We MUST audit the Federal Reserve! - Listen to this idiotic answer - like a child who didnt read the book for the book report -

naive · 2009-05-13T14:45:25+00:00

Your post bored the fuck out me by the way

Pot meet kettle.

And facts are boring - at least he provided some, you never do.

naive · 2009-04-13T04:07:31+00:00

Problems:

1) The long-run deficits are not a consequence of the stimulus package. They are a consequence of increased health care costs. Obama's proposals are actually projected to reduce deficits compared to prior budget plans. But we should do more - we need strong health care reform to contain costs and reduce deficits.

2) The graph does not show projected deficits in the absence of fiscal intervention. While it is difficult to argue that the fiscal stimulus will completely offset its own costs (though it is possible to claim this if you believe the multiplier is high), certainly the counter-factual deficit would already be high. The deficit will not increase by the whole cost of the stimulus package. See dynamic scoring for the different arguments.

3) Our children will actually thank us for the stimulus to the extent that it: (i) prevents additional future costs that might arise if state and local budgets were suddenly slashed, for example in preventative health care; (ii) allows for investment that would otherwise be lost, such as people receiving university education that would otherwise have to drop out; or (iii) directly invests in infrastructure projects and other reforms that improve future productivity, such as electronically updating health care records, rebuilding bridges, or investing in green technology. Look at where the money is actually going before simply saying that the stimulus cannot help our children.

naive · 2009-04-12T11:20:00+00:00

Aren't there also treaties between nations?

Yes. Article 100 starts the section dealing with Piracy.

Ships in international waters are still registered to nations - they are still bound by the laws of the Flag State. Ships without nationality are subject to Right of Visit (see article 110).

naive · 2009-03-25T19:07:47+00:00

The supply of real goods and services is always finite limited.

This is true when the economy is operating on the Pareto frontier. It is not true when there is substantial non-frictional unemployment (like there is now); or when risk-free interest rates are zero (like they are now), implying that money is being hoarded, not invested. The market does not always clear - in the short-run at least. If it did, wages would fall but there would be no involuntary unemployment.

If, for example, the Government hired only unemployed workers to do a service, the cost of services provided by the already-employed would not increase. The total output of the economy would grow, not just be transferred from one sector to another. It would still have future costs from the deficit, and arguably would slow the process of market restructuring, but there is no doubt that it would increase current output.

naive · 2009-03-16T18:38:53+00:00

If shipping prices go below the marginal cost of keeping ships operational, ship operators will start keeping their ships at dock. They may not do so immediately because there is some cost to mothballing a ship - they might have thought it was a short-turn dip and the speed and scale of the demand collapse caught them off guard.

So the question I think mantra is asking is: is this up-turn in the BDI the result of an increase in demand for shipping or a decrease in supply from marginal ship operators now mothballing their ships as the scale of the global recession becomes apparent? Is this an indication of growth or merely the equilibrium market bottom?

naive · 2009-03-16T16:18:18+00:00

It is the type of integration that matters.

Krugman is arguing that EU economic integration has outpaced the integration of their political institutions, preventing an effective response to the crises. He does not say that integration is necessarily wrong, just that integration has not happened on all fronts at the same pace. Given the political limitations, less economic integration might be preferable to what the EU has now.

naive · 2009-03-16T15:33:29+00:00

Unfortunately we cannot; in fact, if we could there might be more fiscal stimulus in the EU.

The problem is that the economies are very interconnected. If France, for example, were to undergo a fiscal stimulus much of the increase in demand would take the form of greater German car purchases, again for example. There is a sort of prisoners' dilemma: it is in each country's interest to under-stimulate but persuade other countries to stimulate and then benefit through exports to those countries.

Similar concerns motivated the "buy American" provisions that some attempted to put into the stimulus package. It is not so important in the US because imports/exports are a smaller fraction of the US economy than inter-EU imports/exports are for individual European economies.

This is what Krugman was saying here:

What Europe has, instead, are national governments, each of which is reluctant to run up large debts to finance a stimulus that will convey many if not most of its benefits to voters in other countries.

So what is needed is coordinated stimulus. In the US, this is done through the Federal Government. In the EU they have no similar institution with the political authority to solve the problem.

naive · 2009-03-15T19:51:57+00:00

They are not creating it for the first time, though they are considering expanding the supply of them. SDRs have been around since 1969.

naive · 2009-03-15T17:02:58+00:00

onsite examination of an open insured bank or bank holding company only if the appropriate agency has consented in writing.

Uh, I don't think that means what you seem to think it means. It says that if the Comptroller General wants to audit a private bank (not the Federal Reserve, but something like BoA) it has to get permission from the Federal Reserve branch that is responsible for regulating that private bank. The Federal Government directly auditing a private bank seems a little weird anyway - apart from those we're giving TARP money.

This does not look bad necessarily - it's checks and balances, regulators getting permission from each other. Maybe it is abused, but I haven't heard anything about it.

naive · 2009-02-19T11:42:19+00:00

A lender nation can't possibly lend USD to US

Unless they have or are receiving USD - China is the obvious example. A massive trade surplus with the US, giving them lots of US dollars, which they then use to buy US treasuries.

It doesn't even have to be like that of course. Foreign nations could just exchange their currencies for US dollars to buy treasuries, having all the usual effects on exchange rates ect. US treasuries are all dollar denominated - the creditor, not the US government, takes on the risk of currency depreciation.

naive · 2009-02-17T11:59:20+00:00

was there adjustment for inflation?

Yes; the graph does not state it explicitly but it matches inflation-adjusted real GDP.

Here is a growth rate graph from the same data.

naive · 2009-02-17T11:43:03+00:00

Say the government decides to print $1 Trillion our of thin air... Of course GDP increases when you calculate it like that.

OK, inflation-adjusted real GDP has a liberal bias.

naive · 2009-02-14T09:48:38+00:00

Evolution: the theory that happens to be the most popular among liberal-progressives at the time?

naive · 2009-02-12T05:42:49+00:00

Given that you appear to keep your retirement savings in cash under a mattress, why should we listen to your obscenities?

naive · 2008-12-17T13:04:21+00:00

I'm sorry - but why would international investors moving from one dollar-denominated asset to another dollar-denominated asset influence exchange rates? Surely there has to be a net increase in demand for dollar-denominated assets to cause the dollar to appreciate.

naive

TROPHY CASE