Sequester so catastrophic that the DOW hits record high.

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
I am not saying my opinion is gold, but someone blaming recent trends on the stock market on stuff that has been going on for decades doesn't raise a little doubt in your mind? Answer my question rather than posting 3 more paragraphs on how I am a moron and all Conservatives are brain dead.

I know your opinion isn't gold. What I was asking is that you stop with your opinion and start with defending your opinion with logical reasoning which you failed to do in the first two examples and did in the third. And I also said I wasn't going to debate your third statement because I was so happy to see you give some rational for your belief. That was enough for me. I'm not here to win a debate. I'm here to show you that you weren't engaging in a real one previously. The fact that your argument doesn't persuade me is not the point. It is an argument that I could argue if I wanted to, finally. I see different facts about the market and it's performance than you do that makes me have a different opinion. What I like is that you gave is a concrete reason to think as you do. No debate can take place if you don't do that.

Your intention was to make Obama look bad because of disaster predictions about the sequester because you have a rabid case of anti-Obama virus running around in your blood stream. Having a rabid case of anything makes it possible to see things that aren't there. So the truth of whether the market is tied to the sequester in any big and important way became an emotional issue with you and you want to win because your angry at Obama for his lies etc etc etc. You think I am here to protect Obama but I am really here to save you from yourself. As long as you chose to be an idiot you will experience irrational misery. Things will take on great importance that aren't important at all, etc. I'm trying to help you see that. I do what I can. What you do is up to you. I don't need anything.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I am not saying my opinion is gold, but someone blaming recent trends on the stock market on stuff that has been going on for decades doesn't raise a little doubt in your mind? Answer my question rather than posting 3 more paragraphs on how I am a moron and all Conservatives are brain dead.

Matt, I'd suggest that you first realize that just about any published opinion made by an Economist has the reputation of the Economist attached. There are exceptions, I'd agree. But by and large anything is defensible. It is mainly the weight the Economist attach's to one dynamic over another that one ought to take issue with and doing so with an alternate approach or weight and showing that affect.
Economists like to hold some dynamics static in order to explain the effect of one bit of data to the whole. That is not reality but it is informational.

Always keep in mind the motive of the Economist is not to lie, cheat or misrepresent but, rather, it is to be noticed and especially to prove another and hopefully a Nobel Laureate wrong but also while doing that it is to simply identify cause and effect in a logical cogent manner.... It is how you get famous. Reich is not a dummy. Regardless of his politics he has all the tools to extract from the activity a set of explanations that really are hard to defeat... He plans it that way... You might be able to tweak a bit here or there and come to a slightly different position but it won't be enough to claim victory.

The USA used to be able to define its Economy based on its own activity and project or predict outcomes from certain internal inputs... This is no longer the case. Not completely anyhow...

I'd argue that regardless of what Monetary or Fiscal policy is being discussed there are two directions they will go... One direction seeks out the psychology of the people and the other seeks out the mind set of the provider and the World's Economic analysts who make big decisions that circle around to the people again... but, it don't matter the truth of what those decisions are it is all about what the people THINK those decisions are.... It is always about what folks think reality is.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Answer my question rather than posting 3 more paragraphs on how I am a moron and all Conservatives are brain dead.

You are quite the optimist if you actually expect him to do that.

I know your opinion isn't gold. What I was asking is that you stop with your opinion and start with defending your opinion with logical reasoning which you failed to do in the first two examples and did in the third. And I also said I wasn't going to debate your third statement because I was so happy to see you give some rational for your belief. That was enough for me. I'm not here to win a debate. I'm here to show you that you weren't engaging in a real one previously. The fact that your argument doesn't persuade me is not the point. It is an argument that I could argue if I wanted to, finally. I see different facts about the market and it's performance than you do that makes me have a different opinion. What I like is that you gave is a concrete reason to think as you do. No debate can take place if you don't do that.

