. I don't reackon he would have.
Not sure how socialism would have gone down in middle America.
At least Sanders was ranting about the things that the middle class were upset about, like crippling student loan debt and trade deals that hadn't worked out for the average joe. Also, it looks like Clinton lost because of low turnout (even Trump got 2 million votes less than Romney). I believe that Sanders would have mobilised and inspired more young voters to get out and vote, and despite the rejection of the notion of democratic socialism from the right (because apparently they don't realise America already is a democratic socialist nation), Sanders could not have inspired the same levels of hatred that have been building towards Clinton for 30 years.
The fact that people assume Sanders is a socialist is the reason why he would have lost. Nothing could be further from the truth and yet because the media labeled Sanders as a socialist the mud stuck.
The reality is that on economic policy Trump and Sanders are pretty much on the same page - and Hillary is on another.
Where Trump and Sanders differ is with respect to Race, Religion, the environment, Xenophobia... and so on.
But when it comes to mobilizing idle resources be they human and non-human they share a lot of common ground.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
