Jump to content
Andrew

$1 USD, that's like $1 CAD?

Recommended Posts

Missed it by that much.

Was that "that" intended to emphasise a narrow distance or a large one? Wordplay is tricky with so little inflection. In either case, I thought the statement was factually accurate, seeing as it satisfies both of the opinions provided by different sources.

So, is the economy still tanking? I kind of lost interest after it became clear that there wasn't going to be a repeat of the 1929 exodus of stockbrokers from high windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, is the economy still tanking? I kind of lost interest after it became clear that there wasn't going to be a repeat of the 1929 exodus of stockbrokers from high windows.

True, that's a real disappointment. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea behind trimming the fat from the federal budget is to create a fiscal environment where income tax rates can be cut and government size and spending would be reduced.

There is also the matter of putting the spending choice in the hands of the taxpayers as opposed to the government.  If the taxpayers could decide, would they rather have more money in their paycheck or have the government increase their tax rate to pay for increased spending?  Most likely, the government will borrow the funds from China

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea behind trimming the fat from the federal budget is to create a fiscal environment where income tax rates can be cut and government size and spending would be reduced.

...which is good only if you believe that lower income taxes and government spending would be a good thing. Needless to say, I absolutely don't.

In any case, you've jumped from the issue of stimulating the economy to another issue entirely (your ideological preference for a less interventionist government). Within the context of a capitalist economy, increasing government spending is the best solution to the crisis right now. But if we're going beyond the issue of stimulating the economy and talking about our ideological preferences ("what I would do if I were president" as opposed to "what Obama should do"), then obviously I would like to nationalize everything, not increase spending.

There is also the matter of putting the spending choice in the hands of the taxpayers as opposed to the government.

You mean putting the spending choice in the hands of each individual citizen in proportion to his wealth, so that the rich have more choice than the poor - as opposed to putting the spending choice in the hands of the elected representatives of the whole people.

Now why exactly would that be a good thing? As much as I distrust politicians, I distrust the unelected, unaccountable capitalists far more.

If the taxpayers could decide, would they rather have more money in their paycheck or have the government increase their tax rate to pay for increased spending?

That depends on what the spending goes to pay for, doesn't it? But by all means, let's have a referendum. I completely support direct democracy. Let's see how many people really oppose the idea of taxing the rich to pay for their children's college education or their health care expenses.

If socialism could be put to a vote issue by issue, point by point, I have no doubt that it would easily win in the majority of countries. It's difficult to get people to vote against something that will directly make them wealthier without wedge issues to appeal to. Ironically, this is precisely because of self-interest - that thing that was supposed to make socialism difficult. I'm betting on self-interest. I'm betting that if you ask most people, "should we take money from the rich and give it to you?", they will say yes (at least in the privacy of the voting booth).

And it is somewhat na

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, your quote seems overly black-n-white regarding stocks to me, and here's why

25

I hope you got had most of your investments out of the stock market before it tanked!

Of course. He didn't believe in investing in things. Things are bad.  ;D

[i'll use this moment to insert my advertisement: www.kiva.org

for retirement funds, I'd hope for something between that and purely profit-oriented stockmarket]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What 3.6 Million Jobs Lost Over 13 Months Looks Like

It compares job losses in this recession, with the previous 2 recessions. There is a very nice looking graphic to show it.

We are screwed. :D

EDIT:

Bankers: We'll sue if we are denied our million-pound bonuses

USA was 3 hrs away from Economic, Political Collapse in September 2008

According to Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) (PA-11), in mid-September of 2008, the United States of America came just three hours away from the collapse of the entire economy. In a span of 2 hours, $550 billion was drawn out of money market accounts in an electronic run on the banks.

Wow.

EDIT:

CEOs transferring all their assets to their wives name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean putting the spending choice in the hands of each individual citizen in proportion to his wealth, so that the rich have more choice than the poor - as opposed to putting the spending choice in the hands of the elected representatives of the whole people.

Now why exactly would that be a good thing? As much as I distrust politicians, I distrust the unelected, unaccountable capitalists far more.

