Republican Ben Stein on Fox News: Called a Commie!

[Moonbeam]

Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away Now it looks as though they're here to stay Oh, I believe in yesterday
Suddenly I'm not half the man I used to be There's a shadow hanging over me Oh, yesterday came suddenly
Why she had to go I don't know, she wouldn't say I said something wrong Now I long for yesterday
Yesterday deficit spending was such an easy game to play Now I need a place to hide away Oh, I believe in yesterday
Why’d she have to go? I don't know, she wouldn't say I said something wrong Now I long for yesterday
Yesterday lower taxes was such an easy game to play Now I need a place to hide away Oh, I believe in yesterday

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The private sector is undergoing massive deleveraging, and that won't be quick or easy due to the nature of mortgage debt & the ability of borrowers to pay. Repayment necessarily enriches the financial elite, who own the debt, yet inhibits spending, saving & investment among the vast majority of the population who don't.

Net creditors /= financial elite. Anyone who has net savings is being punished by our current monetary policy. There is no logical reason to equate net savers with the financial elite.

 

[xj0hnx]

Don't be an idiot. A beggar borrows little, a rich and powerful society, a lot. It's you who is spouting hard wired garbage and you are so blinded by it you can't even see it. But the scientists do. They tell us it's conservatives who live in an alternate reality bubble, and they tell us why, bigotry, ego connected to concept such that when a conservative knows something in his gut, not only does he feel he is right when he isn't, he is also proud that he feels right, although he isn't either. So conservatives are two things, certain idiots and egotistical fools. But because you are one you won't ever see it. You don't have the nerve. That fear and loathing you see is you via your projection. The liberal part of the brain that magnifies fear is enlarged in conservatives and the part that keeps fear from interfering in judgment isn't developed like it is in liberals. You totally struck out according to what science tells us, but then again, conservatives doubt science if it tells them what they don't want to believe. Amazing you could be so far from the truth and yet so proud of your opinion. But that's the way of conservatives.

I love how you completely avoid actually discussing pretty much any topic by diverting to how fucked up people that don't agree with you are, and then go into your pseudo intellectual, faux Freudian rants that are really just you projecting you own sad reality onto others.

 

[cwjerome]

You've fallen for the usual emotionally loaded memes so favored by Repubs. It doesn't matter what it does, just so long as it sounds good. Compassionate Conservatism. Clear skies initiative. Healthy forests restoration. No child left behind. War on Terror. Patriot Act. American Dream Downpayment act. Homeland Security. Jobs and Growth Tax Relief ( Relief! Whew!) Reconciliation Act. Innovative financial products. Self regulated banking.

The "Ownership Society" turned out to be the biggest sucker play of them all. It should have been named the "There's a sucker born every minute society", Particularly when GWB, Alan Greenspan & every right wing pundit & politician was making the pitch, fluffing the wolves of Wall St as some sort of beneficent masters of the universe.

Here's the thing. What happened with our government and with Wall Street these last 10 years isn't the result of some ownership society, it was the result of government, the people, and big business being stupid.

I believe the idea that people should have maximum control over their lives and really have a stake in society is good and proper. Generally speaking, the more choices and opportunity and freedom you give people, the better things will be overall and over time. To me, those are just basic, quintessentially American ideals.

Now... if some policy decisions based off these ideas failed, it's the result of bad policy and bad people, NOT the central concepts behind the rationale. But you libs will not make that distinction because at your core, those critical principles are a threat to your whole disturbed body of thought. Yes, I tend to believe that it's not so much policy failures that get you guys riled up, it's the idea that people might be able to govern themselves more, and require governmental hand-holding and tit-sucking less. With everything coming out of the leftwing echo chamber, how could anyone believe otherwise?

Dear Moonbeam: As usual, your angry collection of barely-coherent verbiage does not conceal your own unsettling mental state. You really don't know anything about the brain, or social science, so let's stop pretending you have anything profound to say on the topic.

 

[Jhhnn]

Net creditors /= financial elite. Anyone who has net savings is being punished by our current monetary policy. There is no logical reason to equate net savers with the financial elite.

Savers are not being "punished"- nor are they being rewarded much, either. It's not a function of policy, anyway, but rather supply & demand. Real demand for money is low, therefore rates on savings are low as well. It's called a liquidity trap.