Your intention was to make Obama look bad because of disaster predictions about the sequester because you have a rabid case of anti-Obama virus running around in your blood stream. Having a rabid case of anything makes it possible to see things that aren't there. So the truth of whether the market is tied to the sequester in any big and important way became an emotional issue with you and you want to win because your angry at Obama for his lies etc etc etc. You think I am here to protect Obama but I am really here to save you from yourself. As long as you chose to be an idiot you will experience irrational misery. Things will take on great importance that aren't important at all, etc. I'm trying to help you see that. I do what I can. What you do is up to you. I don't need anything.

I guess you were right.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Oh bullshit. Reich is using excuses that have been happening for decades for the reason why the market is up as of recent. Your attacking someone for pointing that out changes nothing and your refusal to accept them is your problem. And yes, you can speak for yourself.
That's not what Reich is addressing at all, unless by "recent" you mean the last 40 years. You might understand this if you actually attempted to read and comprehend instead of being an unthinking partisan blowhard. But, enough is enough. I have no interest in teaching Remedial English. Ignorance is bliss; stay happy.
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I know I have a better chance of winning the lottery but it was worth a shot.

Hard to win if you don't play... Some consider that winning though, I guess...

IF we went to full employment over the next year (say 4% unemployed) and considering just the loss of bargaining power of the 'worker' can you see the loss to tax revenue that achieves over a somewhat similar condition in a previous economy? Then add in the change in our economy regarding loss of manufacturing industries, the increasing use of technology over 'man power' and on and on... One can argue anything and be as reasonable as the next person... and just about as right.

There, in my opinion, are no other previous periods of economic time that are valuable to today's or tomorrow's. We can talk in very general terms and have some very general 'ought to' statements. We cannot with certainty or warm and fuzzy feelings put our butt on the line and predict anything within any reasonable confidence level. What seems logical, like what Reich said, may be simply a general statement of what may be true but it may be just partially true as well...
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Matt, I'd suggest that you first realize that just about any published opinion made by an Economist has the reputation of the Economist attached. There are exceptions, I'd agree. But by and large anything is defensible. It is mainly the weight the Economist attach's to one dynamic over another that one ought to take issue with and doing so with an alternate approach or weight and showing that affect.
Economists like to hold some dynamics static in order to explain the effect of one bit of data to the whole. That is not reality but it is informational.

Always keep in mind the motive of the Economist is not to lie, cheat or misrepresent but, rather, it is to be noticed and especially to prove another and hopefully a Nobel Laureate wrong but also while doing that it is to simply identify cause and effect in a logical cogent manner.... It is how you get famous. Reich is not a dummy. Regardless of his politics he has all the tools to extract from the activity a set of explanations that really are hard to defeat... He plans it that way... You might be able to tweak a bit here or there and come to a slightly different position but it won't be enough to claim victory.

The USA used to be able to define its Economy based on its own activity and project or predict outcomes from certain internal inputs... This is no longer the case. Not completely anyhow...

I'd argue that regardless of what Monetary or Fiscal policy is being discussed there are two directions they will go... One direction seeks out the psychology of the people and the other seeks out the mind set of the provider and the World's Economic analysts who make big decisions that circle around to the people again... but, it don't matter the truth of what those decisions are it is all about what the people THINK those decisions are.... It is always about what folks think reality is.

Honestly you need to tell that to the people who are quoting someone who is not only an economist but a very left wing political philosopher. Reich seems to have a hard time giving an analysis of anything economic without putting in his political philosophy. I no more would consider an analysis from Glen Beck or the likes any better. If you don’t see the politics in his analysis than by all means read it again.

First, productivity gains. Corporations have been investing in technology rather than their workers. They get tax credits and deductions for such investments; they get no such tax benefits for improving the skills of their employees. As a result, corporations can now do more with fewer people on their payrolls. That means higher profits.

Second, high unemployment itself. Joblessness all but eliminates the bargaining power of most workers – allowing corporations to keep wages low. Public policies that might otherwise reduce unemployment – a new WPA or CCC to hire the long-term unemployed, major investments in the nation’s crumbling infrastructure – have been rejected in favor of austerity economics. This also means higher profits, at least in the short run.

Third, globalization. Big American-based corporations have been expanding and hiring around the globe where markets are growing fastest – even while the U.S. market is lackluster. Tax policies and trade policies have encouraged them.

