Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - 2-23-6

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Off Topic / Re: You know what I discovered?
« on: January 18, 2010, 08:13:30 am »
::non-gay pat on back::

Are we all cool now? See, I have a humane, non-metal side.

2
Off Topic / You know what I discovered?
« on: January 16, 2010, 10:55:05 am »
I used to be a real ass. I'm sorry, everyone who might have been offended by me.  :'(

Group hug?

3
Off Topic / Re: The Pissed Off Megathread
« on: January 03, 2010, 06:54:11 pm »
Yes, I've also been sick, but whiskey and tea seems to have solved it.

Man, you're like some advanced form of Rain Man without the problems. I can't even count all the different jobs you've posted about doing any more. That pisses me off because I'm stuck doing same old, same old.

I have worked as:

A website designer
An aircraft electronics technologist
Kaizen specialist in a japanese car plant
Systems admin in a lubricant plant
Systems analyst in an oil refinery
Radio programmer/broadcaster
Marketing consultant
Entrepreneur
Non-profit board member
WWII aircraft restoration volunteer (B-25 Mitchell bomber)
Local nuclear and plasma society chairman
Snowmobile engine intake designer
CNC lathe designer

Also some minor robotics while in high school. I think that's roughly it. I've also been accepted into business school for this September, I'm not sure whether I'll be going or not.

Right now it looks like I'm either going to go into technology consulting/enterprise software or power markets analysis. I'm going to be also releasing a game in 6 months alongside that.

4
Off Topic / Re: The Pissed Off Megathread
« on: January 02, 2010, 07:37:45 pm »
Who knows, who knows. I thought about getting work as a consultant, but they work 17 hours a day.

So right now, it appears that I will most likely find employment as an energy analyst. Huzzah!

5
News and Updates / Re: 2010 on the Pages of Now and Forever
« on: January 02, 2010, 03:13:29 pm »
I think we're forgetting the fact that this year marks 20 years since Star control 1. Or do I have my dates mixed up and it was 1991?

6
Off Topic / Re: So who here is recession proof?
« on: January 01, 2010, 04:46:39 pm »
Frankly, everything that I spoke about here is fully within the scope of the ECON 102 Introduction to Macroeconomics course that I took while at university.

7
Off Topic / Re: So who here is recession proof?
« on: January 01, 2010, 03:18:08 pm »
So let's all hold hands and sing in a socialist paradise. Yay!

This is why I was hesitant to get into this kind of tit-for-tat debate, because the other side will simply continue with maniacal rambling regardless of what I may say. But at least other people may have doubt introduced in their mind and will at some point read a book about macroeconomics or something. What I wanted to say, I have already said in my counterpost.

Eth, right now the US is in a funny position. There exists a structural deficit in the US government budget, meaning that at current planning even when the economy is in a boom, the deficit will remain. Taxes need to be raised, debt needs to be reduced, however the US is saddled with several wars and a weak economy (that will get weaker if the taxes are raised and interest rates increased by the Federal Reserve). For the next decade there will be no strong growth in the US economy, it will waddle around 0.5% or so. And this is in the best case scenario, if the interest rates are increased to stave off inflation and the taxes are increased to reduce debt in the proper order, so as not to tank an already fragile economy. I'm assuming, however, that the action taken by the talkers in charge will not be optimal. So most likely government debt will continue to increase until it reaches a point where the US dollar will fall dramatically.

Generally speaking, it will take 20 years of hard work by the US to recover itself from the hole that it has presently dug. 20 years or a major war (like World War III) that will lead to dumping liquidity on other countries for rebuilding, destroying excess capacity abroad, all that good stuff. Either way, gentlemen, I wish you a happy new year. This will be a turbulent decade.

8
Off Topic / Re: Happy New Year
« on: December 31, 2009, 04:01:25 pm »
The decade of Numeric starts!

9
Off Topic / Re: So who here is recession proof?
« on: December 31, 2009, 03:50:53 pm »
Well, the reform is supposed to reduce deficit, however I'm assuming that it will end up the same way that all political promises do - costing more money.