*Heavy sigh*

Tax cuts would not place all of the decision making in the hands of the individual taxpayers.  This form of stimulus would simply provide the individual taxpayers with more discretion with regard to how their hard earned dollars are spent.  Sounds fair to me.  While at the same time, all of the essential services and projects required to keep society running smoothly would still be controlled and operated by the government.  This can still be achieved by cutting out all of the pork spending.  Strip it down to the bare essentials, I say.

If socialism could be put to a vote issue by issue, point by point, I have no doubt that it would easily win in the majority of countries. It's difficult to get people to vote against something that will directly make them wealthier without wedge issues to appeal to. Ironically, this is precisely because of self-interest - that thing that was supposed to make socialism difficult. I'm betting on self-interest. I'm betting that if you ask most people, "should we take money from the rich and give it to you?", they will say yes (at least in the privacy of the voting booth).

Why aren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well generally, you're post is just a repeat of what you said earlier seemingly ignoring direct responses to it. But if you must read through what is mostly a repeat, then read on:

(I have cordoned off this section that is mostly repeating stuff and pointing out obvious errors, because I am of the impression that my posts are not generally read due to their lengthiness, and so will now get into the habit of cordoning off large sections that may not be necessary along with sections that are not directly relevant but still interesting [not all of a post necessarily need be directly related to the current discussion, introducing new things is also ok])

Note: Sorry if this seems rude Hwi, but some people seriously complain about my posting style so I'm trying to do what I can to eliminate unnescary reading. If no one complained I would not even mention the repetitiveness of it all so that's not really my fault :P.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not like you have to cut (or do anything to taxes) to stop wasting money on stupid stuff.

Obviously, the government can cut pointless spending at any time. Well, maybe they are a bit lost as to what IS pointless spending (in which case forced spending cuts could reduce useful and wasteful spending alike) and/or face political hindrances (eg: Mr whoever will not support you in the next bill if you cut spending on item 1 for some reason).

The point is that this will have benefits with or without income tax cuts. Don't see any reason why would the benefits would be bigger with income tax cuts. In other words, I don't see how this could strengthen the argument for income tax cuts in any way.

''Tax cuts would not place all of the decision making in the hands of the individual taxpayers.''

Obviously, tax cuts would not place ALL decision making in the hands of the individual taxpayer. Who said that?

Obviously though, all decision making to be done involving the money not paid in taxes WOULD be in the hand of the person who did not pay the tax. Don't really see how it could be otherwise... how could somebody not have full control of the money they are spending? Unless you mean they don't really have a choice if they have to eat to survive or something (for example)?

''This form of stimulus would simply provide the individual taxpayers with more discretion with regard to how their hard earned dollars are spent.  Sounds fair to me.''

It is highly debatable whether it is fair or not. However, it seems more convincing that regardless of the fairness of it all it would be in the interests of the greater good to retain the income tax.

''While at the same time, all of the essential services and projects required to keep society running smoothly would still be controlled and operated by the government.  This can still be achieved by cutting out all of the pork spending.  Strip it down to the bare essentials, I say.''

No offense, but you seem to blatantly ignore certain things. As Edric O said earlier, cutting out wasteful spending doesn't mean you might as well lower taxes now. The freed up taxes can be spent on something useful. Of course, I note the word ''essential'' rather ''than useful''. Whether we should strip down to the essentials rather than merely to what is useful is another, highly debatable, matter.

''Why aren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey, will somebody read that for me & give the breakdown?

I got lost in the cordoning ...

and chigger,for the love of g-d,send this kid the memo on you/your/you're ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize both for length and grammatical ineptitude. I must admit that I neglect my ''yous''. If anyone really cares, I will take more care in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bank of England keeps reducing its interest rates, despite everyone saying it shouldn't.  A lot of people are taking out all their savings to pay off their mortgages at the moment, which is the most sensible thing to do, except I have savings and no mortgage!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from: Edric O on February 07, 2009, 23:22:32

You mean putting the spending choice in the hands of each individual citizen in proportion to his wealth, so that the rich have more choice than the poor - as opposed to putting the spending choice in the hands of the elected representatives of the whole people.

