birdog1960

perhaps instead of just saying "no" and "idiot" you might ponder how all of this relates to brexit, which of course, was the point, you pencil headed keypunch operator. specifically, it changed the likely course of fed policy for the forseeable future. this in turn changed the direction of the us stock market. this is, of course, in direct conflict with the prevailing and unchallenged "what changed" sentiment here. and by implication, you seem to agree that the markets are manipulated by central banks which flies in the face of the the contention here that they're not. and while we're at it, let's not conflate central banks with gov't:" Central banks in most developed nations are institutionally designed to be independent from political interference" it's common here to make nebulous statements rather than precise ones. that way , you have wiggle room to escape the argument, my slithery opponent. so don't talk to me about conflation. and I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate! picketty has not retracted his central thesis and publicly answered his critics multiple times. I've not seen anywhere that he amended or changed his recommendations for improving wealth inequality.

well a$$wipe, this is picketty's prescription for the present, noyt 19th century Europe.

why don't you write a rebuttal? reading and writing are good. but of course you are correct. it's a novel approach that would never have been put forth by a respected, best selling, land mark producing economist author: Piketty proposes that a progressive annual global wealth tax of up to 2%, combined with a progressive income tax reaching as high as 80%, would reduce inequality, [17] although he concedes that such a tax "would be politically impossible."[19] Piketty believes the growth rate will once again fall below the rate of return, and the twentieth century will be an aberation in terms of inequality[1] Without tax adjustment, Piketty predicts a world of low economic growth and extreme inequality. His data show that over long periods of time average return on investment outpaces productivity-based income by a wide margin.[17] He dismisses the idea that bursts of productivity resulting from technological advances can be relied on to return sustained economic growth; we should not expect "a more just and rational order" to arise based on "caprices of technology,"[17] and return on investment can increase when technology can be substituted for people

it absolutely is exacerbating income inequality. I disagree with the central banks approach here. it's helping almost no one except the already wealthy. instead of printing more money, tax them more and put their freed up cash sitting on the sidelines back into the economy.

he's absolutely correct. and you seemingly ignored the part about people being nostalgic for the "good old days". you know, when there were unskilled and uneducated middle class jobs that often lasted a working lifetime. they don't exist anymore. they are not coming back. and neither brexit nor trump can change that. we live in a global economy. isolationism aint gonna work.

it's called reading. you should try it. the point is that the markets are being manipulated by the central banks and the stock market bounce after brexit can be explained by it. in the us market, much of that relates directly to what the fed will do in response to brexit. investors are betting on them not increasing and possibly decreasing interest rates and quite possibly more qe. it's likely a reasonable bet but long term the piper will need to be paid.

it wasn't good then but probably necessary to avoid a total collapse. the reasons for the near collapse are still an issue. but that was 2008. did anyone really expect that almost the entire world would still be printing money at this rate 8 years later? "The U.S. Federal Reserve has created over $3 trillion dollars of new money in the last decade (after taking nearly a century to create the first trillion)". does anyone really think that's a desirable situation? the point is that the markets are being manipulated by the central banks and the stock market bounce after brexit can be explained by it. in the us market, much of that relates directly to what the fed will do in response to brexit. investors are betting on them not increasing and possibly decreasing interest rates and quite possibly more qe. it's likely a reasonable bet but long term the piper will need to be paid. so, yeah. things are constant in the sense that central banks continue to print money like mad. but the fed's stated plan to increase interest rates has changed. and that's a big deal.