No, in case of Part II of the financial crisis, the euros are as screwed as anyone, because of how interconnected the global economy and financial systems are.

As for the US budget, I was under the impression that you guys had major deficit....Right, 1.4 trillion in 2009:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5966HC20091007

And the projected 2010 is 1.17 trillion in deficit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51O6JA20090226

10
Off Topic / Re: So who here is recession proof?
« on: December 30, 2009, 05:46:43 pm »
Banks are a natural disaster that is causing homeless people and destruction of the economy.
No, natural disasters are tornadoes and volcanoes. Banks are an artificial financial establishment.

 
Surprisingly this is not the first crisis of this kind in history.
It is. In the past we have never had a financial crisis that affected the entire global economy. Our economic and political leaders literally don't know what to do, because there is no historic precedent for the current situation, especially in the US.

 
Just like a natural disaster forces people to abandon the region, it seems necessary to abandon the country that is mostly hit by the systemic failures.
The country most hit by the financial crisis is the US, whose currency is the global reserve currency. Where will you run now? Mars? Shifting away from the dollar will take a long time settle all the details, long enough that when Part II of the crisis hits, the entire world will feel it again.

 
An economy grows when value added is produced, when goods are transformed from cheap useless materials into more expensive and more useful products.
That's a crude way to describe the manufacturing side of the economy, but there is also the service side, which is where the time of a worker creates value, versus a technical or a physical transposition.

 
The inventory of banks, insurance companies and casinos is money (that produce nothing for profit), and money can't add value to itself, so the only way to make profit is to take money from others, or to print money in the accounting books and cause inflation that will take money from the poor.  In order to have an idea of the magnitude of the problem, US insurance companies account for 16% of US GDP.  GDP measures transactions, but not value added.
Stop right there. Banks, insurance companies and casinos have no inventory, except for fixed physical assets. Just for the statement that they produce nothing for profit I want to stab you in the eye with a fork. A bank in its lending capacity gives you money today, so that it may be invested or made use of, for the price of the loan payments that you have to make. An insurance companies offers the service of betting that you will live longer than you believe, the casino provide entertainment and the service of potentially winning money. They most certainly create value for their profits, but those are produced in the form of a service. An engineer who transfers ink from a pen onto vellum has produced nothing physical, but the resulting blueprints are included in the total value add of rearranging physical materials into something useful, like a car.

The statement that the only way to make a profit is to take money from others or print it (which can only be done by the Federal Reserve) causing inflation (which happens if the economy runs away in growth) is simply patently false. Banks make a profit by make you pay slightly more in the interest payments than the different in the time value of money of the principal between today and the maturation. You pay them for giving you money today instead of you saving it up over 20 years. Causing inflation is from a different ball game in itself and has nothing to do with commercial banks.

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the overall value added in the economy (usually per year). In other words, if everyone on this forum lived on an isolated island, the GDP of the forum would be the total amount of value that we would all have created. The statement that GDP measures transactions vs. value added seems rather dumb. The only way to measure value added is by how much someone is willing to pay for it. If GM makes a car and sells it to you for $25 000, then they have created $25 000 worth of end value (it's slightly more complex than that, but I don't want to get into too many details, else I will be typing all night long).

 
There are 2 concepts of value: exchange value, and usefulness value.  

Exchange value is the perceived value, which changes with perception.  This could make a pair of shoes that would cost $40 to have a price tag of $1000 becuase it is "collector's item" or "deluxe product" or "symbol of status".

Usefulness value is the value determined by how useful it is.  It is the price in a time of crisis.  You would not pay $1000 for a cover for your feet (shoes), so the only real value of shoes is determined by its ability to serve you in a significant way in a time of crisis.
Actually, there is only one type of value - how much the markets are willing to pay for it. If the markets decide that Nike sneakers are worth $300 today and a loaf of bread is $5, then that is their value. If we start starving tomorrow and the markets decided that a loaf of bread is worth $300 today and Nike sneakers are $5, then that is their value tomorrow. The issues you talk about only come into play with societies that have severely restricted markets. By and large that's not the case for most countries today.