Now why exactly would that be a good thing? As much as I distrust politicians, I distrust the unelected, unaccountable capitalists far more.

*Heavy sigh*

Tax cuts would not place all of the decision making in the hands of the individual taxpayers.  This form of stimulus would simply provide the individual taxpayers with more discretion with regard to how their hard earned dollars are spent.  Sounds fair to me.  While at the same time, all of the essential services and projects required to keep society running smoothly would still be controlled and operated by the government.  This can still be achieved by cutting out all of the pork spending.  Strip it down to the bare essentials, I say.

If socialism could be put to a vote issue by issue, point by point, I have no doubt that it would easily win in the majority of countries. It's difficult to get people to vote against something that will directly make them wealthier without wedge issues to appeal to. Ironically, this is precisely because of self-interest - that thing that was supposed to make socialism difficult. I'm betting on self-interest. I'm betting that if you ask most people, "should we take money from the rich and give it to you?", they will say yes (at least in the privacy of the voting booth).

Why aren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yes, the economy is still doing that whole tanking thing.  A couple of weeks ago, Great Britain announced they were officially in a recession too and they expect their economic growth to contract even more so than that of the U.S.  So it should be hitting pretty close to home for you now.

*Looks around*

...No, not really. The job market is dismal around the university, but it always was a bit on the quiet side. If I were actually looking for a job in management, heavy industry or banking, I might be upset. As it is, research and development, the areas that I'm most likely to move into, are doing quite well.

Blah blah economy blah. Isn't there any exciting news? Things are crap, yes, but they've been like that for weeks. Give me failing banks, whole countries going bust, CEOs crying into their ties. There's only so much schadenfreude to be extracted from Zimbabwe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn the US stock market is taking a beating.

DJI currently at 7163. Hasn't been that low since 1997.

I figured long term (5+ years) people would be pumping money into the system at 8000. Looks like the government is messing with everything. Maybe cause inflation so that people would rather spend now, than save and have their money be worthless due to inflation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And today the stock market did its upswing I was expecting.

Spansion restores executives to full pay

While Spansion Inc. was cutting 35 percent of its workforce, or 3,000 jobs on Monday, the company’s board was restoring full pay to its top executives.

AIG in talks with U.S. government, sees $60 billion loss: source

Let's assume they gave out mortgages averaging $500,000. Divide that into $60 billion and that equals 120,000 homeowners stopped paying their mortgages. $60 billion in 4th quarter losses. That is stupid. How badly managed are these companies that they can lose that much money in 4 months?

How about cutting reserve ratios in half so that in the future banks will not be able to loan out as much money, and thus take on less risk?

EDIT:

chart that has been floating around the internet today about recession.

http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-extended-large.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billion-Dollar Whoops: Buffett Apologizes

"We're certain, for example, that the economy will be in shambles throughout 2009 -- and, for that matter, probably well beyond -- but that conclusion does not tell us whether the stock market will rise or fall," Buffett wrote.

Buffet lost lot of money.

Time to panic?

Twycross Zoo in Warwickshire was inundated with job seekers looking for part-time work on Saturday, when the zoo held its annual recruitment open day.

150 part time jobs available. 3000 people show up. Previous year, only 500 people showed up.

Will be interesting if DJI finally goes below 7000 this week. Only 63 points to go!

Wonder if bank nationalization will occur.

U.S. Economy: GDP Shrinks 6.2% in 4th quarter

Canadian numbers should be out this week. They are already predicting it to be bad.

A new interesting industry that is hurting badly is media companies. In Canada the past couple days all we've been hearing about is how the major television stations have lost 30%-50% revenue. Massive layoffs, and one station (canwest) is about to go bankrupt.

EDIT:

Monday will see how bad GDP was hit.

Another day this week 2 big banks will reveal yearly info. 2 other banks reported profits earlier.

Bank of Canada will adjust interest rate this week. People are expecting 0.5% cut. Currently at 1%, so bringing interest rates to near zero. 1 year ago interest rates were 4% (3.5% starting in march 2008).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess my dead cat bounce several weeks ago was correct. Stock markets did very bad today.

