Forums | MacLife

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Are we being punk'd ?  Where's Ashton ?  Ashton ?

Would you care to explain the purpose of that post?

Your continued and excessive display of economic ignorance and misuse of well-defined terms leads me to believe you are knowingly providing an exasperating argument for your own amusement at our attempts to understand and correct you.

Um - no.
As I've pointed out before, when you guys make these blanket statements about how I "don't understand economics" - I provide links to professionals in the field who agree with me, and you guys fail to specify how my understanding is flawed.

Now I am not an economist - so yes, there may be terms I use incorrectly. As I demonstrated earlier though, when I use a term "incorrectly" it isn't something I made up - as the term (such as deflation of housing market) is commonly used in the media, and thus while it may not be an accepted economics definition of the term (or may be - I don't know) it certainly is common vernacular.

I'm sorry if you are too stuck up and full of yourself to deal with people who use common vernacular terms.

Last edited by resedit (2009-01-30 3:01 pm)

Larry King? He's not O'Reilly, Limbaugh or Olbermann, but King wouldn't know a good question if it....

Oh! You weren't referring to him. My bad.

resedit wrote:

As I've pointed out before, when you guys make these blanket statements about how I "don't understand economics" - I provide links to professionals in the field who agree with me, and you guys fail to specify how my understanding is flawed.

I usually do specify the errors, but you ignore them.  Then you say things like "The [money] supply didn't shrink though."

Making such a significant error on a fundamental part of this particular discussion, with your past statements, I'm completely correct in saying you don't understand economics.

Leverage and fractional reserve banking from 2003 to August 2007 caused the money supply to increase, when leverage is decreased and banks lend less, that reduces the money supply.

Crashing asset values (stock market, real estate, securitized products) decrease the money supply.

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

As I've pointed out before, when you guys make these blanket statements about how I "don't understand economics" - I provide links to professionals in the field who agree with me, and you guys fail to specify how my understanding is flawed.

I usually do specify the errors, but you ignore them.  Then you say things like "The [money] supply didn't shrink though."

Making such a significant error on a fundamental part of this particular discussion, with your past statements, I'm completely correct in saying you don't understand economics.

Leverage and fractional reserve banking from 2003 to August 2007 caused the money supply to increase, when leverage is decreased and banks lend less, that reduces the money supply.

Crashing asset values (stock market, real estate, securitized products) decrease the money supply.

N'uh-uh.

JakeTheTall wrote:

http://www.maclife.com/forums/post/1552096#p1552096

edit: also  http://www.maclife.com/forums/post/1552192#p1552192

Those were April.
Things have gotten a lot worse since April. A hell of a lot worse.

Don't feel bad, res ... you and freecat make a good team.

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

The indicators visible in April were used by myself and others to see how bad it would get.  Heck, August 2007 was when this visibly started.

I can't always be right - and neither can you.

He can too!

What's wrong with high spending? It's not as though that money's going to evaporate -- it's going to go somewhere.

The final bill is not going to be the House version, so there's not a whole lot of reason to fret over it.

Like the tax cuts, the extension to unemployment payments, and several other things that the Republicans agree with?

Tax cuts haven't helped worth squat. We've had several years of tax cuts for businesses and higher income people. Why do the Repubs want more, since by their reasoning, none of this would be happening due to the previous tax cuts?

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

The indicators visible in April were used by myself and others to see how bad it would get.  Heck, August 2007 was when this visibly started.

I can't always be right - and neither can you.

We didn't know how smurfed up the Banks were - that's what makes things so dangerous now.
With smurfed up banking, money doesn't flow, and that's the core of the current problem, is it not?

I knew how bad banking was in September 2007.  I also knew then how much of the past 5 years of growth was dependent on real estate and construction.

I'm just trying to show you maybe there's a reason why I was correct.

I have, but the silly old fart only listens to the rich folk who paid his campaign.

It might help if I explained some of my economic philosophy.
As most of you are aware, I grew up in a Church environments. Churches depend upon tithes and offerings, and as such, it is very important for churches to encourage debt free living for their members. A church member up to his ears in debt is not going to be able to contribute very much to the running of the church let alone missions.

A very basic concept that they all teach is that you do not borrow for frivolous expenses. If you have to put that pizza party on a credit card, you can't afford the pizza party. When you buy your car, if you are financing - getting the "fully loaded" package for an extra $500 or whatever may not seem like a lot, but it will cost that $500 many times over by the time you are finished paying for your car, and since your car won't be paid off as quickly, it will cost you more in insurance costs as well.

I don't see why these same basic concepts of debt free living don't also apply to government, especially when we are in financial crunch. Buying those more expensive "alternative fuel cars" is debt the country should avoid when less expensive alternatives are available, especially since the benefit of those expensive cars is not one that can be taken advantage of in most places.

When someone tries to tell me the actual economics is more complex and that the .gov borrowing money for these unnecessary expenses isn't a bad thing without actually being able to explain why, I get very suspicious.

Yes - I know that the value of non liquid assets is important, they help a lender determine the risk of the loan. With a deflation of the housing and stock market, it is more difficult for businesses to get the lines of credit they need for their regular business. However, artificially inflating those assets is NOT the solution, that only leads to problems like the one we have now where the artificial bubble pops resulting in loan defaults which then freezes up the willingness of banks to loan thus choking the flow of money. Artificially inflated prices, such as what happened in the housing market, is the problem. The correction of the market is not the problem, though the results of the correction can be damaging.