Quote: nyuhoosierThe administration is not "regulation happy," it is trying to restore some balance and common sense. Look what the lack of regulation hath wrought: Madoff, Enron, oil spills, lead in toys, financial implosions and bailouts. You act like the Obama administration just loved bailing out these unregulated banks (actually it was Bush who engineered the largest bank bailout, but OK). With adequate regulation, the bailouts would never have happened. You can't be opposed to bailouts and FOR less regulation. You can't be FOR tax cuts for the rich and AGAINST deficit spending. It's about time you tea partiers got called on your blatant ignorance and hypocrisy.
This administration is regulation happy. I hate to break it to you, but "lack of regulation" is not what wrought all you said. Madoff? He was just a crook, and no amount of regulation will get rid of crooks. Lead in toys? Well, if people would quit insisting they should only pay for a toy what they paid 20 years ago and you would have the higher quality toymakers still making better toys. Banking, oilm etc are VERY HIGHLY REGULATED. I deal with a number of banking regulations just working processing and taking loans. Several of which actually cause more problems (eg: I cannot legally discourage a borrower from applying for a loan no matter what.)
Now, why can't I be for lower taxes? (BTW: Bus cut taxes for ALL TAXPAYERS, not just "the rich" so you need to drop that line, it is well worn out and a lie at that.) Cutting taxes stimulates the economy which raises revenue. Less spending on things like Obamacare and hiring twice as many census workers hurts the economy. So yes, I am for tax cuts and against deficit spending above a level needed to maintain a liquid and active market for US Government Bonds.
Quote: nyuhoosierLOL. Businesses, especially small businesses, have to borrow continuously to keep their doors open.
Businesses sometimes need revolving lines of credit to meet short-term needs, but any business that doesn't pay its ongoing expenses from cash-flow will be out of business soon. My point is if you have say a small hotel you are not going to add rooms if all of the sudden you have to pay your employees more via Obamacare; pay more to heat and cool the place via Global Warming Taxes; etc.
Quote:Thank you for the Fox News talking point. In reality, polls show a majority of Americans favor the actual provisions of the health reform bill. The independent and historically conservative GAO shows a 10-year deficit reduction as a result of the health care bill. When you get to be 55 and you are laid off from your job, you'll be thanking your lucky stars to have access to affordable health care for the 10 years you'll have to wait to get Medicare.
Sorry to bhreak it to you, but 60% want Obamacare repealed : http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/health_care_law
Sure people like teh iudea of fixing a low price, etc. But Obamacare breaks the laws of economics. And I don't want to go to jail just because I don't want to buy an "approved" health care policy I don't feel I need just because Obama says so. I want a low-cost; high deductible plan with a Healt Savings Account and make my own decisions. If you encourage that you will not have to worry at age 55, you will be all set.
Instead we had rammed tru a job-killing bill that will increase deficits. No government estimate has ever come close on health care costs; and Obamacare was estimates using 10 years of revenue against 6 years of expenses. Only a moron would believe you can give out more government benefits and LOWER the deficit. Unlike lower taxes which stimulate economic activity which makes the whole tax pie bigger, more benefits raise costs with no economic benefit.
Quote:Wait, aren't you a casino dealer? You of all people should know the unions are largely responsible for the respectable wages casino workers earn. In fact, Vegas is one of the few places where you can get a low-skill job without a college degree and be part of the middle class. In most other places, service workers are relegated to a miserable existence as part of the working poor.
Uh, dealers earn minimum wage and work for tips for the most part. No need for a union for that. I am confident in my skills that I don't need to give away $500-1,000 a year of my money for someone to make work rules that hold me back and then give hundreds of those dollars to politicians I do not like.
Quote:It that is true, and I'm not even sure it is, it's probably because the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the presidency. Do you have a source?
It is true, I have seen it boradcast on many sources. It is probably because many established business favor regulation to keep new, innovative competitors out. My guess.
Quote: matildaMr Duffman: Calm down. Stop your ranting. We know what you are saying--let it go. But face the facts--not everyone agrees with you. There is a reason for this, for the most part you are wrong.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, that is why we have a forum like this.
BTW: I am not wrong at all. A look at the facts shows that.
Here is a sample:
Fact:Obamacare breaks the laws of economics.
Fact:We just had socialized medicine we didn't want rammed down our throats
Fact: small and managable deficits of 1-3% of GDP are needed to avoid recessions.
