Magox

That is some funny **** I mean in a perverse sense, that is logical. It is just one study, but I could see how it would be the case. I may have to rethink my position. Do I value the individuals life or the good of the fiscal health of the country? Decisions decisions

That would be considered to be highly regressive and you would be hard-pressed to get more than a handful of votes in support of it from the Democratic party. So the flat tax is something that we will most likely never ever see here in the U.S

I hear ya, it would be one thing if it only did affect themselves, but it doesn't. Medicare, Medicaid and insurance premiums, are all things that many of us have to pay for, and much of that cost is predicated on the health of others.

This is one area where, from my perspective that I do believe additional taxation makes sense. It's not meant as a punitive or additional revenue measure but more of a "curbing of habit" sort of policy prescription. I believe it to be very fiscally sound. One of the main drivers of US debt comes from the health sector. Not only do we have an inefficient medical delivery system, but we have a country of fat asses, which of course requires more health care spending, both on a personal household to federal/state level. Sugar helps cause diabetes and obesity, which of course leads to a number of other ailments. The more expensive you make sugar, the less we will consume of it, which of course will eventually lead to less medical spending. Additional taxation has caused tobacco usage to go down, so it's only natural that you could apply the same principle to another product. http://usatoday30.us...king/57737774/1

Which is why there has to be a complete overhaul of the US tax code. Lower the rates, close loopholes and provide some sort of incentive to repatriate those funds back home. Key word, incentive.

They're your words professor, and it's there for anyone to see.

Here is what I said: Here is what you said: And yes, the goal is to prevent unemployment from worsening. So there is little room for interpretation, I didn't say or imply "spending" was bad, what I spoke to was the effectiveness of the spending. It is a demonstrable case in study that the more debt you pile on, the more it stunts future growth. Pretty soon we will hit a tipping point with the interest that we have to pay on our debt. That is why it is important to spend wisely and not have this destructive attitude towards our debt that Krugman and his faith based followers of the church of spending have. While I agree that in most down turns, Spending has a place in an economic recovery, it is not the only solution that we have to get us out of downturns. Not all downturns are created equally, in some cases there are no structural issues and a little jump start spending could be all that is needed. In other downturns such as this one, spending isn't all that is needed. I've gone over more than a few times what other things we could be doing, and they include structural reforms. My thoughts are based on hard data and I have no ideology that imprisons or limits what I see. I sometimes support added regulations, I sometimes may support additional taxation, just depends on the conditions on the ground. You on the other hand are a prisoner of your ideology, you are incapable of seeing anything outside your bubble that doesn't fit your ideology. You admittedly believe in virtually just about any kind of spending in a down economy, and you also believe in higher taxation and regulations in just about any condition. It's the same old same old with you. Whatever is part of anything that can be construed as social liberal economic orthodoxy, you endorse it.

I know that you endorse all spending, doesn't matter the effectiveness, just as long as you spend it. As I said before, you are a one trick pony, who knows no other policy prescriptions for growth other than spending.

Fo sho

Just remember everyone, in a down economy, virtually just about all spending is good, doesn't matter how effective or where we spend it, the important thing to remember is that we spend.

Of course it makes a lot of sense to build it, it's a no-brainer. Especially now that the elections are over and the big O already got his money from the ultra 1%er enviro's

I know what you're getting at, neither Dareus or Kyle are your pro typical nose tackles, so that is a concern, however there are teams that have excelled with smaller NT's and it will be incumbent of Pettite to put these guys in a position to consistently play to their strengths.

Just admit it already, you're anti Semitic

It's a private entity. Why nationalize or have a stake in it? The difference between AIG and the banks is huge. For starters those entities were about to go bankrupt without the assistance of the US, and two those private corporations were viewed by the government as essential to allowing the economy to expand. Right or wrong, those were the views by the government and some private analysts. Neither of those two apply to Lockheed. You're making a specious argument, which is " well, without the government they wouldn't exist, therefore the government should have a stake in it" Just because we have a huge appetite for their goods does not give our government the right to demand a stake in it. We don't owe them anything, who cares that most of their sales are to our government? That's real demand, they aren't producing it just to get a handout. If you think there is a lot of wasteful spending there then point your finger to the politicians that allow themselves to get bought off by lobbyists and influenced by their local constituencies that are looking more so at their local economies than the overall waste and debt to the country. Again, all your solutions come from the left-wing. More regulations, higher taxes, spend spend spend and now nationalization. Geez

Virtually impossible to quantify, if i had to give my best rough guesstimate, I'd say through the combination of the lowering of US interest rate cycle beginning shortly after 9/11 and QE, at a very minimum 35% of the price is attributed to loose monetary policy.