In the modern framework, the liquidity trap arises when the zero bound on the short-term nominal interest rate prevents the central bank from fully accommodating sufficiently large deflationary shocks by interest rate cuts.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/economists/eggertsson/palgrave.pdf

For simpler explanations, reference Krugman.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Savers are not being "punished"- nor are they being rewarded much, either. It's not a function of policy, anyway, but rather supply & demand. Real demand for money is low, therefore rates on savings are low as well. It's called a liquidity trap.



http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/economists/eggertsson/palgrave.pdf

For simpler explanations, reference Krugman.

Interest rates are at an all time low and indefinite QE (which the Feds are doing for solvency reasons) has washed us (the banking system) with cash to the point that saving money in a typical savings account is highly worthless. I also don't see any hoarding of cash to pay down our debts in this nation considering our level of debt has only steadily increased both publicly and privately. In addition pooling money in investments (especially commodities such as gold) is basically the only sound recourse for those who want to grow their money and/or protect themselves from inflation in this current economy. Thus this isn't a liquidity trap we are facing but structural solvency issue but I can see how you talked yourself into believing it is because it jives with what you believe politically/personally and what our idol proclaims.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's the thing. What happened with our government and with Wall Street these last 10 years isn't the result of some ownership society, it was the result of government, the people, and big business being stupid.

I believe the idea that people should have maximum control over their lives and really have a stake in society is good and proper. Generally speaking, the more choices and opportunity and freedom you give people, the better things will be overall and over time. To me, those are just basic, quintessentially American ideals.

Now... if some policy decisions based off these ideas failed, it's the result of bad policy and bad people, NOT the central concepts behind the rationale. But you libs will not make that distinction because at your core, those critical principles are a threat to your whole disturbed body of thought. Yes, I tend to believe that it's not so much policy failures that get you guys riled up, it's the idea that people might be able to govern themselves more, and require governmental hand-holding and tit-sucking less. With everything coming out of the leftwing echo chamber, how could anyone believe otherwise?

Dear Moonbeam: As usual, your angry collection of barely-coherent verbiage does not conceal your own unsettling mental state. You really don't know anything about the brain, or social science, so let's stop pretending you have anything profound to say on the topic.

The problems with all of that are several.

First off, leadership matters, because trust matters. As I offered earlier, people aren't totally rational, and they respond to leadership in an emotional way. They're much more likely to take chances when those risks are minimized & dismissed by leaders they trust, leaders like GWB & Greenspan. They're also easily led to believe over-optimistically in the future with that sort of trust in place. They'll believe everything will work out on the basis of the idea that the Bank won't lend them more than they can actually repay, a maxim that disappeared entirely during the housing boom. They didn't understand that the Bank was just a middleman pushing investment bombs out the back door as fast as they could take a cut off of shaky loans coming in the front door. But they believed GWB and Greenspan.

They also got scared, scared that they'd be priced out of home ownership forever, making them easier marks than ever.

Which is why the regulatory schemes & structure of New Deal banking served us so well. They prevented exploitation of very asymmetric knowledge & power while allowing sufficient freedom for people to achieve their dreams in relative safety. People who didn't qualify for loans under that regime were told why & what they needed to do to qualify. Those who could found a way to get there in the not too distant future.

Under the non-oversight of Bush era regulators, your dog probably could have qualified for a $500K zero down negative amortization 3 year ARM, and the investment bank offering it could be leveraged at 40:1 through a variety of methods.

This also led to very negative consequences for people who didn't get caught up in it, honest & hardworking people who lost their jobs & savings in cascading economic collapse, who lost their businesses & investments as well.

It's not like the Banksters were stupid, at all- they got theirs on the way up, banking enormous incomes, diversifying worldwide, becoming financially indestructible. The fate of their corporate steeds mattered not at all because the short term personal rewards were so enormous.

Freedom sounds great, and is very appealing on a purely emotional level, but it cuts both ways, losing much of that appeal when we realize that systemic failure isn't accounted for in that pitch.

Few people realize how close we came to a greater depression than that of the 30's, very few indeed, and few realize how long it will take to deleverage enough for growth to resume at a decent rate.

