>> ^marbles:

Is this what passes for financial experts nowadays? Outside of Rickards, the rest are fucking dis-info tools.
The Ben Bernanke said gold isn't money. He also said in response to Why do people buy gold?: "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes". Bad outcomes like... destroying an economy by design?
Meanwhile, If Central Banks Believe in Paper Money Why Are They Loading Up On Gold?
Also former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with Bernanke. 2 years ago: "What is fascinating is the extent to which gold still holds reign over the financial system as the ultimate source of payment". (This is when gold was around $1,000/ounce)
In 1971, gold was $35/ounce. Now it's $1700/ounce. So it only took 40 years for the dollar to lose 97% 98% (edit) of it's value against gold.
It doesn't take an idiot to understand that if you save a $100 bill and forty years later it only has the purchasing power of $3 $2--that something is seriously fucked up with our monetary system.
You don't like gold? No problem. Just get rid of the economic central planning and let there be competing currencies. Gold will ALWAYS win in a a free market.


Rubbish. Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilised tomorrow, gold would be worthless. It's time we started basing our economy on the the real cost of things, energy. Ultimately, everything has an energy cost. Today energy is cheap, mostly because of fossil fuels. When energy starts becoming much more expensive, that will be the single greatest economic change in history.

Is this what passes for financial experts nowadays? Outside of Rickards, the rest are fucking dis-info tools.

The Ben Bernanke said gold isn't money. He also said in response to Why do people buy gold?: "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes". Bad outcomes like... destroying an economy by design?

Meanwhile, If Central Banks Believe in Paper Money Why Are They Loading Up On Gold?

Also former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with Bernanke. 2 years ago: "What is fascinating is the extent to which gold still holds reign over the financial system as the ultimate source of payment". (This is when gold was around $1,000/ounce)

In 1971, gold was $35/ounce. Now it's $1700/ounce. So it only took 40 years for the dollar to lose 97% 98% (edit) of it's value against gold.

It doesn't take an idiot to understand that if you save a $100 bill and forty years later it only has the purchasing power of $3 $2--that something is seriously fucked up with our monetary system.

You don't like gold? No problem. Just get rid of the economic central planning and let there be competing currencies. Gold will ALWAYS win in a a free market.

@blankfist, the correct Krugman answers are:

Commodity prices are going up for supply & demand reasons, core inflation and wages are still flat (as are bond interest rates). A weak dollar is how you solve the unemployment problems, just ask Milton Friedman. The problem is that it's going to be hard to get a weak dollar.

Oh, and on the "dollar closed weak", you should go here and hit the 3Y timeframe. That's the dollar index from about when the recession started to now. Would an honest person describe that as a consistent downward trend?

As for recessions and their official end, I haven't seen any economist declare that the official end of the recession meant the economy was A-OK now. Mostly they interpret "end of the recession" as "beginning of recovery", which jives with the metrics the NBER uses to decide those things.

Oh, and this month commodity, oil, and gold prices are down, and the dollar is up: http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/17/markets/oil_gold_selloff/index.htm

And here's Krugman on that topic three days ago, pointing out once again that fluctuations in commodity prices != inflation.

>> ^rebuilder:

When was this clip made? They make no mention of the way the Spanish government has rather scaled down their subsidy commitments:
http://www.bloomberg.com/
news/2010-08-01/spain-proceeds-with-plans-to-cut-subsidies-for-new-solar-power-stations.html


Friday. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2011/feb/11/spain-solar-towers?INTCMP=SRCH

When was this clip made? They make no mention of the way the Spanish government has rather scaled down their subsidy commitments:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-01/spain-proceeds-with-plans-to-cut-subsidies-for-new-solar-power-stations.html

You're right, a merger is not a takeover. The Deutsche stock exchange buying a controlling share in the NYSE is a takeover.

"Deutsche Boerse AG is in advanced talks to buy NYSE Euronext in an all-stock transaction that would create the world’s biggest exchange operator. (...) Deutsche Boerse will own about 59 percent to 60 percent of the joined entity." /source.

>> ^srd:

A merger is not a takeover.

Did he paint the corporatist Bloomberg as some kind of saint? And seriously how is this newsman's reporting bias any different than those on Faux News?

I don't see this as string pulling. I see this as a singular corporate-governmental beast with two backs bludgeoning anyone or anything that stands in its way.

I just read a wikileak cable in which the USGovernment talks about strong-arming France into weakening their nutritional standards in order to boost profits for Monsonto and the biotech food industry.

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/12/07PARIS4723.html

Here is a related news story: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aQGg.HOIcKv8

If our government will go to bat internationally for frankenfood distributors, then what makes you so sure they wouldn't do the same at home for the banking industry. It wasn't the will of the people to give Bank of America 20 billion dollars.

Here is another cable in which the USG fights for the international domination of Visa/Mastercard. The same government that denies us healthcare is out in Russia, fighting for leaches in the credit industry. http://213.251.145.96/cable/2010/02/10MOSCOW228.html

I'm standing by my hypothesis.

I was being facetious, however I disagree that the questioner "implied" that the money was being handed over willy nilly... he directly and repeatedly asked her (presumably a person who would know) whether the bloomberg article (which he described) was indeed accurate, that money was being handed over with poor oversight and documentation.