almost no one will make a killing long term and perhaps short term. an excellent explanation for the worlds money printing addiction and why it isn't sustainable. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/column-the-monetary-bubble-to-end-all-bubbles-is-coming/ what was the eu's monetary response to brexit? what will the uk's be? take a guess. On June 23, 2016, England voted to leave the European Union. What was the response of the European governments to this historic decision? Here are some of the responses: 1) The Italian government is looking to give $44 billion to Italian banks. Where is Italy going to get the money to give to their banks? The answer is to print money and create more debt. 2) The Bank of England is rumored to be considering even looser money in the form of cutting rates and restarting printing money. 3) Financial markets now wager that the U.S. Federal Reserve is more likely to cut rates in 2016 than to raise them as previously planned. In short, the government response to Brexit is print money and create more debt. In March of this year, ECB President Mario Draghi announced that the ECB would begin directly supporting companies by buying their bonds — the IOUs they issue when they borrow money. Previously, all the euro printing had been directed toward buying government debt. With the European economy continuing to sputter, however, Mr. Draghi took more dramatic action to give money directly to companies in the hopes that they would use it to expand their operations and increase hiring. The problem is that when the ECB lends newly minted money to companies by buying their bonds, it transfers wealth from European savers to companies. The problem is that when the ECB lends newly minted money to companies by buying their bonds, it transfers wealth from European savers to companies. How so? Because the more money the ECB lends by buying corporate bonds, the lower the interest rate companies have to pay. Consider that Toyota sold a Euro-bond last week that pays no interest. Zero. Who would buy a bond that pays no interest? The European Central Bank is happy to, but in doing so, it forces savers who would invest in corporate bonds to accept a zero rate of interest as well. and people here seriously question whether the market is manipulated?

no. this is real change. it's the beginning of the end of the uk and the eu. Scotland will very likely leave the uk. businesses are already planning on leaving. there's a true existential threat to much of the financial industry in London. there will very likely be other defections and referendums in other eu countries. it's real. the markets are manipulated and artificial.

this is running. what I've done is to confront. back to ignore you're not worth it.

ah yes, an unbiased judge. if it's morally superior (which it is), how then is it simultaneously unprincipled? oh, and the quotes?

nope. it's absolutely true. if feel it is morally superior to vote for the lesser of evils if it is inevitable that only one of those choices can win. I can't fathom a reasonable argument to the contrary. you produced those other quotes with amazing facility. how bout producing those from the other 80 pages that condemn the saliva statement?

do you vote out of self interest?

ummm....I clearly remember saying that my votes almost never directly benefit me and if they do it's incidental and not by design. that's the truth. so i'll repeat it again.

yeah, I know you' re slow but i'll bet you can figure it out.

how bout addressing my point? but to address the two statements he provided (with surprising agility, I might add), neither is immoral. they are straightrforwad, logical statements.

I usually have both you and ac/dc on ignore but i'm a glutton for punishment today. your post 1590 was in reference to my assertion that no one challenged one of the other morons assertion that Clinton spit on graves. no one did. it's all not here in black and white. no one still has...

what do you really do for a living? i'm thinking you're on the dole or perhaps living off your parents. now if that's true who is really the fraud? I wasn't in the bar fight. to observe that morality is not important in a bar fight is not immoral...you dunce.

I don't usually call out spelling errors but this is egregious since it's the name of the righties cult hero.

I said morality is unimportant in a bar fight which is what gowdy started and got whipped in. you are truly shameless. the proof or lack thereof, is right here on this page. there you go calling black, white again. frickin shameless.

and did that destroy your high opinion of Reagan?

it is on topic. it's called an analogy. those americans did not die because of the actions in question. therefore, saliva on their grave reference is a disgusting, classless, statement that no one here challenged but me. but again, what should one expect?

if he had would you have expected George McGovern to head a multiyear committee costing millions of dollars to investigate it? and at the end, if there were no new findings, would you be happy with McGovern?

and did tre' gowdy found that the outcome could have been changed at that point in time by the actions of Clinton or Obama? how bout the outcomes in Beirut? did the dems of the time make a circus of that tragedy? it's unseemly and lacking any class. but expected from a party that supports a crude mechanical such as trump.

your point? many here consider Reagan to have been one of the greatest prez's. many on the left feel the same about Roosevelt. the fact that these events occurred on their watch hasn't changed that. terrible events with terrible people responsible for them happen.