Fact:"income equality" = virtually everyone in poverty.
Fact:the USA has the most opportunity for anyone anywhere in the world.
Give it up Mr Duffman-- you are like a losing gambler who refuses to walk away from the table. If you keep playing it is inevitable that you will lose again.
Quote: WizardMy guess is #3. Show me a country with equality of income, and I'll show you a country where everyone is poor. Those who work harder deserve to be rewarded for it. The only one of those goals I agree with is #4.
These statistics are from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html
Remember higher the Gini more inequality of income; lower Gini, more equality of income
Rank country Distribution of family income - Gini index Date of Information
1 Namibia 70.7 2003
2 South Africa 65.0 2005
3 Lesotho 63.2 1995
4 Botswana 63.0 1993
5 Sierra Leone 62.9 1989
6 Central African Republic 61.3 1993
7 Bolivia 59.2 2006
8 Haiti 59.2 2001
9 Colombia 58.5 2008
10 Brazil 56.7 2005
11 Bosnia and Herzegovina 56.2 2007
12 Panama 56.1 2003
13 Guatemala 55.1 2007
14 Chile 54.9 2003
15 Honduras 53.8 2003
16 Hong Kong 53.3 2007
17 Paraguay 53.2 2009
18 El Salvador 52.4 2002
19 Peru 52.0 2008
20 Papua New Guinea 50.9 1996
21 Zambia 50.8 2004
22 Niger 50.5 1995
23 Swaziland 50.4 2001
24 Gambia, The 50.2 1998
25 Zimbabwe 50.1 2006
26 Dominican Republic 49.9 2005
27 Sri Lanka 49.0 2007
28 Mexico 48.2 2008
29 Singapore 48.1 2008
30 Costa Rica 48.0 2008
31 Ecuador 47.9 2009
32 Madagascar 47.5 2001
33 Mozambique 47.3 2002
34 Nepal 47.2 2008
35 Rwanda 46.8 2000
36 Malaysia 46.1 2002
37 Philippines 45.8 2006
38 Argentina 45.7 2009
39 Uganda 45.7 2002
40 Jamaica 45.5 2004
41 Uruguay 45.2 2006
42 United States 45.0 2007
43 Cameroon 44.6 2001
44 Cote d'Ivoire 44.6 2002
45 Iran 44.5 2006
46 Nigeria 43.7 2003
47 Guyana 43.2 1999
48 Nicaragua 43.1 2001
49 Cambodia 43.0 2007 est.
50 Thailand 43.0 2006
51 Kenya 42.5 2008 est.
52 Burundi 42.4 1998
53 Russia 42.3 2008
54 China 41.5 2007
55 Senegal 41.3 2001
56 Turkey 41.0 2007
57 Venezuela 41.0 2009
58 Morocco 40.9 2005 est.
59 Georgia 40.8 2009
60 Turkmenistan 40.8 1998
61 Mali 40.1 2001
62 Tunisia 40.0 2005 est.
63 Jordan 39.7 2007
64 Burkina Faso 39.5 2007
65 Ghana 39.4 2005-06
66 Indonesia 39.4 2005
67 Israel 39.2 2008
68 Malawi 39.0 2004
69 Mauritania 39.0 2000
70 Mauritius 39.0 2006 est.
71 Macedonia 39.0 2003
72 Portugal 38.5 2007
73 Guinea 38.1 2006
74 Japan 38.1 2002
75 Timor-Leste 38.0 2002 est.
76 Yemen 37.7 2005
77 Armenia 37.0 2006
78 Vietnam 37.0 2004
79 India 36.8 2004
80 Uzbekistan 36.8 2003
81 Azerbaijan 36.5 2001
82 Benin 36.5 2003
83 New Zealand 36.2 1997
84 Latvia 36.0 2005
85 Lithuania 36.0 2005
86 Algeria 35.3 1995
87 Poland 34.9 2005
88 Laos 34.6 2002
89 Tanzania 34.6 2000
90 Egypt 34.4 2001
91 Estonia 34.0 2008
92 United Kingdom 34.0 2005
93 Switzerland 33.7 2008
94 Bangladesh 33.2 2005
95 Moldova 33.2 2003
96 Greece 33.0 2005
97 Mongolia 32.8 2002
98 France 32.7 2008
99 Tajikistan 32.6 2006
100 Canada 32.1 2005
101 Italy 32.0 2006
102 Spain 32.0 2005
103 Romania 32.0 2008
104 Korea, South 31.3 2007
105 European Union 31.0 2006 est.
106 Ukraine 31.0 2006
107 Netherlands 30.9 2007
108 Ireland 30.7 2008
109 Pakistan 30.6 FY07/08
110 Australia 30.5 2006
111 Kyrgyzstan 30.3 2003
112 Ethiopia 30.0 2000
113 Montenegro 30.0 2003
114 Bulgaria 29.8 2008
115 Finland 29.5 2007
116 Cyprus 29.0 2005
117 Denmark 29.0 2007
118 Croatia 29.0 2008
119 Kazakhstan 28.8 2008
120 Slovenia 28.4 2008
121 Belgium 28.0 2005
122 Iceland 28.0 2006
123 Hungary 28.0 2005
124 Belarus 27.9 2005
125 Germany 27.0 2006