Call me cynical, but I doubt the woman was ignorant that she was being called there that day to discuss this subject; it appears to me that she is simply answering questions that she would prefer to answer and forcing the gentleman to burn through his time.


>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^bamdrew:
Hey, I'll take a trillion $ if we're just passing that kind of cash out.
Hell, I'd take the $29,315.96 that I'm apparently lending out ($9,000,000,000,000 / 307,000,000 people).


I certainly understand the confusion though, as the questioner implied with every question that the money was just being handed over willy nilly...

bloomberg report here (its short): http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok

Straight upvote, because there's nothing like "thirty" spoken in an Irish accent.

And a *promote on top, because the Irish have a fifth problem, and it's a game breaker: they have no feasible business model.

Financed by EU subsidies, fueled by the lowest company taxes and no real regulation, they based their whole economic system on two basic pillars, the financial sector and multinational corporations. By now, we should all know the first one is worse than cancer. And the second one, Ireland as the European FOB for US corporations, allowed Google amongst all the other crooks to get away with a tax rate of 2.4%. Here's one little fact a well-ignored economist stated back in 2001(!): Irish GNP was about 80% of Irish GDP. So 20% of the cake belonged to foreign corporations. How feasible is that? Add a housing bubble that - relative to size - puts the US real estate bubble to shame and you get a glimpse of just how fucked the Irish really are.

And just a few months ago, Ireland was the fucking hero for all those mainstream economists. "Copy the Irish model", they said. And don't believe for a second that the Irish - or the Greeks, Portuguese, Spanish for that matter - can pay back their debt. No chance in hell, they are done, financially. So it's a haircut and either finally the financial unity within the EU or the whole thing blows up in our faces. We need a European tax model, so the Irish for instance can't low-ball on corporate taxes, and reasonable wages based on productivity first and foremost, so the Germans stop ruining the rest of the bloody Union. Minimum wages and minimum taxes or the game is over.

Edit: My sympathies to the Irish anyway, the proposed cuts are pointless and a social disaster. Same as in Greece, workers get dogged for what the bankers and the government fucked up. Only Iceland seems to do the right thing at this time. Put CEOs and the lot in a Eurostar and send 'em off to France, they still have some guillotines in store.

>> ^bobknight33:

What can the rich buy with their tax cut?

Employ another employee
Invest in capital equipment
keep the company insurance plan
Keep company matching to employee 401k
Spend then money more wisely
Congressman Grayson (D-Fla.) is such a wipe. Wonder why he lost his election.


I will agree that he could have made a better case overall, but even if his argument isn't fully sound, the idea is. Recent studies show that the rich don't spend tax cuts on the things you mentioned. In fact they often don't spend them at all!!!

Therein lies the problem with this argument. Even if they bought a new BMW every year it would still be helping the economy more than saving it which is what they actually are doing. Bottom line, allowing the tax cuts to expire for the rich would encourage the wealthy to spend and will likely help the economy.

Glen Greenwald captured it quite nicely:

The White House originally indicated it would refrain from involving itself in the dispute, and there was little pressure or controversy over that decision. There was little anger over the President's silence even among liberal critics. And given the standard attacks directed at Obama -- everything from being "soft on Terror" to being a hidden Muslim -- choosing this issue on which to take a very politically unpopular and controversial stand is commendable in the extreme.
(...)
It was Michael Bloomberg who first stood up and eloquently condemned this anti-mosque campaign for what it is, but Obama's choice to lend his voice to a vital and noble cause is a rare demonstration of principled, politically risky leadership. It's not merely a symbolic gesture, but also an important substantive stand against something quite ugly and wrong. This is an act that deserves pure praise.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ Democracy is one person one vote, not one state, two votes.

America is not a pure democracy. Pure majority rule isn't advisable for anything larger than small communities. The US is republic and there are very numerous essays and such out there on the advantages of that system with all its characteristics such as the Senate.

BTW I did bork up the polls. I missread and article which actually was talking about Obama's Healthcare polling, not the public option. Recent polling... and old polling too places the public option at just over 53% on average, but it did recently take a dip to lower numbers. Bloomberg says 46%... whatever. The only number that matters at this point is 60. There's a number the Dems should enjoy while they have it 'cause it's not going to last.

I hate conspiracies but something really awful is going on here.
Massachusetts is the first to pass this disgraceful law, others will follow.
The pharma co's have been given legal immunity (msn).
http://flutracker.rhizalabs.com - go to this flu map and zoom in on the Ukraine.
They have a population of 46 million. 2 million have the flu.
At the start of November half a million had the flu (bloomberg), look at the countries around it, low low levels. It may be spreading North West into Belarus and Poland.
The fact that this has not been reported in the media should set alarm bells ringing in everyone's head.
It just stinks of something really awful.

Black Lung - Plague?

If you have an hour watch the video by Sister Teresa Forcades

TERESE FORCADES I VILA
Degree in Medicine from the University of Barcalona.
Specialty in Internal Medicine at the New York State University.
PHD in Public Health from the University of Barcelona.
Degree in Theology from Harvard University.
Benedictine nun at the monastery of Saint Benet in Montserrat, Barcelona.