Guess which company is getting more taxpayer money?

AIG has $61.7 billion loss, new U.S. aid may not be last

Another bailout of AIG. And the terms of getting the money are not going to be as strong, so you can expect it to fail (at least gov repayment will fail).

AIG is spending $460,000 of taxpayer money each MINUTE. That is fucking stupid. And the government is stupid for continuing to bail it out. It needs to fail, or be nationalized immediately.

Buffett says U.S. Treasury bubble one for the ages

Great, another bubble. Everyone is ditching the markets and buying "safe" treasury bills that offer no return. So the gov (or private banks) is willing to sell as much t-bills as possible to finance other debt. And if everyone buys t-bills that offer no return, expect massive inflation to make t-bills worthless. And when the federal bank can not pay interest on the t-bills because they have no money, then everyone will ditch the USD.

According to this graph the treasury bubble has already popped.

77956775.jpg

This is going to make Bushes massive deficits look like surpluses. :(

EDIT:

Canada GDP dropped 3.4% in 4th quarter 2008.

EDIT:

Unsold Cars around the world.

Really good article with lots of crazy pics of thousands of cars sitting in parking lots.

GM Leads League of Extraordinary Inventory at 161 Days Supply

161 days worth of cars sitting around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bank of Canada Cuts Lending Rate to 0.5%, Lowest Ever

It's good to see the economy is still breaking records. So with all these "lowest interest rates ever!" and other things, do we really know what the implications of having 0% interest rates do? Will it increase money supply a lot and cause massive inflation? Or will we end up like japan?

I'm guessing the governments will lie about inflation as much as possible.

Scotiabank, Bank of Montreal Profits Top Estimates

The two banks join four other Canadian lenders that last week reported profit that beat estimates. Tighter regulations and restrictions on lending helped Canada’s banks outperform their global counterparts, which have reported more than $1.1 trillion in credit losses and writedowns amid the credit crisis.

So all of Canadas banks are still turning a profit.

Maybe the USA can take a note from us Canadians eh?

EDIT:

Hmm, lets look at how big of an increase the M2 money supply has increased. In a decade it has almost doubled. Haha! the government stole money from you in the form of increasing money supply and deciding who gets the new money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buffett says U.S. Treasury bubble one for the ages

Great, another bubble. Everyone is ditching the markets and buying "safe" treasury bills that offer no return. So the gov (or private banks) is willing to sell as much t-bills as possible to finance other debt. And if everyone buys t-bills that offer no return, expect massive inflation to make t-bills worthless. And when the federal bank can not pay interest on the t-bills because they have no money, then everyone will ditch the USD.

That will rarely happen, Federal Reserve posses government bonds that they can always sell for the purpose of paying T-bills.

Bank of Canada Cuts Lending Rate to 0.5%, Lowest Ever

It's good to see the economy is still breaking records. So with all these "lowest interest rates ever!" and other things, do we really know what the implications of having 0% interest rates do? Will it increase money supply a lot and cause massive inflation? Or will we end up like japan?

Yeah Deflation is now a serious factor that could be even worse than inflation. The prognosis is that US and maybe Great Britain could be hit hard by it, of course they also add Japan to keep them company.

Scotiabank, Bank of Montreal Profits Top EstimatesSo all of Canadas banks are still turning a profit.

Maybe the USA can take a note from us Canadians eh?

Canadian banks are very conservative and so many Canadian financial companies which make them very well rooted and stable. The example you could see is how careful they are with new product introduction. While US is awash with the products of financial engineering, Canadian financial companies only recently started to go beyond plain vanilla mutual funds, segregated funds with guranteed income (even this is not on the same level as the US counter parts), insurance with more options, and brokers that are more and more go into options and futures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While US is awash with the products of financial engineering, Canadian financial companies only recently started to go beyond plain vanilla mutual funds, segregated funds with guranteed income (even this is not on the same level as the US counter parts), insurance with more options, and brokers that are more and more go into options and futures.

