I’m not the Lord….but thanks for saying I am, even if unintentionally.

So, it’s more projection then….and more evidence english is your second language at best, and you failed the class, and that you’ve never passed remedial math.

Disgraced traitor and failed dictator tumescent Trump has had the worst week in court history, after testifying that “sure, he did the crimes” he’s set to lose hundreds of millions and all his businesses before going to prison at best, and is set to be in court for treason all through the election, and you just CAN’T admit it. Fortunately the court system doesn’t care if you believe, and neither do independents.

If only there was some undeniable metric to tell how the economy is doing, like GDP (up beyond belief from NEGATIVE 2.3% for Trump to 4.9%), or unemployment (holding at record lows of 3.8 down from 9% Trump left), or wage growth (at 5.3% well above inflation, up from 2.6% under Trump thanks solely to low wage earners losing far more jobs or it would be zero), or inflation numbers (down enough at 3.7% that the fed stopped raising rates) we could look at to see the trends.
So sad there’s nothing we can look at to see and so I guess we’ll just have to take your word for it. 🤦‍♂️

Can you tell us what measurements you use to determine that Bidenomics have failed, or by what measure Trumpenomics were successful? All I know for sure is they are not the normal ones used to evaluate economics because they all point toward Trump’s policies being disastrous and Biden’s being amazing, well above all predictions consistently, so I’m curious what they are.

Ugh…more of the failed lawyer posting from mommy’s basement. How many times will you let this guy make you look stupid before you stop posting his rantings?

The same polling he references said we were getting another red tsunami yesterday…but we didn’t, did we? Republicans lost almost every single contest, even many that seemed to be a lock. Don’t you find it odd that you think Trumpism is so much more popular but every Trump backed candidate consistently loses? Keep clinging to false hope, it’s done so well for you in the last 5 elections. 😂

Now, aren’t you going to explain the mathematics of inflation to me and explain why 75% inflation translates to 140% price increases? I want to learn, and I know you can teach me since you have a firm grasp of math.

Not to say that Walmart treats its employees well, but you people are missing something here.
First why should Wal-Mart do anything beyond what is required by law? Minimum wage is minimum wage. The government set that rate and Walmart pays its employees over that wage. They do not have to give insurance to their associates, yet they do. Most states are "At Will" states which means you can be fired for any reason aside from sex, age or race. If you don't like what Walmart offers then there is a McDonald's on almost every corner. Or even a Starbucks.
As for manufacturing, while Walmart is BRUTAL on it's vendors, they also have one of the strictest social compliance programs in the world. They've also instituted a packaging reduction program that looks to reduce packaging waste and increase the amount of recycled material used.
It is not totally the fault of Walmart that everything is made China. They buy from Vendors, vendors moved manufacturing to China in order to be competitive. Everything could have stayed in the USA but with the increasing wages and government policies US manufacturers could not compete(At the same time restrictions on imports from Asia were loosened) Now if you wanted to make a plastic piece in the USA it would cost 4-6 times more than in China, generally speaking. Recently I have found some US manufacturers that can injection mold components at a reasonable cost, but due to the havoc wreaked by everything moving to China I lack the infrastructure to be able to do things like Paint Decoration (Again something so strictly regulated that it would be near impossible to do in the US).
As we continue to see the USD falter against the RMB and as the price of oil continues to increase we may reach a point of balance where manufacturing in the US could come back, but it would most likely be automated and would not result in near the number of jobs it had in the past. Of course at the same time, due to those same changes in Oil prices and the USD against the RMB we'll be seeing some pretty big price increases on product. Hang on to your pocket books everybody it's gonna be a rough ride.
On another note Sam Walton was a total skin flint, but he did it across the board. The guy didn't even get heat in his office until he was near death. Only then it was done because the engineer put it in with out him knowing. They feared him catching a pneumonia. He complained when he found out. No one could drive fancy cars, because if Sam saw them he'd figure he was paying them too much. After he died all kinds of sports cars popped up in the Walmart parking lot.

They are building a new plant near me. And honestly I think the people wanting to get hired there would probably take a six year pay freeze as part of their employment agreement. It's them using the out of work people in the area from GM closure and other closures to put the squeeze on their current employees, and their employees if they've been unemployed at all HAVE to know that they could be replaced.

My hope is that in 5 and 10 years time, people remember what was done by Caterpillar and choose to not buy their products and work for competitors when the same wage is offered. If people actually remembered and took historical decisions (not in the past year, but 5 or 10 years and more) in their context of the time and use that in their decision making....I just don't see how a company could withstand doing that kind of shit for long.