 
Since numbers are bigger when you use exchange value, US economists decided to use exchange value, but they did not think that the difference between exchange value and usefulness value is a toxic asset.  If you buy a pair of shoes that cost $1000 and people would pay $40 for it, where did all the money go?  It was a toxic asset, money that did not exist, fake money that existed in your mind only.  Speculation and scamming is about dealing with perceived value and to make profit out of it.  US and European economy is overestimated, because the real value of business that produce nothing is zero.
What do you mean US economists "decided" to use exchange value? For what, exactly? If you mean for the GDP overall, then we can only measure what took placed in terms of economic transactions. And since we live in a capitalist society, the markets decided on the price for the goods and services that took part in the economic transactions. But this isn't anything out of the ordinary. It would be far more out of the ordinary if the economists knew better than the market what the value of something is. I can just see them marching into my home with little swastika armbands and declaring how much my stuff is worth.

 
If there were real evil Druuge traders in the universe, they'd be banks, casinos and insurance companies.
By the way, which banks are you referring to here? Investment banks? Retail banks? Central banks? They are all different animals and so far I've been assuming that you've been talking about retail banks. But yes, investment banks are evil. Insurance companies are not evil, they are actually quite needed for our economy to function (imagine what happens if your oil tanker sinks and you don't have marine insurance. Bankrupt you go.) As for casinos being evil, that's not up to anyone except those who go there to decide.

 
This is the deal of how it works for customers.

Product: You pay $10 for a $10 house, you got a $10 house for your $10 cash.
Okay.

 
Service: You car is damaged, so it is worth $0 becuase it is useless.  But for $2 repair your car is transformed into something useful, so you paid $2 and you got a useful car in return.
You've paid $2 for manufactured parts that need to be replaced and the service that put them in the right place on the damaged car, but we'll continue.

 
Loan: You asked a loan of $1 and you must repay $1 million (loan+interests).  It means that you got to spend $1 before you had it, and you had to work hard to repay $1 million, so you enjoyed $1 and the bank made profit for $999,999.  The bank made profit with your work.  And you got nothing in return, because the $1 you spent, you had to work to earn it.  There is no real value in it, except for the momentary illusion of having money.  You get nothing in return.
Um....NO.

In fact, this is the kind of thinking that got the US consumers into trouble. You don't get a loan to spend it, you get a loan to invest it into something useful. For example, with a mortgage you're enjoying the privilege of housing starting now, vs. starting 20 years from now, when you have saved up enough money. For 20 years of living in a house, you will pay the time value difference for the amount of money that you borrowed. $5 today does not equal $5 in 2020.

Even if you spend the loan on something fleeting, like food, you got to eat! Or fuck a prostitute, or drive a car until rusted! The fact that you chose to invest your money into something fleeting is not the bank's fault. Smart people borrow $100k at 7% interest and build a business that brings in 15% annual return on investment, thus becoming rich in the process. That's what loans are generally there for.

Of course, getting something now instead of waiting for 20 years should cost you something, because you are getting a service. And you damn well should pay for it.

I'm still amazed the experts didn't see it coming. Our national banks and treasuries are supposed to be full of nerds who model these things all day, right? Their models must have been underestimating the probability_of_disaster (which is always nonzero), but they shouldn't have needed a disaster to tell them that. I guess this comes out of economics being inexact and full of risk takers, traits of a fallow science that really isn't very scientific :P
Actually, things are sketchier than that. What happened (explained in layman's terms) is that a lot of high-risk loans were converted into securities that should have been rated as high-risk. But through outright criminal fraud on the part of several financial companies, they were rated AAA (extremely low-risk) and began to be sold. Ironically, a lot of the criminals perished in the ensuing financial crisis or were acquired, so there's no one left to sue. But in either case, the security rating fraud distorted a lot of metrics and by the time things unraveled, the financial crisis had already hit. It's hard to plan for outright criminal behaviour in your models, simply because too many possibilities occur at that point.