I've had insurance agents at the house trying to sell sickness insurance. If you get sick, they pay you so much per day, and can pay for private beds etc. They then came by and tried selling accident insurance (cut off hand and they pay you for time spent in hospital etc). They are a bunch of leeches trying to sign up as many people as possible, and they really don't give a shit if you need the insurance or not. I had some girl try to sell me accident insurance. "It's only $40 a month! You never know when an accident will happen". They don't give a shit about me, they probably get commission for selling it to me. Hell, I know someone who was into the insurance business and she said that they try to sell everything to everyone even if they don't need it. She had some ethical issues with taking money away from people who didn't need coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Markets plunge on GM bankruptcy warning

OMG quick lets give them more bailout money! We cannot let big corporations to fail. It would be bad for the country. Only big corporations too big to fail should get bailouts. Screw small and mid sized businesses that go bankrupt.

A ploy for more bailout money so they can give top management more money?

GM is losing $104 million a day (according to a stat given out last year).

CBC news just showed the cars piled up at parking lots. I think same pictures in my previous post.

Getting by on $400,000 a year

A New York couple with 2 children try to make ends meet.

Oh noes! Upper middle class is struggling on $400,000 income.

Article fails though:

All the same, Fou and his wife are cutting back. Instead of going to the movies, they rent videos. Restaurants are reserved for once-a-quarter special occasions, rather than their monthly date nights. They now buy necessities at Wal-Mart and spend more time surfing the Web for sales than ever before. And though Fou admittedly "splurged a bit" on toys for his 3-year-old son and 9-month-old daughter during the holidays, he held off on the bulk of the shopping until the stores were taking down the decorations.

Since when did once a month movies and monthly restaurant meals cost a lot? They live on 5th avenue, so I'm guessing rent takes most of the income.

Bank of England poised to cut interest rates close to zero and print money

Apparently AIG, insured lots of stuff in Europe and funnelled lots of money there. Now US gov is giving AIG billions, and no one knows where that money is going. It could be funnelled out of USA to the other banks etc.

Four Canadian provinces to buck recession -report

In the Prairies, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have economies that are strongly reliant on agriculture, and this is expected to help carry them forward this year. Manitoba is expected to grow 1 percent in 2009, while Saskatchewan may lead all provinces with a 1.6 percent advance.

On the East Coast, New Brunswick is expected to stave off recession with 0.2 percent growth on the back of announced income tax cuts and infrastructure spending, while Prince Edward Island has major capital projects in the works that could push its economy up 0.6 percent, the board said.

Very surprised PEI is on there. Although the only reason being federal money being thrown at PEI. If it wasn't for the feds bailing PEI out for the past 20 years it wouldn't exist. The gov doesn't care about balanced budgets and gives out lots of money to friends of politicians.

Also I think yesterday it was announced that USA lost 700,000 jobs in February? (EDIT: nope in millions)

U.S. Economy: Jobless Claims Exceed 600,000, Productivity Falls

The Labor Department today reported 639,000 first-time unemployment applications, the fifth straight week above 600,000. The agency also said worker productivity, a measure of employee output per hour, fell at a 0.4 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2008. Separate data showed factory orders slumped.

So every week 600,000 new Americans are filing for unemployment. Ouch!

Bank of America sees grave harm from bonus reveal

Bunch of corrupt execs. I'm guessing this will make Enron look ok in fudging the numbers.

Bank of America Corp said it could suffer "grave harm" if it is forced to reveal data about an estimated $3.6 billion of bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch & Co officials in the days before the bank acquired the brokerage.

$3.6 billion in bonuses!?

When does the revolution start?

Talk of a 'bear market rally' may be premature

On Tuesday, Barack Obama, the U.S. President, declared that stock markets have bottomed and as indexes bounced on Wednesday, market analysts the world over jumped into the discussion, claiming a "bear market rally" was under way.

If Obama says the market has bottomed, then I guess it most likely has not. I hope the stock market crashes and then Obama can get impeached for saying such a false statement. Just because you say it is so, doesn't make it true. The Bush admin kept making statements that the economy was fine, and I'm sure they knew differently. Harper (Canada PM) made the same statements ~20 days before an election. "The economy is fine, no deficits" but he was completely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...