 

[Moonbeam]

I love how you completely avoid actually discussing pretty much any topic by diverting to how fucked up people that don't agree with you are, and then go into your pseudo intellectual, faux Freudian rants that are really just you projecting you own sad reality onto others.

Try to understand that there is nothing you can discuss. What you do is regurgitate your programming. No discussion is possible for you because you think you already know everything. You don't want to discuss, you want to vomit your garbage and then put your finger in it and paint your alternate reality. You want to tell a man who swims in the sea that what he needs are lead weights. Swimmers know better. You are like a clown at an undertaker's convention. Your obviously full of shit but you don't know it. You won't be able to discuss anything until you can see that you already think you know what you don't. Like a man who is fond of his pink underwear, you just drop your pants and show off. You are full of shit and I'm running on empty. You just don't get it that you are blind. Who can discuss anything with a flake who is punching at shadows? You don't get it at all. You also need to go to the zoo and explain all your ideas to monkeys.

 

[Moonbeam]

Dear Moonbeam: As usual, your angry collection of barely-coherent verbiage does not conceal your own unsettling mental state. You really don't know anything about the brain, or social science, so let's stop pretending you have anything profound to say on the topic.

How odd. I myself know nothing of your level of understanding of different fields of knowledge nor do I know if you are pretending. Interesting, isn't it, being full of shit and being honest. Of course, knowing how much we hate ourselves, I am aware when that feeling tries to convince me how superior I am to others.

Hehehehe, you are like a man wandering around in his barn at night, trying to determine what upset the chickens, unaware that a lion decided to sleep in the hay. You are very brave because you have no idea you are transparent.

 

[xj0hnx]

Try to understand that there is nothing you can discuss. What you do is regurgitate your programming. No discussion is possible for you because you think you already know everything. You don't want to discuss, you want to vomit your garbage and then put your finger in it and paint your alternate reality. You want to tell a man who swims in the sea that what he needs are lead weights. Swimmers know better. You are like a clown at an undertaker's convention. Your obviously full of shit but you don't know it. You won't be able to discuss anything until you can see that you already think you know what you don't. Like a man who is fond of his pink underwear, you just drop your pants and show off. You are full of shit and I'm running on empty. You just don't get it that you are blind. Who can discuss anything with a flake who is punching at shadows? You don't get it at all. You also need to go to the zoo and explain all your ideas to monkeys.

Thank you for providing yet another picture perfect example of your weak minded, pretentious dribble. I mean come on, using my line in your first sentence? So sad.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thank you for providing yet another picture perfect example of your weak minded, pretentious dribble. I mean come on, using my line in your first sentence? So sad.

I love how you completely avoid actually discussing pretty much any topic by diverting to how fucked up people that don't agree with you are, and then go into your pseudo intellectual, faux Freudian rants that are really just you projecting you own sad reality onto others.

 

[chucky2]

My answer is the same. You are blind living in an altered reality. You do not take the problem seriously but can only repeat over and over again what you have learned, mechanically, the tripe you have been fed. Nobody who sees the problem as real believes as you do. The past means nothing when the problem is real and the problem is real. It will be dealt with by real people, not by people like you caught like a bug in amber. You are like a blind prisoner in a cage walking back and forth in the same path thumping the bars with a cane. You can't comprehend that the cage is of your own making. You are Mr. Jones. Something is happening but you don't know what it is.

Love you Chuck. Relax and be happy.

I think you're somehow thinking that this is like someones kid who is a meth user, and the parent beyond all rational thought will keep giving the lower meth addict money, again and again, because the parent loves their kid and maybe this time, unlike the past hundred times, the kid will straighten themselves out. Each time the problem of the kid needing money is real, each time, the kid needs it, each time, this is the time the kid will begin to seriously get off the meth. Each time, the kid doesn't.

My point is, I - and large portions of the electorate - agree that the meth'd out kid needs money again or that kid is going to be in trouble. It's not that we don't see the problem. It's that we disagree on the potential solution:

Your side wants to keep giving the meth addict the money each and every time, in the hopes the meth addict will finally straighten themselves out.

My side wants to just keep our money this time, let the meth addict hit bottom, in the hopes the meth addict will finally have to fix his shit now that he's not being propped up. In other words, the meth addict will finally have to make hard choices, and begin taking things seriously.