Neoclassic economy tried to turn a social science into an exact science.  How?  By focusing on the money, not human being, measuring money instead of analyzing human being, compensating the uncertainties of human behavior with assumptions, thinking that by using numbers they had an exact science, thinking that human behavior could be reduced to an equation.  Unfortunately, economists assumed humans are rational to simplify their models.  Tell a psychiatrist (social science too) to assume a rational patient and you will see what happens.
Actually, psychology (especially psychology of the herds) plays a central role in modern macroeconomics. The 2002 Nobel prize in economics was awarded to economists (Danny Kahneman specifically) who proved that irrational psychological behaviour can have a large macroeconomic effect by affecting markets.

 
Economists passed from plain wrong assumptions to enter the world of economical cold war religious belief, and used ideology to make economic reforms.  This is how the decade of 1990s was the decade of failed economic reforms in many countries of the world.
Rhetoric, nothing to comment on here.

 
Many of the simulations conducted by economists to model economy, use gaussian bell distributions, which can only be used when the variables you have are independent and random.  But it happens that many variables are not independent.  They replace uncertainty with an assumption.  How scientific is it?  Not scientific at all, but since they were considered as "gurus" and nobody cares about understanding their boring and cryptic economic theory, then they could say whatever they wanted.  But economy is not that cryptic.
Actually, the most accurate economic models so far have been Monte Carlo models, based on uncertainties and probabilities. As for replacing uncertainty with assumption, I don't even see where and how this fits into anything. All theories and models have underlying assumptions. The economy is not "cryptic", but it is counterintuitive, as a lot of macroeconomics is based around herd dynamics and what to do to calm down a mass of people. If someone is "telling you the truth" about the economy, as I've noticed by being around the internets for too long, they are almost certainly oversimplifying and skewing information towards their own nefarious means.

 
Once you get the concepts behind macroeconomical financial programming, you understand that the statistical mumbo-jumbo is just a game to discourage you from questioning... until crisis arrived and proved the model as wrong.

What is the risk of extinction of human race?  "No human race has been extinct in the past, so it will not be extinct".  "Our forecast models that use data from several million years tells there is no risk". This is driving forward while looking through the rear mirror.
What's funny is that I think you're talking about investment bankers here, not economists. Investment banks had these bright models that "overcame" risks. But here we need to point to business schools and MBAs for their creation, not economists.

 
Economy must go back and see they do not have an exact science, that ideology and belief does not match reality.  Money will not rain if you start a rain dance.  
Nobody ever said macroeconomics was an exact science and I don't see where there's "ideology and belief". Macroeconomics is more of a black art, based around observations and experiments over the past 100 years. Money will not rain if you start a rain dance, but you'll be surprised how mcuh productivity jumps up once people calm down, return to work and start living normal lives instead of panicking. This is the psychological part of economics.

 
During cold war, from 1950s to 1980s, psychology scientists studied man-machine systems.  They started with a machine centered approach in the quest for the secret of superior performance for military uses.  Human was just a feedback component.  For simple tasks, like the ones a robot could do, human performance could be predicted by statistical means, but for complex tasks that required use of thinking, data was so biased that was nearly useless, no matter how controlled the conditions of the experiments.

So scientists needed to change their approach.  They used a man centered approach and they started to obtain better results.  They discovered that human inner working was essentially a mistery, so they could only study it like an objective driven system, measure learning curves, and find the effects of mood and other factors on the final result.  These studies eventually led to a speciality called "usability engineering" un USA and "psychological engineering" in Russia.  NASA has a usability engineering team.

It seems that economists need to learn something from real world social scientists.
Absolutely, hence the economic experiments that have gone on for many, many years and are continuing as modern economies continue to evolve.

 
Workforce reduction means less people with salaries.  About 2/3 of US consumption relies on consumers.  Firing people helps to reduce demand and therefore reducing production.  Reduction of production adds fuel to the fire of a future crisis.
It's the destruction of demand that adds fire, but we'll leave that for another day. The reduced demand in a crisis forces companies to lay people off, as the company's costs will be too high otherwise and they will go bankrupt.

