birdog1960
-
Posts
7,653 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by birdog1960
-
-
I've been writing about it consistently for seven years, idiot.
And for the last time, stop misapplying Picketty's analysis of 19th century Europe to modern economies.
well a$$wipe, this is picketty's prescription for the present, noyt 19th century Europe.
-
This is precisely why you're an idiot.
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
-
Yes I did read it (and unlike you I understand it)
So where's your editorial on income inequality that's exacerbated by governments' policies?
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.
-
Our president just explained to NPR that the reason Britain voted to leave the EU is because they are afraid of "funny-looking people."
What in the holy hell? Could this man sound or act any more stupid? How pathetically disrespectful.
If you're not embarrassed by this fool, you have no sense of mutual respect.
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.
-
And based on the articles you linked, who's doing the manipulation?
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.
-
So now the govt printing money is bad?
Printing money to pay off debt and buy a ****ty recovery were OK, but now printing money is bad?
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.
-
Smart investors made a killing this week off the overreactions of stupid people. Oh wait, that's not a change.
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?
-
Anyone who thinks the market is reacting to specific changes rather than just the idea of change is being silly.
The real change in the market will occur when things actually start changing after they invoke article 50, and start brokering new trade deals.
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 one of the most ridiculous attempts I've seen on here to run from one's own comments.
Do you're own work, Sue. They're all there.
this is running. what I've done is to confront. back to ignore you're not worth it.
-
Bird dog is getting spanked
ah yes, an unbiased judge.
You can make that argument all you wish, you just can't do it while claiming it's the principled approach -- which is what you were trying to claim. It's the opposite of principled. Literally the exact opposite of the definition of the word.
if it's morally superior (which it is), how then is it simultaneously unprincipled?
oh, and the quotes?
-
And you're still wrong. This thread is 81 pages. You're not the only one who's made that stance. In fact, I did while the hearings were going on and I loathe Clinton.
Comments like this are why you're a joke.
Care to revise your BS statement?
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?
-
No need to repeat something that's cached forever and restated above. Your efforts to reinterpret what you wrote are a waste of time. Again.
do you vote out of self interest?
-
It's as though he forgets anything that was ever before said here.
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.
-
Which one? They usually twist in the wind.
yeah, I know you' re slow but i'll bet you can figure it out.
-
How about addressing his question?
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.
-
Like with most of your points, you'd be wrong about that.
To refresh your own words:
So, would you like to walk back your comments that I was calling white black and black white? Or would you rather just admit you're an unprincipled and intellectually dishonest asshat?
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...
-
Shameless? I'm just repeating the nonsense you yourself said.
You said principles only apply when there's something in it for you. Which is abhorrent.
You also compared spleen surgery to shoulder surgery as if they're comparable.
These aren't inventions. What's shameless is you running from your own words and trying to pretend you didn't say them. You clearly have no backbone nor a lick of intellectual honesty. You're a fraud.
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?
Morality is never unimportant to a moral person, you dunce.
I wasn't in the bar fight. to observe that morality is not important in a bar fight is not immoral...you dunce.
-
That administration might have been negligent in that they didn't foresee the danger to the Marines stationed there.
Regan never figuratively spit on their graves though. Regan never lied to the American people about what happened, nor did he blame their deaths on some ridiculous, fictitious construct in order to keep him ahead in the polls going into an election.
I don't usually call out spelling errors but this is egregious since it's the name of the righties cult hero.
-
Only birdbrain says morality is irrelevant after saying he supported Bernie for his values as a person.
He's a walking contradiction.
I said morality is unimportant in a bar fight which is what gowdy started and got whipped in.
False.
Not that facts matter to you. Or intellectual honesty.
you are truly shameless. the proof or lack thereof, is right here on this page. there you go calling black, white again. frickin shameless.
-
Good Lord..............so much fail
Tip O'Neill headed up the House investigation (McGovern was a Senator)
They didn't need a multiyear committee.....(finished in two months) because the Reagan administration cooperated, no subpoenas necessary.
They did find the administration negligent......as they did today......so I find your "there were no new findings" very illustrative
Absolutely correct................
Good Lord..............so much fail
Tip O'Neill headed up the House investigation (McGovern was a Senator)
They didn't need a multiyear committee.....(finished in two months) because the Reagan administration cooperated, no subpoenas necessary.
They did find the administration negligent......as they did today......so I find your "there were no new findings" very illustrative
Absolutely correct................
and did that destroy your high opinion of Reagan?
-
Let's get back on topic. The whole reason that GOP launched the investigation is due to the lies & deflection by the most transparent administration in US history.
I'm not going to get into your never ending circle jerk of hypotheticals.
The fact is, US officials got killed and Clinton & Obama lied for political expediency.
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?
-
Did Reagan deflect Beirut blame on the airing of Ishtar?
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?
-
It's not the evil that people question. It's the ridiculously incompetent response that came from Obama and Hillary, leaving four Americans for dead while trying to figure out how to dress their soliders, and trying to pass it off on a Youtube video when every thinking person knew differently.
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.
-
Who was president when this happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
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.
Brexit
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by 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.