Magox

Just admit it already, you're anti Semitic

It's a private entity. Why nationalize or have a stake in it? The difference between AIG and the banks is huge. For starters those entities were about to go bankrupt without the assistance of the US, and two those private corporations were viewed by the government as essential to allowing the economy to expand. Right or wrong, those were the views by the government and some private analysts. Neither of those two apply to Lockheed. You're making a specious argument, which is " well, without the government they wouldn't exist, therefore the government should have a stake in it" Just because we have a huge appetite for their goods does not give our government the right to demand a stake in it. We don't owe them anything, who cares that most of their sales are to our government? That's real demand, they aren't producing it just to get a handout. If you think there is a lot of wasteful spending there then point your finger to the politicians that allow themselves to get bought off by lobbyists and influenced by their local constituencies that are looking more so at their local economies than the overall waste and debt to the country. Again, all your solutions come from the left-wing. More regulations, higher taxes, spend spend spend and now nationalization. Geez

Virtually impossible to quantify, if i had to give my best rough guesstimate, I'd say through the combination of the lowering of US interest rate cycle beginning shortly after 9/11 and QE, at a very minimum 35% of the price is attributed to loose monetary policy.

Seems like a solid investment to me. Am I missing something? Are they doing something unethical?

No, but lybob did, and did I say that you claimed that I did? Ok now this is getting silly.

Tell me where I have predicted the demise of the US dollar to occur in the near to mid-term. Or show me where I said we will be seeing hyper inflation any time soon . The problem is that you see things through a certain lens, you see me make my argument and somehow you believe I'm sounding the alarms to hyper inflation, where in fact what I'm saying is that loose monetary policy has had an appreciable effect on prices. Without QE we'd see a much lower price for oil and for that matter equities as well. The impact is felt on two fronts, as I alluded to earlier, one is the immediate re pricing in the markets, adjusting to the currency, and two is the peripheral tangible effects of the increased demand of the monetary policy. Also another point I'd like to make is that I find it ironic that you keep referencing CPI or at least making indirect references to it as a true gauge of inflation. Reason being is that CPI is a tool that is perpetuated by Wall Street to justify their investing habits. You of all people I would think wouldn't reference this metric to gauge real inflation felt on Main Street. You ask the average middle to lower income class person what their main economic concerns and fears are and they will overwhelmingly say job security and rising gas/food prices. So I just find it odd that you continue to bring this up. If you would just take the time to see the words for what they are and not view it through your preconceived lenses, I think you'd see that what I'm saying makes a lot of sense.

again, your reading comprehension skills fail you. Lybob made mention of a comment that I made and suggested that I claimed it would lead to hyperinflation and i responded. You and I years ago spoke about this, in which I said that it would lead to commodity inflation, but most likely not see prices go through the roof because there was a lot of slack in the economy, and that we wouldn't see heightened inflation until the global economy began to grow at a faster clip, at least avg global growth trend rate. I've spoken about this ad nauseam. It's not a singular issue, commodity prices are largely driven by growth, supply and monetary policy. If global monetary policy tightened, lets just say the unwinding of the bond purchases (QE) the effect would be twofold. One, there would be an immediate global repricing of virtually all commodities, currencies, bonds and equities, through the markets of course. Then there would be the tangible impact it would have on global growth, obviously world growth would slow, demand for just about everything would drop and that depressed demand would filter into the equity and commodity markets. Now of course this is under the assumption that monetary policy makers abruptly change course, in which of course they won't. Whenever they do unwind these positions I imagine they will do it in the most gradual way possible. But that isn't what this discussion is about, we are talking about the raw impact of monetary policy and commodities. Also your analysis on the relationship vs the dollar and oil is flawed. Your model is based on the traditional relationship it had, dynamics change professor, so when they change in order to keep up, analysis must change along with it. The correlation no longer exists in the way it use to because of a couple fundamental factors. One, just about the entire developed world is devaluing their currency, so the price of oil has risen more so over the past couple years in their currency because of their loose monetary polices, and two, even though we are still the top dog with reserve currency status, oil and other commodities are being purchased with other currencies. Currency swaps mainly between china and its trading partners have steadily been increasing over the past five years or so, lessening the reliance on the US dollar

So basically you just made **** up to back up your ideology? How convenient.