Unfortunately, people have very short memories and what happened last week, last hour, last minute, last second mentality in all things involving money now. Corporations have fostered that, but people have bowed to it.


I really doubt they get 6 years agreement, but I bet they get at least 3 years on a wage freeze. I also bet their products go up in price more than if the wages had not been frozen, and they end up blaming the workers/unions for those price increases. Insurance will be my first guess on what they blame specifically for costs. And they will secretly question all of those worker comp claims, because those frozen wages probably lead to a lot of disgruntled employees that they now have to monitor more closely and hire extra managers to watch.

It's easy to blame the banks, because the banks and other financial institutions donate/bribe politicians into making it happen. So if they are regulated by law, and can't benefit from this kind of policy, then they won't bribe politicians for it.

And yes, I realize working around corruption shouldn't be tolerated, but laws limiting the power of corruption is just as important as eliminating corruption. Without the limitations you invite more and more corruption through unregulated business and decisions related to them.

Just like the government is founded on the idea of 3 branches of the government limiting each other, business is limited by regulation and society, government is regulated by it's 3 branches and society. Removing the regulations is taking away checks and balances.

Much as all of the new laws and acts tieing different branches and departments of the government together for the sake of the "wars on terrorism/drugs/whatever" is taking away limitations and checks and balances within government.

Sensible guidelines to work within should be the norm, until they show detriment to society. The regulations on banks never threatened society that I've ever seen demonstrated. The reasons were always basically "because it needs to be done!"....much like power company regulations and phone company regulations after being reduced or removed have let to outrageous price increases and quality of service dropping like a rock. They do it all in the name of keeping and making more money, and there's no one but other huge banks/corporations to threaten them.

Upvote granted. That is probably the best way to reply to that sort of argument too.

The real underlying problem with the "gas prices are going up because the Fed is printing money" theory is that gasoline is just one price, and "inflation" is a rise in the price of everything, overall. Economists say that to really spot inflation, you have to look at prices that are generally pretty stable; volatile commodities like food & gas which see frequent large shifts in both supply & demand are very poor measures of inflation, because there's just too much non-inflationary noise. Here's a much more in-depth explanation from Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/core-logic/

Keep in mind that the methods economists use to measure inflation show that we've been in a period of record-low inflation. That should, for any rational person, be the end of talk of inflation. This constant cry of "INFLATION!" at every price increase is quite literally the economic equivalent of hearing hoof-beats and assuming it's zebras and not horses.

Most changes in prices happen in response to real shifts in supply or demand, not because the Fed is expanding the monetary base.

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
I researched a comment on the sift for the first time in about 2 years. I would like an upvote oh sage one.

You might even find it interesting!!!!

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Do you believe that the demand for cars would have decreased if the big 3 went under? If so, please explain how and why.
I think, if the big 3 tanked, people who would have bought those cars would still need cars and would have bought cars from other manufacturers. That means increased business for those other manufacturers which means they place more demand on the material manufacturers, the parts suppliers, etc. Some of that demand would have manifested overseas, but I believe much of it would have gone to the same businesses that Ford, Chrysler and GM use. After all, as I said above, there's lots of other manufacturers that do assembly here and it's easier and cheaper to have your suppliers nearby.
No, like you say it's mostly a supply-driven story, not demand-driven. My point is that dismantling the Detroit-centered auto manufacturing infrastructure would be a huge shock to the American economy.

Like you say, eventually the economy would readjust, but even in a good economy it'd take a long time for it to adjust to a shock of that size. In a time where the financial markets had just gone into a crisis of historic proportions, it might've taken more than a decade.

A decade in which that circular flow is moving more slowly, dragged down by all the human and industrial capital that we leave idle as workers in Detroit look for new jobs, and while we wait for the prices of Toyotas and Hondas and BMW's to rise in response to the decline in supply, then wait for those price increases to build up as excess capital to the point where those companies decide to invest in opening new factories to meet the demand.

In the long run, the circular flow of our economy would eventually get back up to the rate it was at before, but in the long run we are all dead.

Or instead we could spot 'em 50 billion and avoid taking that kind of hit. Unless of course, you think there are inherent insurmountable problems with Chrysler and GM that can't be fixed with new management and some debt forgiveness?
>> ^xxovercastxx:

All the independent analyses that I read back in 2008 concluded that the cost of the bailouts vs letting the big 3 tank was close to a wash.

I'm not sure if the analyses you looked at were talking about the overall macroeconomic effects, but I bet not. I bet they just looked at "will it increase the government's debt load?" That's all most investor analyses do in situations like this.