If you want to give your money to the meth addict, that's fine, certainly your perogative. My problem is you want to sign me up for giving my money to him, when I clearly do not want to. Now replace meth addict with Congress and the Executive.

If that meth addict having money again is so important to you, that's great. Simply give extra money next year at tax time since you view these addicts as reformed, as you're convinced they've changed their ways.

Me, I want to see the Congress/Executive equivalent of a year or two of non-usage, steady job holding, keeping themselves kept up, etc. etc. What we see right now is them coming wild eyed to us at 2 AM talking rapid fire semi-coherently saying they need more money. Yeah....not going to happen here...

Chuck

 

[Moonbeam]

chucky2: I think you're somehow thinking that this is like someones kid who is a meth user, and the parent beyond all rational thought will keep giving the lower meth addict money, again and again, because the parent loves their kid and maybe this time, unlike the past hundred times, the kid will straighten themselves out. Each time the problem of the kid needing money is real, each time, the kid needs it, each time, this is the time the kid will begin to seriously get off the meth. Each time, the kid doesn't.

M: You mistake yourself for the parent. You are the addict and you think if I just feed you drugs one more time the economy will be cured. You are the sick patient, my dear and I am your loving Mommy.

c: My point is, I - and large portions of the electorate - agree that the meth'd out kid needs money again or that kid is going to be in trouble. It's not that we don't see the problem. It's that we disagree on the potential solution:

M: Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe, trust me I get it, have gotten it for years. I understand. Now don't forget a larger part of the electorate disagrees. They see tax raised for the wealthy as part of the solution and so it shall be.

c: Your side wants to keep giving the meth addict the money each and every time, in the hopes the meth addict will finally straighten themselves out.

M: Spending is the addiction but debt is the disease. You don't want to face the two sided nature of the cure. You want to support the addiction by withholding part of the cure. Shame on you supporting the death of the patient.

c: My side wants to just keep our money this time, let the meth addict hit bottom, in the hopes the meth addict will finally have to fix his shit now that he's not being propped up. In other words, the meth addict will finally have to make hard choices, and begin taking things seriously.

M: Silly chucky. You are the one who will hit bottom. You are the addict who has the disease. You just won't see it's you who has the problem. You are the skid row bum, with a horrible pointy finger pointing at others.

c: If you want to give your money to the meth addict, that's fine, certainly your prerogative. My problem is you want to sign me up for giving my money to him, when I clearly do not want to. Now replace meth addict with Congress and the Executive.

If that meth addict having money again is so important to you, that's great. Simply give extra money next year at tax time since you view these addicts as reformed, as you're convinced they've changed their ways.

Me, I want to see the Congress/Executive equivalent of a year or two of non-usage, steady job holding, keeping themselves kept up, etc. etc. What we see right now is them coming wild eyed to us at 2 AM talking rapid fire semi-coherently saying they need more money. Yeah....not going to happen here...

M: Oh but it is. You were out voted. The majority have more sense than you do. But because you are filled with entitlement mentality and an addictive personality, you will just have to suffer from the irony that bites the arrogant in the ass.

 

[chucky2]

chucky2: I think you're somehow thinking that this is like someones kid who is a meth user, and the parent beyond all rational thought will keep giving the lower meth addict money, again and again, because the parent loves their kid and maybe this time, unlike the past hundred times, the kid will straighten themselves out. Each time the problem of the kid needing money is real, each time, the kid needs it, each time, this is the time the kid will begin to seriously get off the meth. Each time, the kid doesn't.

M: You mistake yourself for the parent. You are the addict and you think if I just feed you drugs one more time the economy will be cured. You are the sick patient, my dear and I am your loving Mommy.

No, I'm the taxpayer, the one with the money. The Politicians are the addicts. Their job is to spend within their means, and if the means is reduced due to a shrinking economy, reduce their spending as that is the only responsible thing to do. Raising taxes would be after you go through hard times getting spending down, not before. I see now why you keep posting insane things.

c: My point is, I - and large portions of the electorate - agree that the meth'd out kid needs money again or that kid is going to be in trouble. It's not that we don't see the problem. It's that we disagree on the potential solution:

M: Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe, trust me I get it, have gotten it for years. I understand. Now don't forget a larger part of the electorate disagrees. They see tax raised for the wealthy as part of the solution and so it shall be.