Hyperinflation? Link? We get it, you are also a denier that the devaluation of currencies have contributed to higher prices. Any "economist" worth their salt would agree with that. You and professor dingbat on the other hand believe that currency devaluation hasn't had an appreciable affect on prices. You guys are wrong and its as simple as that. There is no middle ground with you ideologues, it's either all or nothing. Also, the spare capacity reference is to excess OIL spare capacity. But thanks for playin

Umm, you make it appear as if its 7.5 million paid over four years. That's not how it works. It's just guaranteed for 7.5 million. Big difference

I'm not gonna give Nix that much credit. I think I will stick with the idea that he stuck his foot in his mouth

bull **** on all accounts. You weren't aware of excess spare capacity and its affects on pricing, you don't understand the relationship of currencies and commodities and you subscribe to a failed rigid economic orthodoxy Also what I "pooh poo'hd" on wasn't your projection, I never made mention of it, what I criticized was your statement that the economy a few months ago was "gaining strength". There is a difference. Which was why I referenced 4th quarter GDP. Not only do you not understand the basic principles of excess spare capacity, the relationships of currencies with commodities and basic math, but now we can add basic reading and comprehension to the list.

Well, for starters I thought Nix's comment regarding Mckelvin before contract negotiations was semi retarded. Why position him as a starter, when he hadn't lived up to his first contract right before you negotiate his next contract? In regards to Marrone deciding who starts, I'm pretty sure that he and Pettite looked at this past seasons game films and gave their input. Don't you? Even if he doesn't become one of the two traditional starting cb's, he will still be playing in the slot. Which means that he will still be on the field on well over half the defensive plays. And lets not forget that he did do well in the slot last year. Combine that with his return abilities, I'd say that at the very least that its pretty close to market value. Having said that, I'd personally still would of rather had Levitre signed. Who knows? Maybe it will still happen

seems to me its in between starting cb and nickel back money.

Nickel backers in today's passing league play well over half of all the defensive plays.

Tells me that the Bill won't be drafting a cb with either of their first two picks and that we won't be picking up a starting caliber cb in FA

So, because the government has an extreme appetite for a private entities product, they should nationalize or own a majority stake of the company? Really? Really???

This is a perfect example that you belong to a failed economic orthodoxy. Whether its on a government or personal household level your only one trick pony solution is to spend more. Doesn't matter the external circumstances, if we are facing structural issues, your prescription is to spend more. If families are facing declining wages relative to inflation, your solution is to spend more. That's all you have to offer, spend spend spend. I just hope that you aren't in a position to where you are teaching young, impressionable minds, because if you are, you are dangerous and destructive. We've already proven that Krugman was wrong on his policy prescription of Keynesian spending to get us out of this downturn, which you fully supported. We have stagnant growth and the lowest labor participation rate in over three decades. So you were wrong on that. Now on a personal household level, we are seeing wages decline relative to inflation, increased personal spending and the loss of savings and you say this is what is needed? In a healthy economy you will see steadily increasing wages, savings and spending. Right now only one of three is what we are seeing. It's unsustainable, if savings continue to decrease, which they will IF spending continues on pace while seeing the same trend in wages, then at some point spending will slow down because of the exhaustion of personal savings. At this current trajectory, all we are doing is borrowing future spending, with risks attached to it. Of course the other nasty side effect of the depletion of savings is increased personal household debt. There are many risks associated with this. One of the flaws of your failed economic orthodoxy was fully exposed during the banking melt down, which was personal household debt imploded. People racked up so much debt and personal savings was so low that when the **** hit the fan, people were !@#$ed. Personal savings rates have been declining since the late 80s and really began to plummet in the 90s, which left households more vulnerable to shocks in the economy than what would have been the case if we didn't have such an insatiable appetite to consume. I'm not saying spending is a bad thing, what I'm saying is that if we have an economy that has declining wages relative to inflation, that it is a risky and ultimately harmful development to see increased spending at the expense of savings rate. It doesn't surprise me one bit that you are incapable of seeing the risks that I'm attempting to explain to you. I mean lets not forget that you were trying to explain to me about the oil markets and you didn't even know the impacts of spare oil capacity has on prices. Or that you don't even know the basic concepts of the relationship between currencies and commodities. Your problem is that you are a rigid economic ideologue, and when I use the term orthodoxy, it applies in every sense of the word when it comes to you, because its basically become a religion to you, founded on faith. The faith that spending cures all ills. You don't have a pragmatic bone in your body, professor. I on the other hand am not opposed to spending or austerity on either a government or personal household level. I'm not opposed to higher or lower taxes depending on the situation. I'm not for or opposed to devaluing currencies or tight or loose monetary policy. I dont believe all regulations are bad and do believe they have a place in our economy. However you are virtually always for more spending, higher taxes and increased regulation. This makes you a prisoner of your ideology.