126 Albania 26.7 2005
127 Austria 26.0 2007
128 Czech Republic 26.0 2005
129 Serbia 26.0 2008
130 Malta 26.0 2007
131 Luxembourg 26.0 2005
132 Slovakia 26.0 2005
133 Norway 25.0 2008
134 Sweden 23.0 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PrivacyCopyrightSite PoliciesUSA.govFOIADNI.govNoFEAR ActSite MapContact CIA
Quote: matildaOH my--I don't know where to begin, there are so many "facts".
Here is a sample:
Fact:Obamacare breaks the laws of economics.
Fact:We just had socialized medicine we didn't want rammed down our throats
Fact: small and managable deficits of 1-3% of GDP are needed to avoid recessions.
Fact:"income equality" = virtually everyone in poverty.
Fact:the USA has the most opportunity for anyone anywhere in the world.
Give it up Mr Duffman-- you are like a losing gambler who refuses to walk away from the table. If you keep playing it is inevitable that you will lose again.
Uh, no. I generally play very little and only games where a small advantage or at least minimal disadvantage can be had (full pay VP, poker, BJ, Craps.) Butr lets take a look at your so-called "facts."
So Obamacare which somehow promises to cover more people without adding more supply (ie: more medical professionals) will lower costs? Is there somewhere else more demand and static supply lowers costs? Or the fact that Obamacare will "lower deficits." What other government social program loweres deficits? What other government social program did not come in way over budget? Please cite where any of my points above fails to show that Obamacare breaks the laws of economics. Please do it without mere MSNBC Talking Points, please show a source.
So, even though we had massive demonstrations against it and I showed a poll citing 65% want it repealed; plus all the townhall meetings against it in 2009, somehow America really wanted socialized medicine in the form of Obacare?
I never said small deficits of 1-3% GDP will avoid recessions. Nothing will and recessions are actually needed to keep the overall economy healthy. I said suprlusses and a lack of government debt is bad and we need to maintain a liquid and active market for USA Government Bonds. But maybe you know something that Alexander Hamilton, founder of the US Treasury, doesn't?
Again I state show me a country with income equality and I will show you a poor country.
The USA has more opportunity than anywhere else in the world. Tens and tens of millions of immigrants over 235 years didn't come here because there is not.
Give it up Mr. Matilda. You are coming off like some blogger who puts liberal ideas out and expects no one to challenge them. You are like a $5 BJ player who wants a RFB comp for your whole stay after 1 hour of play.
BTW: The last part was only added because of the last line of your post. No need to get personal on these sites.
Quote: AZDuffmanI think you need to learn more about Wall Street and what it is. Wall Street provides capital for corporations to expand; they provide the liquid markets for farmers,fishermen, oilmen, lumberjacks, etc to sell their production to a guaranteed market; they provide the market for finance for so many things. This is plenty of "value" to me. Perhaps you would prefer to live in poverty but without Wall Street as in say Haiti?
This isn't 100% accurate. This is what Wall St traditionally did, prior to the last decade or so. Go look at any of the Wall St firms today and you find their revenue growth has been entirely built around proprietary trading platforms, not increasing traditional investment banking businesss.