 
Economy has several means of creating money out of thin air that would increase assets without producing anything: printing money, issuing bonds, creating interests in accounting books, creative financial instrumments, etc.  All those instruments not only weaken currency, adding pressure for dollar fall, but also it creates inflationary pressure.  Federal Reserve wants a strong dollar, so not adjusting US dollar to fall creates unbalance.
Somebody kill me now.

Assets don't magically increase (you'll be shocked to find out that retail banks record loans as assets instead of liabilities on their balance sheet, even though that's money that they gave OUT, because of how accounting works in the banking world), the monetary supply (the pool of liquid currency) does. And there is a regulatory organ that sets the monetary policy (the amount of liquidity that should be in circulation) - the central bank (Federal Reserve in the US). And it is only the central bank that willingly and knowingly uses instruments (interest rates and treasury bonds) to control the monetary supply, everything else happens automatically as part of a functioning economy. An increase in the monetary supply weakens the dollar against other currencies, a decrease strengthens it. However, that doesn't matter, because there is nothing intrinsically special about a "strong" or "weak" dollar, as those are just adjectives used to describe its value against other currencies. The Chinese have been living with a "very weak" currency for a long time now, because their government wants it that way.

The Federal Reserve wants a stable dollar. High or low is irrelevant, because this in itself is a measure of the dollar against other currencies, a property of imports and exports and is more the concern of the government than the Federal Reserve. The Fed, however, does not want the dollar to plunge into the abyss. This would plunge the world into chaos, as faith in the global reserve currency is lost.

 
Americans become too expensive, sending jobs overseas, forcing companies to fire people, reducing demand and forcing reduction of production.
Well, the production is now imported from overseas, so it's not reduced per say, rather it's imported instead of being homegrown. The demand stays the same, else the job that the American was fired from wouldn't have existed in the first place. But yes, in a global economy, your job can get outsourced if you're not creating enough value to compete with other countries. That's not an inherent problem either, but it does have a host of issues associated with it. The main defense of the US against exporting its jobs is to stay innovative and entrepreneurial, as other countries are not able to do the same.

 
M x V = Q x P

M: Amont of money that exists ($).
V: Velocity of flow of money.
Q: Quantity of goods produced (units).
P: Price of goods ($/unit)

Let's assume these initial conditions:
M = $100
V = 1
Q = 100 units
then
P = $1/unit

But if production is reduced
Q=50 units
then
P = $2/unit

Increase of P means inflation, loss of buying power.
Except we have a regulatory organ, called the Federal Reserve, that would contract the monetary supply to $50 if this were the case. Or maybe they wouldn't and instead increase it. Or do something else. Because it's economics is not as simple as one formula. For example, an increase in the monetary supply through bonds would also lower the interest rates, thus increase borrowing for production and return the economy back to 100 units before inflation sets in. This is routine for the Federal Reserve.

Federal Reserve had an indicator called M3 that was not included in their reports since some years ago.
M3 was growing exponentially.  M3 stands for M.
And production is reduced.  By the moment it explodes, you will have a global hyperinflation.
US allies will be the first to be hit.  This would be the sudden end of US geopolitical power for decades if it happens.
Oh god, the M3 again. ::sigh:: Let's start at the beginning. There exist multiple Ms:

M0: Total physical currency in circulation (your coins and bills)
M1: M0 + chequing accounts
M2: M1 + savings instruments, such as savings accounts, money market accounts, mutual funds, etc.
M3: M2 + large scale deposits such as institutional balances

The Federal Reserve stopped publishing the M3 because it provides no further information than M2, as large scale deposits have remained largely constant for many, many years. It's expensive to recount them every single time, so they've decided not to bother. The Federal Reserve still publishes the M0, M1 and M2, which fully show the dynamic of the US monetary supply.

So M2 was also growing exponentially, as the Federal Reserve was pouring liquidity into circulation for their needs. As soon as the first signs of inflation appear, they will withdraw currency from circulation and stop the inflation. This will also have the effect of slowing the economy, but preventing inflation and maintaining a stable currency is a higher priority. So no, no doomsday hyperinflation is likely to happen. What may happen is the fall of the dollar relative to other currencies, but this is a different can of nuts. Americans will feel the rise in the price of everything that's imported, but homegrown American stuff will stay at the same price.