Wow! So you think increased household spending, with stagnant incomes, which comes at the expense of personal savings is a positive? It's not

So here is a stat provided by ECLAC United Nations Economic Commission and Latin America and the Caribbean ... Credible enough edit: I tried to drag the chart here but was unable to Here is the link below to see the chart, it's at the bottom http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21573095-after-14-years-oil-fuelled-autocracy-hugo-ch%C3%A1vezs-successors-will-struggle-keep So the big stat that some of the sympathizers were bringing up was the Poverty rate. On the surface it looked pretty good, but when you decide to delve into the numbers there are some obvious reasons to why this happened. The chart in the link shows the poverty rate of Peru, Brazil and all of Latin America. The Poverty rate declined even more so Peru and Brazil and virtually just about the same through out all of America. Relatively speaking, the decline in the poverty rate in Venezuela was nothing out of the norm. It's quite natural to see a country who benefited off the explosion of Oil revenues to see the poverty rate decline. Another interesting stat that I read was that the public sector force more than doubled during his tenure. Considering that he ran large deficits and was completely at the mercy of elevated oil prices, what would happen to that public sector force once prices decide to drop? I think the answer is obvious.

Why try to reason with someone who is unreasonable?

There does seem to be some sort of underlying strength in the economy, today's job reports was pretty positive. Without a doubt rising stocks and home prices are helping out as Gross suggests. We'll see how these additional taxes and cuts will play out... Also, there are questions to the sustainability of the rise in equities.....People see their 401k's and home prices rise, they feel richer and therefore spend more. However, there is evidence that the additional spending coming from the economy comes at the expense of savings. That is not a good sign. So we'll see how things play out.

Who said otherwise? Remember, you responded to this:

Fine, you aren't embarrassed for fabricating stuff and I'm not embarrassed of calling people for what they are. You said "So what?" when confronted with his motives for amending the constitution. Now you are back pedaling. Also no mention of his amending of the constitution to throw out Supreme court justices that he disagrees with and the choosing of his own electoral board. That's not an abuse of power? Sorry, but if you don't think that is, then we really have nothing more to say on this topic. In regards to corruption, please, it's well known that his family is living high on the hog, driving exotic vehicles, wearing so much bling that it would make Jay Z blush.... How did they get that money? They worked for the government, before Chavez came into power he was in the military. It's just common sense, anyone who lived in South America who keeps up with politics knows this to be the case, unless of course you are a sympathizer of Chavez and choose to turn a willful eye.

The professor is one of the few "economists" on this planet, that believes that currency devaluation doesn't lead to higher commodity inflation. It is basic economics 101, you devalue a currency, the price of commodities tend to go up. Facts be damned! Who cares that growth rates are slowing and supply is increasing, yet prices are steadily rising. It's almost unfathomable how someone who purports to understand the economy, doesn't understand this basic principle. Prices are rising for a number of reasons, but the long-term trend is for two main reasons, global growth and monetary policy. Global Growth along with dollar devaluation led us to an explosive rise pre 2008. Ever since then Growth has lagged, yet the price of commodities have either risen or remained elevated. Coincidentally, we've seen the augmentation of currency devaluation policies through out the developed world. If growth was still relatively strong, we would see an explosive rise in commodities, but we don't. So the main engine of commodity price growth is coming from monetary policy. If Growth remained where we are today, and monetary policy were to tighten considerably, then I guarantee you that the price of commodities would drop off sharply.