The analysis I'm talking about would be comparing GDP forecasts with the bailout vs. without.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
There's also a cost to other businesses that comes with these sorts of bailouts that is rarely mentioned. I used to work at a small property insurance company. When the economy got rough, they played things smart. They minimized their risk, invested heavily and were one of the only companies of their kind to maintain a profit through the whole debacle. AIG, on the other hand, bet on high risk business and lost fortunes. They got a government care package and put themselves back together and now, as a result, are destroying the insurance market. My old company is struggling to stay in business (next year is their 100th anniversary) and AIG is swimming in ill gotten money.

The smartass in me wants to say "what's the cost?" After all, both companies made a profit. What's wrong with that?

But seriously, you're talking about "moral hazard". Believe me, that's not some topic nobody talks about, it's what right-wing economists and business journalists scream as loud as they can whenever there's talk about government stepping in to stave off major disruptions in the economy.

The my answer is that bailouts shouldn't be no strings attached, like the bailout of AIG was. The management of the companies that get rescued should lose their jobs, and be stripped of all their personal wealth. Depending on their actions, maybe tossed in jail too.

That way the value of company itself is preserved (and not liquidated), while there's a strong disincentive for the management to make a business plan that centers on expectations of being bailed out if the shit hits the fan.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

So the question I pose (and I know we can only speculate on the answer) is what effect have the bailouts had on Toyota, Honda, etc? Or do we not care because they don't employ as many Americans as the domestics?


Since this comment is approaching an epic length already, I'm just gonna say that it wasn't really about foreign vs. domestic ownership, but about minimizing the number of years we stay below trend in GDP during a severe recession. If you want to view it as a region vs. region dispute, it was also about keeping the perfectly good Detroit manufacturing cluster from being needlessly dismantled and rebuilt elsewhere.

@quantumushroom:

Obama does suck, and I don't have time to go through your bullshit point by point, but you could at least call him out on things that he has actually fucked up.

I need to address the gas price thing, though. You've mentioned this before. Gas was cheap when Obama entered office because the economy had just recently tanked. Oil/gas producers had not had time yet to cut their production to stabilize prices around where they wanted them. The price increased because the economy improved and production was cut.

Between $3 and $4/gallon is where the producers want the price to be, and that's where it's going to stay absent huge surges or dips in demand.

Go here, and look at the five year chart. http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Do you see that huge collapse of gas prices? That is the economy collapsing. And that's what you're comparing the present prices to.

>> ^rougy:

@bcglorf,
The problem I have with your point of view mainly rests on the presumption that the people who were defrauded "got what they deserved." I just don't see it that way. It's sort of justifying the bankers actions.
When somebody who is in a position of power and respect, as are most bankers and investors I would say, you can't blame John & Jane Doe for trusting in their advice.
The bankers and investors should have known better, and the vast majority of them did, but that didn't stop them from spreading the lies and conning people into signing their lives away.
P.S. - I hope Greece defaults. Something is rotten in Denmark when entire countries must go bust in order to satisfy Wall Street.


The people I figure were defrauded were the ones investing in the companies that were carrying terrible bad mortgages but calling themselves grade A safe investments. Those investors were defrauded and have very serious cause for concern as they were outright lied to by people wanting to profit off them.

As for the people buying homes at inflated prices, I would say they hold some blame and some plain old bad luck. The ones that took on mortgages they could only afford if the home increased in price I do blame pretty readily. They took a big risk, and risk were they were informed. They knew that they were betting on housing prices increasing. They knew the terms they were betting under and what it would mean if they won or lost the bet. They lost and should take the loss. The banks encouraging and focusing on those bets lost as many times over as they had customers lured in. The difference is the banks were pocketing more profit and got tax payer assistance to cushion their loss while the customers were left to deal on their own. I'd prefer both were left to deal with the consequences.

As for Greece, I've only scratched beneath the surface still, but it is looking like their debt problems run much deeper than just social services spending. I'm very curious were the real turning/tipping point in this was. If anyone has any good advice aside from the lead Rougy already threw out that'd be great. My current trail is the 40% of the Greek economy that was purely public sector jobs. That makes for a house of cards that's very vulnerable to government cut backs. My province(Manitoba) is in that very same boat and it is federal transfer funds from the federal government alone that is keeping us afloat.

Unclear to me why so much hatred. Seems that if they're losing money due to a poorly-conceived pricing structure and increasing licensing costs, they have the choice of A) changing their pricing structure (a.k.a. raising prices and losing lots of customers) or B) continually losing profits until they have to shut down.