Seems like a solid investment to me. Am I missing something? Are they doing something unethical?

No, but lybob did, and did I say that you claimed that I did? Ok now this is getting silly.

Tell me where I have predicted the demise of the US dollar to occur in the near to mid-term. Or show me where I said we will be seeing hyper inflation any time soon . The problem is that you see things through a certain lens, you see me make my argument and somehow you believe I'm sounding the alarms to hyper inflation, where in fact what I'm saying is that loose monetary policy has had an appreciable effect on prices. Without QE we'd see a much lower price for oil and for that matter equities as well. The impact is felt on two fronts, as I alluded to earlier, one is the immediate re pricing in the markets, adjusting to the currency, and two is the peripheral tangible effects of the increased demand of the monetary policy. Also another point I'd like to make is that I find it ironic that you keep referencing CPI or at least making indirect references to it as a true gauge of inflation. Reason being is that CPI is a tool that is perpetuated by Wall Street to justify their investing habits. You of all people I would think wouldn't reference this metric to gauge real inflation felt on Main Street. You ask the average middle to lower income class person what their main economic concerns and fears are and they will overwhelmingly say job security and rising gas/food prices. So I just find it odd that you continue to bring this up. If you would just take the time to see the words for what they are and not view it through your preconceived lenses, I think you'd see that what I'm saying makes a lot of sense.

again, your reading comprehension skills fail you. Lybob made mention of a comment that I made and suggested that I claimed it would lead to hyperinflation and i responded. You and I years ago spoke about this, in which I said that it would lead to commodity inflation, but most likely not see prices go through the roof because there was a lot of slack in the economy, and that we wouldn't see heightened inflation until the global economy began to grow at a faster clip, at least avg global growth trend rate. I've spoken about this ad nauseam. It's not a singular issue, commodity prices are largely driven by growth, supply and monetary policy. If global monetary policy tightened, lets just say the unwinding of the bond purchases (QE) the effect would be twofold. One, there would be an immediate global repricing of virtually all commodities, currencies, bonds and equities, through the markets of course. Then there would be the tangible impact it would have on global growth, obviously world growth would slow, demand for just about everything would drop and that depressed demand would filter into the equity and commodity markets. Now of course this is under the assumption that monetary policy makers abruptly change course, in which of course they won't. Whenever they do unwind these positions I imagine they will do it in the most gradual way possible. But that isn't what this discussion is about, we are talking about the raw impact of monetary policy and commodities. Also your analysis on the relationship vs the dollar and oil is flawed. Your model is based on the traditional relationship it had, dynamics change professor, so when they change in order to keep up, analysis must change along with it. The correlation no longer exists in the way it use to because of a couple fundamental factors. One, just about the entire developed world is devaluing their currency, so the price of oil has risen more so over the past couple years in their currency because of their loose monetary polices, and two, even though we are still the top dog with reserve currency status, oil and other commodities are being purchased with other currencies. Currency swaps mainly between china and its trading partners have steadily been increasing over the past five years or so, lessening the reliance on the US dollar

So basically you just made **** up to back up your ideology? How convenient.

Hyperinflation? Link? We get it, you are also a denier that the devaluation of currencies have contributed to higher prices. Any "economist" worth their salt would agree with that. You and professor dingbat on the other hand believe that currency devaluation hasn't had an appreciable affect on prices. You guys are wrong and its as simple as that. There is no middle ground with you ideologues, it's either all or nothing. Also, the spare capacity reference is to excess OIL spare capacity. But thanks for playin

Umm, you make it appear as if its 7.5 million paid over four years. That's not how it works. It's just guaranteed for 7.5 million. Big difference

I'm not gonna give Nix that much credit. I think I will stick with the idea that he stuck his foot in his mouth

bull **** on all accounts. You weren't aware of excess spare capacity and its affects on pricing, you don't understand the relationship of currencies and commodities and you subscribe to a failed rigid economic orthodoxy Also what I "pooh poo'hd" on wasn't your projection, I never made mention of it, what I criticized was your statement that the economy a few months ago was "gaining strength". There is a difference. Which was why I referenced 4th quarter GDP. Not only do you not understand the basic principles of excess spare capacity, the relationships of currencies with commodities and basic math, but now we can add basic reading and comprehension to the list.