No, I can see from your post above, you think you understand, but clearly don't, else you'd not have made your post above. And Yes, of course a large(r) part of the electorate disagrees. They love that entitlement spending, it's "free". And, when they have a foggy awareness that No, it's not "free", their solution is tax the hated rich people. Problem: No matter how much they tax them, the spending problem doesn't go away, taxing out of the spending problem isn't possible. That is: It's a spending problem, not a taxing problem.

c: Your side wants to keep giving the meth addict the money each and every time, in the hopes the meth addict will finally straighten themselves out.

M: Spending is the addiction but debt is the disease. You don't want to face the two sided nature of the cure. You want to support the addiction by withholding part of the cure. Shame on you supporting the death of the patient.

Er, you get debt when your spending outpaces your income. The addict has insane amounts of income, and never thinks about reducing his spending. What will it take for the addict to actually reduce spending? Have there been any signs this will happen? Not 10 year never really going to happen projections, but, real spending decreases? You see the problem here right? I give the addict $20, $10 for him to eat, and $10 to bring my car around. My car never comes around, it's stolen, he's eaten, and he's high. Then he robs me for more money. Water is essential to life. Too much water is harmful. Right now we've got Politicians that have money induced water poisoning. You keep agreeing with me they have water poisoning, yet want to increase their water drip. Perhaps the problem is too much water?

c: My side wants to just keep our money this time, let the meth addict hit bottom, in the hopes the meth addict will finally have to fix his shit now that he's not being propped up. In other words, the meth addict will finally have to make hard choices, and begin taking things seriously.

M: Silly chucky. You are the one who will hit bottom. You are the addict who has the disease. You just won't see it's you who has the problem. You are the skid row bum, with a horrible pointy finger pointing at others.

What disease do I have? Live within my means disease? Notlightmoneyonfire becauseit'sthesamethingasgivingittoPoliticians disease? I'm a little confused now, can you be specific on which disease I have?

c: If you want to give your money to the meth addict, that's fine, certainly your prerogative. My problem is you want to sign me up for giving my money to him, when I clearly do not want to. Now replace meth addict with Congress and the Executive.

If that meth addict having money again is so important to you, that's great. Simply give extra money next year at tax time since you view these addicts as reformed, as you're convinced they've changed their ways.

Me, I want to see the Congress/Executive equivalent of a year or two of non-usage, steady job holding, keeping themselves kept up, etc. etc. What we see right now is them coming wild eyed to us at 2 AM talking rapid fire semi-coherently saying they need more money. Yeah....not going to happen here...

M: Oh but it is. You were out voted. The majority have more sense than you do. But because you are filled with entitlement mentality and an addictive personality, you will just have to suffer from the irony that bites the arrogant in the ass.

The majority have more greed than me, Yes, that is true. Now I have an entitlement mentality too now? Interesting. What do you think I think I'm entitled to, other than the money I myself have earned? OOoo, and an addictive personality? Addicted to what specifically? Living within my means?

I find it highly interesting that you have yet to still answer my 4 questions, why is that? What about them strikes fear in you that you couldn't honestly answer them directly?

Chuck

 

[Moonbeam]

chucky2: No, I'm the taxpayer, the one with the money. The Politicians are the addicts. Their job is to spend within their means, and if the means is reduced due to a shrinking economy, reduce their spending as that is the only responsible thing to do. Raising taxes would be after you go through hard times getting spending down, not before. I see now why you keep posting insane things.

M: You just see what you always see. Politicians have money. I have money. Warren Buffet has money. The Federated Brotherhood of Wealthy Voters for Increased Taxes on the Rich have money. The job of politicians is to respond to real problems and the debt crisis is real. What is responsible in a democracy is what the people say is responsible and that will include tax increases on the rich. All your bull shit about the past, all the truth it contains, are irrelevant. Tax increases will have to be part of the solution like Ben Stein said. You have to deal with reality. This is the verdict of the majority of voting minds.

c: I can see from your post above, you think you understand, but clearly don't, else you'd not have made your post above. And Yes, of course a large(r) part of the electorate disagrees. They love that entitlement spending, it's "free". And, when they have a foggy awareness that No, it's not "free", their solution is tax the hated rich people. Problem: No matter how much they tax them, the spending problem doesn't go away, taxing out of the spending problem isn't possible. That is: It's a spending problem, not a taxing problem.