One can raise legitimate questions regarding what policies the nation should pursue to promote or restrain the financial markets. Just because one thinks that the financial services sector has grown to be too large a segment of our economy doesn't mean one is a marxist/socialist. Prior to the Great Depression we had litterally no governemental interference in capital markets, and it lead to the mother of all bubbles. Then for 50-60 years we had fairly rigerous limitations placed upon financial institutions and did not have massive asset bubbles form. Since the late 90s we have had seen one asset bubble build after another - .com, housing, commodities, etc...these things are not conincidences. Institutional investors hold a larger portion of investable assets than at any time in modern history today. Goldman Sachs is not an investment bank or market maker with a proprietary trading desk on the side. It is a hedge fund, with an investment banking and market making business on the side.
Now, to NYHoosier's comments about the middle class tax burden increasing over the last generation....that's completely inaccurate. Tax burdens have decreased for all income levels over the last 30 years, and they have decreased for the lower and middle class at a much higher percentage than the top 20%. I'd invite anyone to look at the CBO data which includes Income Tax, Payroll Tax, Corporate Tax and Excise Tax to truly understand effective federal tax burdens:
CBO Effective Tax Burden
Quote: AZDuffmanUh, no. I generally play very little and only games where a small advantage or at least minimal disadvantage can be had (full pay VP, poker, BJ, Craps.) Butr lets take a look at your so-called "facts."
You do not understand the meaning of a simile as a literary device.
Quote:Please cite where any of my points above fails to show that Obamacare breaks the laws of economics. Please do it without mere MSNBC Talking Points, please show a source.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122679278/HTMLSTART
Quote:So, even though we had massive demonstrations against it and I showed a poll citing 65% want it repealed; plus all the townhall meetings against it in 2009, somehow America really wanted socialized medicine in the form of Obacare?
If you think the bill was socialized medicine, you do not know what socialized medicine is.
Quote:I never said small deficits of 1-3% GDP will avoid recessions.
Yes you did--I only copied and pasted your statements.
Quote:But maybe you know something that Alexander Hamilton, founder of the US Treasury, doesn't?
In fact, he did not found the treasury department-he was just the first secretary. It was established by Congress. Yes, I know something he did not: I know not to screw a married person and the pay blackmail to the spouse for the deed and be forced to resign my cabinet post. I also know to avoid being shot in a duel.
Quote:Again I state show me a country with income equality and I will show you a poor country.
There is no country with income equality--rich or poor. So you demand is meaningless.
Quote:The USA has more opportunity than anywhere else in the world. Tens and tens of millions of immigrants over 235 years didn't come here because there is not.
More than anywhere--you must have a very broad knowledge of the world if you can make such a sweeping statement. I wish I was as well informed. In fact, I just read that people are moving out. I think it was in the Wall Street Journal, but I am not sure.
Quote:Give it up Mr. Matilda. You are coming off like some blogger who puts liberal ideas out and expects no one to challenge them. You are like a $5 BJ player who wants a RFB comp for your whole stay after 1 hour of play.
I never stated any ideas liberal or otherwise. I only pointed out a few of your mistakes and mis-statements. There are many more that are just as egregious. You have no idea of what my views are. Maybe I am a true conservative that is tired of the tea-bagger type.
Quote:No need to get personal on these sites.
But you did. I quess you don't believe in your own statements.
Quote: matilda
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122679278/HTMLSTART
If you think the bill was socialized medicine, you do not know what socialized medicine is.
More than anywhere--you must have a very broad knowledge of the world if you can make such a sweeping statement. I wish I was as well informed. In fact, I just read that people are moving out. I think it was in the Wall Street Journal, but I am not sure.
I can't get this link to work. I would like to read it.
What is your definition of socialized medicine?
Please give some examples of other countries where people have more opportunity to succeed.
Quote: timberjim
I can't get this link to work. I would like to read it.
try this
edit: over *my* head anyway.
Quote: timberjimQuote: matilda
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122679278/HTMLSTART
I can't get this link to work. I would like to read it.
Something was blocking it earlier. I've read it. Now I remeber why I did'nt persue a career in economics after taking courses in micro and macro economics. How does this article support the recently passed health care plan?
Quote: ruascottThis isn't 100% accurate. This is what Wall St traditionally did, prior to the last decade or so. Go look at any of the Wall St firms today and you find their revenue growth has been entirely built around proprietary trading platforms, not increasing traditional investment banking businesss.
And this provides liquid markets for the people I mentioned. Pretend there are only 5 producers and 5 sellers of corn. Farmer 1 wants to lock in his price right now. Without the markets he has to knock on the door of all 5 and make a deal, no idea if he has made a better or worse deal. Now pretend there is a market (a Buttonwood Tree they all met once a day.) He tries to sell but only one consumer showed up today. So he gets a lower price if he can sell all needs to at all.