Finally, the Fed’s easy-money policies. They’ve pushed investors into the stock market because bond yields are so low. On Tuesday, the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note was just 1.9%.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
That's not what Reich is addressing at all, unless by "recent" you mean the last 40 years. You might understand this if you actually attempted to read and comprehend instead of being an unthinking partisan blowhard. But, enough is enough. I have no interest in teaching Remedial English. Ignorance is bliss; stay happy.

Remedial English would help you a lot. Reich even asks himself this "Why is the stock market doing so well". The stock market was not doing well a few years ago so ya, he very much is refering to the recent stock market.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Honestly you need to tell that to the people who are quoting someone who is not only an economist but a very left wing political philosopher. Reich seems to have a hard time giving an analysis of anything economic without putting in his political philosophy. I no more would consider an analysis from Glen Beck or the likes any better. If you don’t see the politics in his analysis than by all means read it again.


The difference twixt Reich and say Beck IS a political bent but as I said earlier, what Reich indicated is sound and reasonable economic analysis and Beck is equally possessed of the horse sense to propound a similar argument but he won't cause it tends to defeat a Conservative position while Reich's supports a more Progressive position... I'd venture to say that Reich is more apt to denounce an Obama position than Beck denounce a Conservative one... Reich has taken positions against Obama in a few areas.... Beck seems focused on only fostering a very one way view toward any situation which has some bits that could be true as the support... Hard to argue with that kind of approach unless you actually speak the language...
Economics is a Social Science whose underlying language is mathematics but it requires the mind of the psychologist, the patience of a Priest, and the capability to accurately assess the dynamics of just about every economy on the planet and how that may affect the discussion... and that requires the education of the Economist... What is real and what may be real and when may what is not currently real become real....
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
The difference twixt Reich and say Beck IS a political bent but as I said earlier, what Reich indicated is sound and reasonable economic analysis and Beck is equally possessed of the horse sense to propound a similar argument but he won't cause it tends to defeat a Conservative position while Reich's supports a more Progressive position... I'd venture to say that Reich is more apt to denounce an Obama position than Beck denounce a Conservative one... Reich has taken positions against Obama in a few areas.... Beck seems focused on only fostering a very one way view toward any situation which has some bits that could be true as the support... Hard to argue with that kind of approach unless you actually speak the language...
Economics is a Social Science whose underlying language is mathematics but it requires the mind of the psychologist, the patience of a Priest, and the capability to accurately assess the dynamics of just about every economy on the planet and how that may affect the discussion... and that requires the education of the Economist... What is real and what may be real and when may what is not currently real become real....

I thank you for now following suit like a lot of people on here and just start lobbing insults because someone disagrees with you.

Take his first statement:

“First, productivity gains. Corporations have been investing in technology rather than their workers. They get tax credits and deductions for such investments; they get no such tax benefits for improving the skills of their employees. As a result, corporations can now do more with fewer people on their payrolls. That means higher profits.”

There are the same deductions/tax credits for investing in technology as there are for investing in employees. It’s one thing to claim there are extra deductions for investing in say clean energy, but Reich is claiming there are no deductions for investing in employees and that is flat out wrong. A business expense is a business expense and salary and training for your employees is very much included. That’s Reich sticking politics into his analysis.

And the second statement

“Second, high unemployment itself. Joblessness all but eliminates the bargaining power of most workers – allowing corporations to keep wages low.”

High unemployment does not mean corporations are going to cut salaries and it does not mean worker lose their bargaining power. That’s not as blatant as the first one but that’s still Reich sticking politics into his analysis.
If you wish to disagree then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion about Reich.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I thank you for now following suit like a lot of people on here and just start lobbing insults because someone disagrees with you.

Take his first statement:

“First, productivity gains. Corporations have been investing in technology rather than their workers. They get tax credits and deductions for such investments; they get no such tax benefits for improving the skills of their employees. As a result, corporations can now do more with fewer people on their payrolls. That means higher profits.”