M: Hehe, you are funny. You just can't be real. This is why I told you you are like a screaming child. It's a spendin problem Mommy, really it is, if we give the entitled money they'll just spend it.

c: Er, you get debt when your spending outpaces your income. The addict has insane amounts of income, and never thinks about reducing his spending. What will it take for the addict to actually reduce spending? Have there been any signs this will happen? Not 10 year never really going to happen projections, but, real spending decreases? You see the problem here right? I give the addict $20, $10 for him to eat, and $10 to bring my car around. My car never comes around, it's stolen, he's eaten, and he's high. Then he robs me for more money. Water is essential to life. Too much water is harmful. Right now we've got Politicians that have money induced water poisoning. You keep agreeing with me they have water poisoning, yet want to increase their water drip. Perhaps the problem is too much water?

M: The problem is too much bull shit programmed, robo-gripe. It's only a half of the issue because the problem is real.

c: What disease do I have? Live within my means disease? Notlightmoneyonfire becauseit'sthesamethingasgivingittoPoliticians disease? I'm a little confused now, can you be specific on which disease I have?

M: Entitlement mentality, the notion that you SHOULD keep what only the society in which you could ever make it possible for you to earn. You suffer from short sightedness, arrogance, ingratitude, and some other things too. And if you have a mortgage to buy a house you couldn't pay for in cash you haven't lived within your means, strictly speaking. You have that borrowing disease.

c: The majority have more greed than me, Yes, that is true. Now I have an entitlement mentality too now? Interesting. What do you think I think I'm entitled to, other than the money I myself have earned? OOoo, and an addictive personality? Addicted to what specifically? Living within my means?

M: We just went over this. You are addicted to the notion that you built what you earn. This is all the result of lack of self respect. You don't love yourself so you love the idiot who earns money instead. You value him according to how much he makes. But you are worth so much more to me.

c: I find it highly interesting that you have yet to still answer my 4 questions, why is that? What about them strikes fear in you that you couldn't honestly answer them directly?

M: I must have been so afraid I repressed them. I have no idea now what they were. All I can remember is a feeling you asked them for reasons you didn't understand and that it was more important that you see that than any value there could be in the answers.

 

[Darwin333]

Here's the thing. What happened with our government and with Wall Street these last 10 years isn't the result of some ownership society, it was the result of government, the people, and big business being stupid.

I believe the idea that people should have maximum control over their lives and really have a stake in society is good and proper. Generally speaking, the more choices and opportunity and freedom you give people, the better things will be overall and over time. To me, those are just basic, quintessentially American ideals.

Now... if some policy decisions based off these ideas failed, it's the result of bad policy and bad people, NOT the central concepts behind the rationale. But you libs will not make that distinction because at your core, those critical principles are a threat to your whole disturbed body of thought. Yes, I tend to believe that it's not so much policy failures that get you guys riled up, it's the idea that people might be able to govern themselves more, and require governmental hand-holding and tit-sucking less. With everything coming out of the leftwing echo chamber, how could anyone believe otherwise?

Dear Moonbeam: As usual, your angry collection of barely-coherent verbiage does not conceal your own unsettling mental state. You really don't know anything about the brain, or social science, so let's stop pretending you have anything profound to say on the topic.

I wouldn't exactly call getting away scott free with the biggest looting spree in the history of the world with both your freedom and ill-gotten gains intact "being stupid"...... Just saying...

 

[Jhhnn]

Interest rates are at an all time low and indefinite QE (which the Feds are doing for solvency reasons) has washed us (the banking system) with cash to the point that saving money in a typical savings account is highly worthless. I also don't see any hoarding of cash to pay down our debts in this nation considering our level of debt has only steadily increased both publicly and privately. In addition pooling money in investments (especially commodities such as gold) is basically the only sound recourse for those who want to grow their money and/or protect themselves from inflation in this current economy. Thus this isn't a liquidity trap we are facing but structural solvency issue but I can see how you talked yourself into believing it is because it jives with what you believe politically/personally and what our idol proclaims.