Don't get me wrong. I dropped their DVD service as a result of the price increase and am not happy about it, but their adjustment seems less about greed and more about staying in business and continuing to mold the future of home-based entertainment.

I am constantly amazed at what customers expect/want from these guys. The price increase was inevitable. They did a great job of competing with Blockbuster and Hollywood Video and keeping up with the vastly changing streaming market. When the companies that owned these shows and movies realized that streaming was becoming more popular, they renegotiated their contracts with streaming services. There would be no way Netflix could provide their service for the same low price. And, for all the complaining, when I did just a little bit of reading, the reasoning made sense to me. Yes, it costs you more, but that doesn't mean they are taking advantage of their customers.

I'm not sure about this new development, but it makes sense on the surface. I'm interested to see how integrating these two, now separate, services will work. Still, this company has a track record of listening to their customers and this apology, along with the similar email I received this morning, is evidence that they are the kind of company I'd continue to give my business to. Years of dealing with Blockbuster puts this in perspective.

I guess pissing off half of their customers wasn't enough, now they have to go and piss off the rest by splitting into two separate sites making it an inconvenience to use both. Two different sites, two different logins, and no connection between them. I liked how when a DVD in your queue became available for streaming that it automatically showed up in the streaming queue. Now that's not going to happen, and ratings from one site don't carry over to the other. I was OK with the price increase, but I'm not OK with this. Goodbye Netflix.

I guess they're trying to get back to their roots by shipping a couple of thousand DVD's a day.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

How is this patronizing? I thought it was pretty direct and plain speaking.>> ^direpickle:

Still condescending. Still patronizing. Still a 50% price increase. Subscription stays cancelled.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

"We could do a better job..." Ka-Ching!


As cynical as I am generally about corporations and greed, Netflix has been pretty awesome for a pretty long time, and while I am still miffed about the price increase, I have to confess that it still seems like a good deal to me.

I believe them when they say they're going to keep improving the services, and I suspect over time they'll soothe people's anger over the price increase debacle.

If anything though, I think the streaming service is in much bigger danger than the disc-by-mail thing. Streaming has a shitload of the old-guard scared, and they've certainly got the muscle to quash Netflix if it really starts to cut into their bottom lines.

Disc-by-mail on the other hand doesn't pose a threat to anyone's existing business model (now that Blockbuster is gone, anyways), so it'll persist until the coming war over the future of TV gets wrapped up.

Still condescending. Still patronizing. Still a 50% price increase. Subscription stays cancelled.

@RedSky

It's not that speculative activity has "nothing" to do with supply and demand. Of course it does. I'm saying that once you get past that initial set of contracts between the initial speculator and the farmer/mill/bread company/whatever, you get further and further away from supply and demand as a factor. You get people who are betting on price swings for profit rather than someone actually providing a service. The video did a pretty good job of illustrating the see-saw effect this has on markets, which makes prices unstable.

This see-saw effect causes severe and sudden price spikes and dips as people pile on short sales or speculative buying. The point is, if the price for a good increases 71% in a short period of time without extreme supply issues, it's likely a speculative effect. Yes, the video could have done a better job of explaining why biofuels, certain supply shortages, etc, don't account for nearly all of the price increase, but I've heard that broken down elsewhere. I'll try to find a source.

Furthermore, large US investment banks have convinced sovereign wealth funds (think Saudi royal money type funds) to invest in US commodities markets in recent years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102462.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/24/us-commodities-sovereignwealth-idUSTRE51N28Z20090224

This is what these huge piles of money do to protect themselves. More recently, investors bought huge piles of Swiss Francs because it was the world's most stable currency. However, since such huge investment in the currency suddenly increased the value of the Franc, it caused Swiss exports to become more expensive. This started to destabilize their economy, as producers were having trouble keeping contracts with their buyers. So, the Swiss central bank started manipulating their currency value by offering to buy unlimited amounts of any foreign currency. They succeeded in dropping the Franc's value by around 10%. None of this activity had anything to do with supply or demand of Swiss goods...or goods anywhere for that matter. It was simply massive amounts of investment from a crowd mentality.

Same thing goes for the price of gold. It's just a giant hedge against inflation and/or price spikes in other markets...so you get these accumulations of money in "safe" areas, and that's how you get massive overvaluation of various goods and commodities (bubbles).

It's all due to the level of complexity. "Speculative activity" is a stabilizer when the number of speculators is low, but it has a destabilizing effect as the number of speculators increases.