There are the same deductions/tax credits for investing in technology as there are for investing in employees. It’s one thing to claim there are extra deductions for investing in say clean energy, but Reich is claiming there are no deductions for investing in employees and that is flat out wrong. A business expense is a business expense and salary and training for your employees is very much included. That’s Reich sticking politics into his analysis.

And the second statement

“Second, high unemployment itself. Joblessness all but eliminates the bargaining power of most workers – allowing corporations to keep wages low.”

High unemployment does not mean corporations are going to cut salaries and it does not mean worker lose their bargaining power. That’s not as blatant as the first one but that’s still Reich sticking politics into his analysis.
If you wish to disagree then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion about Reich.

Sorry, but I've no motive to insult you or anyone else for that matter. I accept you as you are as I do everyone. I'm not too sure I'd know how to insult someone anyhow... I like to deal with facts or at least try to figure out what is factual... If someone becomes insulted by that venture then the bi-product of my venture is not my intention.
It would seem that to insult someone has absolutely no value... or shouldn't.

High Unemployment COULD provide the ability for the employer to acquire the talent needed at a lower cost than might other wise be the case. And, the loss of bargaining power COULD be a factor when there is competition among equal talent.... Those wanting the position will accept less but that don't mean the employer avails himself of that condition.... I never did... I had a salary chart and went with that... It actually made my job more difficult having a larger pool to choose from.... Who is best suited sorta thing.

Technology is far different than tax credits in the decision making process... A technological change to a process is a long term decision usually while a fiscal policy offer generally is short term and only offsets some of the initial cost... It is a stimulus to act in a manner desired but that stimulus hardly ever is the main reason to act.

I'm actually a fiscal conservative.... or what used to be that... not sure what that means today...

I can't affect policy... not on a large scale and hardly on a small one either... ;) I find I can argue on the merits reasonably well in this arena but trying to gather factual data has become the main block to most any aspect of what the merits might be.

There is, as I said before, only general arguments that can be made and Reich is making them implying that some aspects are assumed and others are forced.... It is like me saying that a person is more likely to accept we are in a recession if they just lost their job.... There could be many reasons why they lost that job.... Forget the politics and focus only on the economics... politics only confuses an otherwise insane discussion... hehehehe.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Sorry, but I've no motive to insult you or anyone else for that matter. I accept you as you are as I do everyone. I'm not too sure I'd know how to insult someone anyhow... I like to deal with facts or at least try to figure out what is factual... If someone becomes insulted by that venture then the bi-product of my venture is not my intention.
It would seem that to insult someone has absolutely no value... or shouldn't.

High Unemployment COULD provide the ability for the employer to acquire the talent needed at a lower cost than might other wise be the case. And, the loss of bargaining power COULD be a factor when there is competition among equal talent.... Those wanting the position will accept less but that don't mean the employer avails himself of that condition.... I never did... I had a salary chart and went with that... It actually made my job more difficult having a larger pool to choose from.... Who is best suited sorta thing.

Technology is far different than tax credits in the decision making process... A technological change to a process is a long term decision usually while a fiscal policy offer generally is short term and only offsets some of the initial cost... It is a stimulus to act in a manner desired but that stimulus hardly ever is the main reason to act.

I'm actually a fiscal conservative.... or what used to be that... not sure what that means today...

I can't affect policy... not on a large scale and hardly on a small one either... ;) I find I can argue on the merits reasonably well in this arena but trying to gather factual data has become the main block to most any aspect of what the merits might be.

There is, as I said before, only general arguments that can be made and Reich is making them implying that some aspects are assumed and others are forced.... It is like me saying that a person is more likely to accept we are in a recession if they just lost their job.... There could be many reasons why they lost that job.... Forget the politics and focus only on the economics... politics only confuses an otherwise insane discussion... hehehehe.

I do like how you put the COULD in there. Wile I agree they COULD, and they would effect new hires more than anything, Reich is claiming they do.

We are on the same page with technology as well however employee investmnent is a standard deduction and you can look that up.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
I do like how you put the COULD in there. Wile I agree they COULD, and they would effect new hires more than anything, Reich is claiming they do.