Your perspective isn't based on reality. American consumers have been deleveraging, either paying off or defaulting on debt at a brisk pace since 2008. There is negative net borrowing, meaning low demand for money, so interest rates are low. We've been teetering on the edge of deflation the whole time, despite QE & govt spending.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/11/americas-deleveraging

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/world/story/2012-01-18/world-economies-debt/52653254/1

Protect yourself from inflation? Might as well say you're protecting yourself from Bigfoot-

When your theory doesn't match reality, that doesn't mean reality will change.

 

[Moonbeam]

Protect yourself from inflation? Might as well say you're protecting yourself from Bigfoot-

When your theory doesn't match reality, that doesn't mean reality will change.

Hehe, this is truly the essence of it. Conservatives have a growth in their right amygdala and that's where the Boogie Man lives. Their whole delusional reality is a manifestation of the fears they don't want to experience, the excessive stimulation of the very part of their brain from which they wish to escape, the madness that obsession with preparing for ones fears is the cure for it. The conservative mind is caught in a feed back loop.

This is why explaining their ideas to monkeys at the zoo or writing them down on peanuts and throwing them to elephants will help them to calm down. The manifest externalization of the utter uselessness of their obsessions can slowly soak into their consciousness if practiced regularly.

We create what we fear and everything we fear has already happened. This is why we have to work to save those who do not know how badly damaged they were as children. They deserve the piece of mind that was taken from them. Deep in their souls under the scars and the armor, the terrifying nightmares they have are beautiful children dying to live again. Vow to save all sentient beings. We are all the same.

 

[buckshot24]

If you think increasing the supply of something doesn't decrease the value of each of those things then I'm not sure what else to say to you. Of course printing money decreases the value of the dollar. It may not show up in the short run but it will eventually.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you think increasing the supply of something doesn't decrease the value of each of those things then I'm not sure what else to say to you. Of course printing money decreases the value of the dollar. It may not show up in the short run but it will eventually.

If you put one hand in boiling water and the other in the freezer you will not experience a happy medium. You can, however, modulate your core temperature by warming or cooling the blood flowing through your hands in such a way as not to damage them.

Once while hitch hiking, I experienced terror riding with a drunk but merry Indian who wove from one side of the highway to the white line. Noticing the complete precision of the confine of his arch I completely relaxed. I hope you do to.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Your perspective isn't based on reality. American consumers have been deleveraging, either paying off or defaulting on debt at a brisk pace since 2008. There is negative net borrowing, meaning low demand for money, so interest rates are low. We've been teetering on the edge of deflation the whole time, despite QE & govt spending.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/11/americas-deleveraging

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/world/story/2012-01-18/world-economies-debt/52653254/1

Protect yourself from inflation? Might as well say you're protecting yourself from Bigfoot-

When your theory doesn't match reality, that doesn't mean reality will change.

During the housing crash there was a rather large deleveraging of personal debt in for individual families/persons and businesses. It occurred as a natural result of the economic crash we experinced and continued on up until the faux recovery of 2010. When people became falsely optimistic that the 2010 was a year of recovery so they then went out and racked up more debt.

The rising aggregate consumer credit level means that household balance sheets are not shedding debt like they need to in order to contribute substantively to economic growth. Unless this changes, we’re pretty much screwed.

High household debt means less economic and labor mobility. Families cannot move to better employment if they are stuck in a house they cannot sell or have credit card bills crushing their credit score and making it harder to move. Private sector debt also means fewer family vacations, no upgrades on household appliances, and less investment.

Perhaps most damning is that households deep in debt mean downward pressure on entrepreneurial expansion. Many small businesses are family run, or are financed from household balance sheets. As long as entrepreneurism is stagnant, the U.S. economy is not going to see real growth.