 
The apparent lack of money is caused by V (velocity of flow of money) that is reduced because banks are not lending.
The apparent lack of money is being compensated by government deficit that forces the creation of money by issuing bonds to fund deficit, because banks are not lending in a debt based economy.  If US did not have such debt based economy, lack of loans would not be a problem.  Addiction to debt caused this.
The Federal Reserve's increase of liquidity does not have a bearing on the US government budget deficit. The deficit is the result of the government trying to stimulate the economy via fiscal policy, which is a different can of worms. It involves government spending on infrastructure and related needs to reignite consumer confidence. As for "debt-based economy", credit (especially revolving credit) is necessary for many low-margin businesses to operate. In fact, the reason why the US has an economy this strong is because of it's advanced credit markets that allow businesses to skim even the thinnest of profit margins. Now consumer debt is another story, but there's nothing really that can be done there. Americans like their credit cards and their mortgages, they will be paying the price for it.

 
And the lack of will of Federal Reserve to make dollar to plunge is pushing production down, forcing a future hyperinflation.
Ther is no way US can escape debt, becuase Federal reserve creates money out of debt, so even if Americans had no debts, US would still have a serious problem.
No, there will be no future hyperinflation as a result of dropping production. Production will drop until it matches demand, this is natural. As for the Federal Reserve creating money out of debt, this is nonsense. The Federal Reserve literally creates liquidity out of nowhere, because we have a fiat currency system.

 
David C. Korten wrote a book in 2009 called "Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth To Real Wealth".  A quote from the book:

"It seems a bit odd that we have experienced economic collapse because of a credit crunch, an inability to borrow, at a time when the world is awash not only in debt but also in money. Business Week’s July 11, 2005, cover story shouted “Too Much Money” and spoke of a savings glut. Its June 11, 2008, European issue reiterated the theme, “Too Much Money, Inflation Goes Global.”
 
Most discussion of the financial crisis focuses on the details and misses the big picture. The problem is twofold. The economic system is awash in money, but it is in the wrong places. Second, virtually every dollar in the system is borrowed, because we rely on banks to create our money by lending it into existence. No debt, no money.
The economic system is not awash in money, otherwise there would be no need to inject it and instead the Fed would be withdrawing it. Instead, there was a large destruction of liquidity because of the overheated real-estate market and the asset-backed securities based on it, forcing the Federal Reserve to pump money into circulation.
 
As wages fall relative to inflation, the bottom 90 percent of the population is increasingly dependent on borrowing from the top 10 percent to put food on the table. But when the less fortunate can’t repay their loans, the rich people stop lending. Most loans continue to be repaid, but because the default rate is rising and the crazy system of derivatives trading makes it impossible to separate good debts and responsible borrowers from bad debts and deadbeats, banks are afraid to lend to anyone. As the good loans are repaid, the supply of money shrinks because new loans are not being issued.
Wages will stay the same relative to inflation, as the employers will be forced to increase them (as they will also be forced to increase their prices). Long-term savings, however, will be wiped out. The derivatives have nothing to do with the unwillingness of the banks to lend out money, but rather with the fact that most banks have been burned so severely, they will only lend money to the safest of borrowers. Which is determined by your credit score, not derivatives.

 
The demand for real goods and services begins to fall because people don’t have the money to pay for them. Businesses lay off workers, who consequently cannot afford either to repay their debts or to put food on the table. The problem appears to be a lack of money, even though the total money in the financial system is far more than enough to cover real-wealth exchanges in a rational real-wealth economy.

The demand has already fallen, the economy contracted. That's why we were/are in a recession. However, government and central banks are taking stimulatory action and the economy appears to be righting itself.