Now pretend 5 guys decide to trade in corn. All five show up--they bid for his corn. So he has a ready place to sell it when he feels he will get the best price. Multiply this many times over and see how more efficient this makjes things.
This has helped keep oil supplied to the USA. It was 1981 I think when oil wsa traded on the Mercantile Exchange for the first time. SInce then we have not had a shortage of oil. Yes, we had price spikes, but no shortage. Anyone who lived in the 1970s with $5 or 5 gal max putchases; odd/even systems, etc would have been very happy to pay more for all they needed. But back then there was no spot market.
Southwest made a killing in 2005-2007 by hedfging their fuel costs. They lost some in 2008-2009 doing it again. But they had a predictible fuel cost. All thanks to Wall Street and the markets.
Quote: timberjim
Please give some examples of other countries where people have more opportunity to succeed.
Don't hold your breath waiting for him to answer. He seems to be the type that thinks the USA has no opportunity because some people fail and many just don't want to put in the work needed to succeed. His motto in 1776 would be "Give me Public Option Health Care or give me death."
I'm done with this thread. I know I have backed him into a corner and he has nothing more useful to add after that goofball answer of Hamilton not founding the Treasury but Congress just appointed him. Clearly anyone who wants to make sucha statement does not want to have an intelligent conversation. He just wants to make Obamamaniac talking points.
Quote: timberjimSomething was blocking it earlier. I've read it. Now I remeber why I did'nt persue a career in economics after taking courses in micro and macro economics. How does this article support the recently passed health care plan?
It doesn't, it's basic research, not politics. Duffman was saying, I think, that the reasoning behind the bill violated the laws of economics. He claimed this in the context of supply and demand. I am probably giving him much to much credit here, but if it was a violation of the demand-supply model, the violation would rest on the assumption of the sign of the 1st derivative of the demand function, the slope if it is linear. A negative value indicates an inverse relation between price and quantity demanded; as price increases people demand less. Therefore, to show a violation of the model it is necessary to show a demand function with a positive slope so that quantity demanded increases as price increases. Under certain conditions: size of income effect, substitution effect, the demand function can have a positive slope, and in the economics literature a case of this is known as a "Giffin" good. The article I gave the link to attempts to analyse medical care as a Giffin good. Duffman demanded a cite, not something from MSNBC, so I gave him a cite.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd this provides liquid markets for the people I mentioned. Pretend there are only 5 producers and 5 sellers of corn. Farmer 1 wants to lock in his price right now. Without the markets he has to knock on the door of all 5 and make a deal, no idea if he has made a better or worse deal. Now pretend there is a market (a Buttonwood Tree they all met once a day.) He tries to sell but only one consumer showed up today. So he gets a lower price if he can sell all needs to at all.
Now pretend 5 guys decide to trade in corn. All five show up--they bid for his corn. So he has a ready place to sell it when he feels he will get the best price. Multiply this many times over and see how more efficient this makjes things.
This has helped keep oil supplied to the USA. It was 1981 I think when oil wsa traded on the Mercantile Exchange for the first time. SInce then we have not had a shortage of oil. Yes, we had price spikes, but no shortage. Anyone who lived in the 1970s with $5 or 5 gal max putchases; odd/even systems, etc would have been very happy to pay more for all they needed. But back then there was no spot market.
Southwest made a killing in 2005-2007 by hedfging their fuel costs. They lost some in 2008-2009 doing it again. But they had a predictible fuel cost. All thanks to Wall Street and the markets.
I'm not arguing against the validity and value of deeply liquid markets provided by market makers on Wall St. In fact, my post supported the idea that investment banks should stick to what they were meant to do....funneling capital to businesses, and making a market.
You are mistaking making a market with propritarty trading. They are two different things. The first is a valid and vital function of Wall St banks. The second is gambling ala a hedge fund. All I want is to not have the same players doing BOTH.
The most recent "innovation" is high frequency trading programs. Their proponents claimed they provided liquidity, while in actuality those programs fail when liquidity is needed the most...the most recent example was seen just a few weeks ago when the Dow dropped over 1k points in a few minutes. All the "sophisticated" HFTs created mass chaos and sucked all liquidity out of the market.