It looks like Henry Blodget over at BusinessInsider.com ran my Stimulus Chartbook again in a post and Mark Cuban tweeted it today!
Did Obama's stimulus programs work ? You decide ... read.bi/Rr4nhf
— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) October 14, 2012
It looks like Henry Blodget over at BusinessInsider.com ran my Stimulus Chartbook again in a post and Mark Cuban tweeted it today!
Did Obama's stimulus programs work ? You decide ... read.bi/Rr4nhf
— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) October 14, 2012
14 comments:
Henry why not get Mike on Yahoo with you and Aron????? rsp,
Not did they work, the US stimulus and TARP saved the Euro so far.
If Romney wins and balances the budget, then the Euro will tank just like Argentina did when Clinton balanced the budget ( vis-a-vis Mike Norman's analysis from 3 years ago ).
Therefore, McDonalds, Xerox, Microsoft, Google, Pepsi, and all the other companies who make more money in Euros than dollars and never repatriate them to the USA will not allow Romney to win the election.
If Romney wins and the tea party dogs him to balance the budget and force austerity, then these companies will be bitten big time by the Euro tank-a-saurus Rex.
Finally - Palin targets on the back of MOrmon missionary bicyclists :
The culmination of the entire history of Mormonism is at stake with Romney.
Obama is held back from war because the Nobel Peace Prize thrown on him as a pre-emptive attempt to prevent more war by the European Union.
Romney will need to think about this -
Matt: Trying, but so far no response from them.
Romney's austerity might be like Reagan's fiscal conservatism, i.e. big tax cuts for the rich and corporations and lots of military Keynesianism. Ironically, the deficit could actually get much larger, but only with defense sector, corporate profits and the stock market getting the boost.
Ironically, we probably have to worry more about the Dems, who want a "grand bargain," which is the double whammy of spending cuts and revenues (tax increases).
Check out this FT blog article, posted yesterday:
Gavyn Davies: "Will Central Banks Cancel Government Debt?"
http://blogs.ft.com/gavyndavies/2012/10/14/will-central-banks-cancel-government-debt/#axzz29NZnzitW
- extremely interesting article.
He mentions Abba Lerner, functional finance and MMT at the end.
Apparantly these ideas are being mulled over behind some pretty important closed doors.
Davies also links to these two FT articles which call for 'money financed' deficit spending:
Samuel Brittan: "The harmful myth of the balanced budget"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ad55ea0-12e2-11e2-aa9c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz29GQeK8oI
Martin Wolf: "Time to think the unthinkable and start printing again"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/045aab84-e61c-11e0-960c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz29GQeK8oI
"we probably have to worry more about the Dems, who want a "grand bargain," which is the double whammy of spending cuts and revenues (tax increases)"
Mike this has me worried too.... the other thing is that guy Rattner openly advocating for "death panels" has me scared...
at least out of paradigm Randian Ryan thinks they can "save money" by making some regulatory adjustments but stops short of advocating actual "death panels"...
Bernie Sanders is warning of the "grand bargain":
http://socsecnews.blogspot.com/2012/09/sanders-warns-of-post-election-grand.html
Which doenst sound too bad as it ties future increases in SS to COLAs based on "chained CPI"...
" The chained CPI is identical, really, to the regular CPI in all respects except one. It includes an adjustment so that if, for example, beef prices rise much faster than chicken prices, and consumers, as a result, buy less beef and more chicken, it picks up the switching from the beef to the chicken, which makes their total costs for the month rise a little less quickly than if you assumed they continued to buy the same amount of beef and the same amount of chicken as before."
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138555779/whats-a-chained-cpi
If this is all it is then not very bad fiscally imo... but no telling if the "Rattner wing" within the Democrats will "up the ante"....
rsp,
Y:
No question that the whole, deficit reduction mantra is coming under greater scrutiny, but the problem is, it still doesn't play politically. Obama had four years to change that, but decided to surround himself with out of paradigm deficit hawks and with the election so close, he is deathly afraid to even suggest anything of that nature.
If it wasn't for the Eurozone the whole debate would be very different. People see that on tv and can't help but be scared.
Also, the real issue is the massive imbalances in global trade, which should be sorted out through international agreement. However when you've got wars all over the middle east, people are scared to death about the future, and your main trading partner is a communist dictatorship, cooperation becomes more difficult.
If Romney wins and balances the budget
Romney has already signaled clearly that he is not that stupid. In his words it would lead to depression.
All this balanced budget talk is for the rubes. Promise anything to get into power and then do what you want. Same-o, same-o.
at least out of paradigm Randian Ryan thinks they can "save money" by making some regulatory adjustments but stops short of advocating actual "death panels"...
Right. Ryan's solution is price rationing instead, with those not being able to afford care being excluded from it by the market
Same with Romney. His "emergency room" solution is pathetic.
This was the GOP solution before Obama and it has not changed.
Also, the real issue is the massive imbalances in global trade, which should be sorted out through international agreement
Until economists and politicians start looking at the global economy as a closed system, we ill have nation states and regions pursuing advantage. That has always led to "blood, sweat and tears" in the past. No reason to expect anything different this time.
The major problem is the West's commitment to imposing "liberal democracy" (neoconservatism) and "free market capitalism" (neoliberalism) as two sides of the same coin on the emerging world because it entails the emerging world accepting neo-imperialism and neocolonialism under Western finance capital and multinational industrial capital, along with the Western concept of legal ownership, e.g., intellectual property rights.
" it entails the emerging world accepting neo-imperialism and neocolonialism under Western finance capital and multinational industrial capital,"
To me tho Tom it looks like they sign up for this with zealousness...
Think about it: they even build the actual ships. We dont have any shipbuilding here in the US anymore (besides warships)...
So they:
1. make the stuff
2 make the ships
3 put the stuff on the ships
4 buy the Panama Canal
5 build the specialty cranes to unload the specialty ships and ship them over ahead
This is just for merchandise... and now they are getting into bridge construction HERE as in the SF Bay Bridge contract awarded to the Chinese firm that is importing workers, and also Amusement Park operators at the parks owned by Blackstone...
There are many opportunities along the way to say "no thanks", but they just seem hell bent on accruing trillions of USD balances...
But to your point perhaps: "it takes two to Tango"... rsp,
But to your point perhaps: "it takes two to Tango"
The thing is, Matt, that this is what I would call aberrant behavior since we know from history where it has pretty inevitably led in the past. But, look at the financial crisis. Chuck Prince admitted they knew it was a game of musical chairs, but that they had no choice but to play and hope they got one of the chairs (bailouts). Lehman was left without a chair and the whole edifice came apart at the seams. Same will happen with an imbalanced global economy eventually.
One can see the outlines already. The Western ruling elite is going for domination. The emerging world is bidding time to get stronger, at which time they will make their move. The Western elite know this and want to keep the economic game going that benefits them but prevent the emerging world from gaining power, too.
This is not going to end well, because it is setting up as a zero-sum game.
Post a Comment