 
It all traces back to a money system that issues money as debt and seeks economic expansion for the sole purpose of generating new demand for debt to create the money to pay the interest on existing debt in an ever-escalating spiral to a never-never land high in the clouds."
Erm, this is nothing less than insane. The money system doesn't issue new money as debt, but through a series of exchanges between the retail banks and the central bank. One such instrument, for example, is the interest rate of the Federal Reserve. Let's say that banks can lend out money to business and turn a profit at an 8% interest rate. If the Federal Reserve offers a 10% interest rate, the banks will route their liquidity to the Federal Reserve's deposit accounts, taking it out of circulation and earning a 10% interest rate. This also means that they stop lending to businesses. Or the exact opposite, the Federal Reserve's interest rate drops to 7% and banks start lending their entire liquidity pool to businesses and earn none of the interest from the Federal Reserve. Where did the Federal Reserve get the money to pay the interest to the banks on its overnight loans? It created the money, it didn't have to loan it from anyone.

 
Korten earned his MBA and PhD degrees at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. He served for five and a half years as a faculty member of the Harvard University Graduate School of Business, where he taught in Harvard’s middle management, MBA, and doctoral programs and served as Harvard’s adviser to the Central American Management Institute in Nicaragua.
 
He was regional adviser on development management to the U.S. Agency for International Development.
 
Korten’s publications are required reading in university courses around the world. He has written numerous books, including the international best seller When Corporations Rule the World, The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, and The Post-Corporate World: Life after Capitalism.
Isn't it fascinating how MBAs in investment banks created this crisis, but now we'll use another MBA as the authority on why the economists are to blame? I suggest starting with Mankiw's "Principles of macroeconomics", it sheds light on the real picture of how macroeconomics works.

As for Part II of the financial crisis, yes there is a Part II coming. The US government has amassed a gigantic federal debt, the healthcare reform and new military spending will add to it. At some point there may be so much government debt, that it will be impossible for the US government to collect enough taxes to service it, in which case there will be loss of faith in the US dollar as the global reserve currency and it will fall into the abyss.

11
Off Topic / Re: So who here is recession proof?
« on: December 30, 2009, 03:42:31 pm »
Gentlemen,

I have now several times had to build up from rudimentary economic knowledge build up the picture of the current recession and try to fight off the idiocy that has pervaded the internets in the wake of the recession. For some reason few people sit at the keyboard and disprove Einstein, but all too many people feel they are knowledgeable enough to discuss something as complex and counterintuitive as macroeconomics (and no, it's not a simple science). I also my own fallacy in saying "I know the answer, but it's too long to explain, so nyah!". I'm going to write a lengthy post on the internets one more time, after that I will start charging for economic education. :) No, seriously.

12
Off Topic / Re: The Pissed Off Megathread
« on: December 30, 2009, 03:36:00 pm »
How long a sales cycle can "software that downsizes people" have? You sell it, they fire people, done deal. Or do you mean that it's too far between crises to keep you afloat?
Grumble, grumble! My software doesn't downsize people, it helps companies who are ABOUT to fire people to stay afloat and possibly not fire them. An entirely different can of worms. And the direct answer to your question is 12 months and up.

13
Off Topic / Re: So who here is recession proof?
« on: December 29, 2009, 03:35:42 pm »
Um, Pablo, I didn't want to make a separate post, but now that you're continuing and other people are listening, I have to interject.

Most of what you have written is based on poor economic knowledge. I don't have the time to go through everything, but your knowledge of economics is rather misguided. Since you've closed with sharia banking, I'll mentioned that one bit: sharia banks still get their interest, you can't have interest-free loans because there exists a time value of money. Instead, sharia banks charge "administration fees" which conveniently circumvent the letter of sharia but still fuck you over interest-wise.

14
Off Topic / Re: The Pissed Off Megathread
« on: December 29, 2009, 03:29:09 pm »
I don't have the capital to tackle the longer sales cycles.

However, I am planning to convert a soviet board game to a computer game while I'm looking for a job, so things aren't terrible. And then, a few years later, I will try, try again.

15
Off Topic / Re: The Pissed Off Megathread
« on: December 28, 2009, 03:22:53 pm »
I'm pissed off because I've invested two years of my life into something that ended up failing and now I don't know where to go. I mean literally, I could go anywhere and do anything, and I have no idea what my real and true passions are, other than the fact that I want to do something "creative" and other such approximations. Fuck. I think I'm going to stop visiting this board.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6