An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Pages
▼
Pages
▼
Monday, March 16, 2009
Another two-faced phony exposed!
Just like Peter Schiff, who appeared on every media outlet in the world proclaiming that he "called" the real estate bust (but then went on to lose all his clients' money), another phony is exposed.
New York University professor, Nouriel Roubini, a long time perma-bull who recently said he believes this rally is a "dead cat bounce," is actually 100% long stocks for his own account, yet he tells his clients to go short!
These guys are the most despicable sort of humans. They prey on the fears of innocent people while hiding behind a charade of concern, and standing upon a mountain of sanctimony. They are cowards of the worst order.
Read article here.
TAKEN FROM MIKE'S CONTRARIAN ALMOST 3 YEARS AGO !!!! :
ReplyDelete---------
Saturday, December 02, 2006
The Ben Stein/Jim Rogers dummy show
In a discussion today on the Fox News show, Cavuto on Business, Jim Rogers and Ben Stein were challenged by Neil Cavuto, who asserted that the U.S. budget deficit as a proportion of GDP was lower than in many European countries. (Neil is right.) However, in their responses both Rogers and Stein claimed, falsely, that Europe was running "surpluses." While many European countries do run balance of trade surpluses, their budget balances are in the red by amounts that are significantly higher than in the U.S.
Furthermore, the United States runs a trade deficit primarily for two reasons:
The first reason is that many of our trading partners have long employed policies that drive export driven economic growth for reasons of their own. They do this either through direct subsidy to industry, impediments to trade, currency manipulation or a combination of all three. Ultimately this is a cost to their citizens because the money could be spent on them or used to stimulate more domestic consumption. The result is that the United States enjoys a higher standard of living than these countries.
The second reason is that the United States economy has historically produced far higher returns on capital than other countries (due to our largely, free and open economy) and therefore investment capital has flowed here. This is often erroneously considered "lending" by foreigners to the U.S. but in reality the U.S. is NOT borrowing at all. In reality it is the other way around: foreigners put savings in the U.S. to grow their wealth and to sustain industries that create gainful employment for their citizens. If they didn't, they would be broke and poor. They have much more to lose than we do.
Both the budget deficit and the trade deficit are often spoken about out of context and without the necessary perspective to give a fair and balanced picture. It is meaningless to talk about debt when one does not consider income (economic growth) and assets too. For example, $1,000,000 in credit card debt might be devastating to someone who earns $100,000 per year, however, it is nothing to Bill Gates.
.... and now
ReplyDeletewe see China finally coming around to raise it's own standard of living, etc
more importantly, we might be creating bonds that coincidentally are purchasing by Chinese who milk our retail market with toxic plastic throw-away stuff, BUT
we are NOT borrowing from China
instead we are offering to them the opportunity to borrow our infrastructure and financial machinery to make a small profit from our asset creation machine which includes a side of the ledger called the liability or debt side ... but it is a fraction of the total picture which includes assets ( which create more capital and wealth ) and money.
we've invited the world to the game and they made some money by borrowing our infrastructure and our consumption.
however, perhaps there comes a time when they need to get their own tennis racket and serving some better game on their own --- and take care of their people.
we could do the same and create national healthcare which would be a boon to small business.
however, big business healthcare does not want that because they would not be able to wait outside the hospitals with bait to those who need help with the subsistent medicaid, so they can draw funds from the tax payer who has to pay the flip side outrageous costs for their healthcare.
i worked at a health insurance company who was only floating due to the medicaid machine where as their commercial and medicare groups were red ink liabilities.
this is another case of what Mike shows as "two faced phonyism" ...
they drive the market - whether the capital or healthcare market to least denomination with fear of nationalization and then poof
our assets are ruined and the vultures are waiting to snatch and hatch their predatory schemes!
also apparent for the real estate investors too who were waiting for this ... or those who don't want to bailout the shareholders and send all the companies to the junkyard ...