Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion What is more dangerous overall

It's nice to see someone on the internet who understands macroeconomics. Khell is correct, as what he says coincides nicely with what I learned in Fin101.
I'd like to add that OPEC deciding to "slash production" only affects futures prices and not actual volume, as the countries within OPEC are all cheating and pumping as much oil as they possibly can. They have no incentive not to.

I agree khell.
Dont you dislike the people that say, Clinton did a great job for the economy yet had nothing to do with near collapse. Same as saying Bush is bad for the economy, but lets not give him credit when it rebounds. hehe
I always see people saying Bush sucks for the economy. Yet when the economy has recovered, they give him no credit when its deserved hehe

?Naturally the common people don?t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it?s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.?
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler?s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

You got it Flee. Another person who has gotten royal screwed due to the perception of economic lag was Ronald Reagan. Okay, yes Democrats i will give you a litte and say that good ole Ronnie DID overspend a tad, BUT you need to remember that he inhereted an economy that just saw one of hte largest oil embargos ever as well as having a Fed that carelessley let the Fed Funds rate get to 18.50%!!!!!! (in comparisson, the Fed Funds rate is currently at 1.0%). In other words my parents first house was financed with an interest rate of 20.05%.
In order to combat a recessive/deflationary economy, when the Americans are losing jobs and production goods output to Japan at an astonishing level, and the US Dollar is at an all time low, the ONLY thing to combat potential large wave of inflation is to jack up governemtn spending signifcantly.

lenient. Some day we may think that polygamy is acceptable I can't say for sure that it will be or won't be, but it is possible, and if the majority of people believe it at the time then so be it. What is wrong with the idea of "if it doesn't hurt me then I guess im ok with it"?
You have your moral beliefs and I respect that, but those beliefs shouldn't be imposed on others. You say that some of those things are immoral, does that mean everyone thinks so?
I am a liberal catholic, amazing I know. I definently feel this quote is extremely applicable.
"We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love on another."
-Jonathan Swift
My overall point is that the line slowly moves over time, to fit with what the masses think is socially acceptable.
Should we revert to women not being able to vote or work and skirts that cover the ankles?

They are random events that are perpetuated by the government.
http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/99-03/cycles.cfm
I do agree that bush got the short end of the stick when he came into office, as after such a booming economy. However, some of the ways he handled it I disagree with.
Question for people in economics. Why do we cut taxes to the rich when we want to help the economy when their marginal propensity to save is higher than that of the low income?

During Reagan's tenure, the Fed also reduced the M-1 volume. It was the only means of staving off a disaster. He inherrited the good press for it (Reaganomics), and thats fine, all presedents will grasp at any positive to claim as their own, that's a truely bipartisan ability.

Good argument and very valid points....a tough read for a Sunday, but good none the less. That being said, however, i feel that some of historical data points they are using are just that, dated. We live in a new dynamic in economics and the investment world that disimmenate information so quick that people with authority and power can control the economy and others economy in ways that it never has. Just look at the way that Greenspan has controled inflation and the economy since he took office. Absolutely brilliant.
Tax cuts for the rich and famous have been a sore spot for so long. From what i have read, the tax cuts for the rich are necessary for one reason and one only. They spend money Xtimes faster than the middle class. Givens: Tax rate for the Rich is 30%, rate for midclass is 25%. Now lets say the tax benefit is 5%. Middle class family is making 50k, so their tax bill for 2002 was 12.5k and for 2003 is 10k. A savings of 2.5k. Now lets say the "rich" famillys income is 150k a year (i believe that is where the "rich" break is considered, help me here Volcom). their tax bill for 2002 is $45k and 2003 it is now $37.5k a net savings of $7.5. (i apologize for bad early math). The reasoning behind those cuts is that rich people, who tend not to have large amounts of debt etc etc etc, will immediately pour that cash back into the economy through purchases of goods and luxury items, thus triggering more taxes. I was all for the tax credit and tax reduction as i believed it was a perfect antitode to the slumping economy. Even Greenspan was on board at first, but now he is hacking it saying that if Bush thinks the economy is fixed just cause of that he is dead wrong.
We got the tax breaks, and they worked as plan with the money going right back into the spending sparking growth. What we need now is fiscal conservatism from the hill over the next 4-5 years and to not overspend. If we can survive that and not get a democratic leadership to unravel all the budgets by opening up huge spending policies we will be ok. The investment world is terrified of the Kerry econ plan cuase it makes NO SENSE. Rolling back tax cuts??? a little late for that.....
I noticed you cited the Mpls Fed, do you live in MN?

exactly....that is why i love the Fed so much, they dont give two shits what is going on in Capital Hill. They weild the power of hte economy not Bush, not Clinton, not Reagan.
Greenspan is a genius. He survived 8 years of Clinton cause he is super super smart. I actually had the pleasure of meeting one of his US Treasury Bond traders (they control everything) and he was so arrogant it was amazing. I felt like i was in the presence of god.

Yep, Greenspan is solid gold. I repsect him a lot. He doesn't let politics drive him, he makes great proactive decisions. Only problem is he is about 230 yrs old, and he will eventually retire.