Rather than public policy seeking to make borrowing cheaper, American leaders need to allow for household balance sheets to deleverage. That will mean short-term economic pain in exchange for a more robust economic growth period on the other side. And since the economy is in stall mode currently, the directly-associated pain will be muted anyway. Both President Barack Obama and his Republican opponent Mitt Romney are kidding themselves if they think they can inspire a recovery in the next several years without consumer credit levels falling and household debt levels coming down.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/09/private-debt-is-crippling-the-economy

Lets not forget this bit of information from your own source from the Economist.com and put it into context with what I was stating above and what the article from Reason.org has further illuminated in relation to private debt levels in this nation for the average American.

"The decline so far has only been good enough to wipe out the observed increase in debt/income ratios that occurred when incomes fell during the recession, once you subtract out the contraction in the shadow banking system. The non-financial private sector is still just as leveraged as in the middle of 2006:"

As for your inflation remarks I suggest you find a new chart that doesn't just cut off and suggest that inflation is stagnate and has stayed at 1.7% or which totally ignores the reasons why inflation fell for those months, i.e. due to a slowed world economy which resulted in drops in prices for oil. However the current yearly average for inflation has been at 2.2% (currently sitting at 2.2% as of Nov) because interest rates have been artificially pegged and held there so far by the Federal Reserve inflation has not run away yet but how long can the Federal Reserve continue with this policy is a cause for concern when you consider that the economy is still limping along and QE injections are/will deliver increasingly diminished returns.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

 

[Jhhnn]

During the housing crash there was a rather large deleveraging of personal debt in for individual families/persons and businesses. It occurred as a natural result of the economic crash we experinced and continued on up until the faux recovery of 2010. When people became falsely optimistic that the 2010 was a year of recovery so they then went out and racked up more debt.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/09/private-debt-is-crippling-the-economy

Lets not forget this bit of information from your own source from the Economist.com and put it into context with what I was stating above and what the article from Reason.org has further illuminated in relation to private debt levels in this nation for the average American.



As for your inflation remarks I suggest you find a new chart that doesn't just cut off and suggest that inflation is stagnate and has stayed at 1.7% or which totally ignores the reasons why inflation fell for those months, i.e. due to a slowed world economy which resulted in drops in prices for oil. However the current yearly average for inflation has been at 2.2% (currently sitting at 2.2% as of Nov) because interest rates have been artificially pegged and held there so far by the Federal Reserve inflation has not run away yet but how long can the Federal Reserve continue with this policy is a cause for concern when you consider that the economy is still limping along and QE injections are/will deliver increasingly diminished returns.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

Sigh. Nice cherry picked graph. Here's the total situation-

72% is mortgage debt, which will require a very long time to deleverage. Your graph is just a squiggle on top of that. Notice that deleveraging *is* occurring, and will likely continue for many years to come. Which means that money is flowing into the hands of creditors & staying there in a classic liquidity trap scenario.

Remember also how self amortizing mortgages work, with the vast majority of the first 10 years' worth of payments going towards interest rather than principal.

Your contention that interest rates are artificially low ignores the basics of supply & demand, and also the concept of the zero lower bound. Low rates should spur demand for money, but they aren't, because of deleveraging. Rates would have to be negative to accomplish that at current debt loads, which can't happen other than on the margins. Investors are actually accepting real negative interest rates on US govt securities, because they got liquid & plan on staying that way, just needing a place to stash their cash safely.

Low rates & soft money enhance deleveraging, while high rates & hard money make it more difficult. If people aren't borrowing at today's rates, what makes you think they would if rates were higher?

Protect yourself from a 2.2% inflation rate? Please. Protect yourself from future inflation? That'll only be necessary when deleveraging ends, which obviously will not occur anytime rsn...

 

[minori]

Fox news is always like this. They are loud and ignorant and the argument is one sided.

 

[dmcowen674]

Republican Ben Stein on Fox News: Called a Commie!

Gives his honest opinion on taxes from a reality-based perspective, which deeply upsets the well-coiffed Fox shill host. 😉

Ben is a deep conservative and a 1%'er. Sadly, it turns out he's also a stinkin' pinko and a class traitor, according to the Foxbot interviewing him.

Oh, Ben! Why can't you just stick to the Faux News talking points? :biggrin:

I normally hate everything Ben has to say.

I'm really surprised he is for raising taxes on the rich.

 

[dank69]

I normally hate everything Ben has to say.

I'm really surprised he is for raising taxes on the rich.

Even complete douchebags can't ignore the situation any longer.