Are you saying you are unhappy because a socialists says something is true that could be true because the implication has clearly been from you that because he's a socialist what he says can't be true? That leaves me with a choice between whether something that could be true is true or whether something that could be true can't be true because of who said it. Clearly it would take bias to think the latter.
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I do like how you put the COULD in there. Wile I agree they COULD, and they would effect new hires more than anything, Reich is claiming they do.

We are on the same page with technology as well however employee investmnent is a standard deduction and you can look that up.

One might conclude that your arguement is that it CAN'T be true... IF that is the case then why can't it be true? (not saying you do assert that)

Is it more likely than not that the position of Reich is false? On what basis would that be true?

Not sure what you mean by, 'Standard Deduction'. All personnel expense or cost in the case of direct labor is a reduction to arrive at operating income. The tax consequence of fiscal policy decisions like schedule M items or tax credits simply reflect net after tax income...

EDIT: I think you might consider that Reich and any other Economist is postulating a hypothesis... a Theory... That what is said is based on their economic knowledge and the validity is open for challenge... IF there is contra argument for Reich's theory then go with that... or assimilate it in.... somehow. But, that Reich is a liberal does not defeat his theory...
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
One might conclude that your arguement is that it CAN'T be true... IF that is the case then why can't it be true? (not saying you do assert that)

Is it more likely than not that the position of Reich is false? On what basis would that be true?

Not sure what you mean by, 'Standard Deduction'. All personnel expense or cost in the case of direct labor is a reduction to arrive at operating income. The tax consequence of fiscal policy decisions like schedule M items or tax credits simply reflect net after tax income...

EDIT: I think you might consider that Reich and any other Economist is postulating a hypothesis... a Theory... That what is said is based on their economic knowledge and the validity is open for challenge... IF there is contra argument for Reich's theory then go with that... or assimilate it in.... somehow. But, that Reich is a liberal does not defeat his theory...

Oh he thinks they are gospel otherwise he would say something more to the effect that these are possible causes.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Are you saying you are unhappy because a socialists says something is true that could be true because the implication has clearly been from you that because he's a socialist what he says can't be true? That leaves me with a choice between whether something that could be true is true or whether something that could be true can't be true because of who said it. Clearly it would take bias to think the latter.

Answer my question or shut the fuck up.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Answer my question or shut the fuck up.

You have me at a disadvantage. I told you I am so happy with your progress in that you gave one reason that you thought would justify your position AND it actually was a reason that could be argued, that as I said, this made me so happy that I decided to reward you by not challenging your position and I told you so. Now you want me to break a promise I made to try to reward your effort by not arguing your point and now you want to use my well intentioned promise against me and goad me into breaking my word. There's no chance I would do that. You can go right back to being the worlds most absurd idiot and it won't make me change my mind. I gave you a bread and will stand by it even if your prove yourself more worthy of a kick in the teeth. You have to understand that my word to me is worth more than you can ever imagine.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
You have me at a disadvantage. I told you I am so happy with your progress in that you gave one reason that you thought would justify your position AND it actually was a reason that could be argued, that as I said, this made me so happy that I decided to reward you by not challenging your position and I told you so. Now you want me to break a promise I made to try to reward your effort by not arguing your point and now you want to use my well intentioned promise against me and goad me into breaking my word. There's no chance I would do that. You can go right back to being the worlds most absurd idiot and it won't make me change my mind. I gave you a bread and will stand by it even if your prove yourself more worthy of a kick in the teeth. You have to understand that my word to me is worth more than you can ever imagine.

You are a fraud, nothing more than a bloviated blowhard who couldn't win an argument against a house plant.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
You are a fraud, nothing more than a bloviated blowhard who couldn't win an argument against a house plant.
OMG! I think that's the funniest thing I've ever read here. Talk about irony (or more accurately, hypocrisy). You're a hoot.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
You are a fraud, nothing more than a bloviated blowhard who couldn't win an argument against a house plant.

It depends on what argument we are talking about, Matt. I started with trying to shame you into a real argument by pointing out your offer no argument at all but only brain dead opinion and we end here now with your confession.