The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

[Schmelzer]

People invent ways to avoid paying bills in private industry as well. That's why we have debt collectors. Paying bills requires resources too. Private companies have bureaucracies to bill and collect bills.

Yes, but this is much less problematic because usually there is a simple exchange, money against the product. Where we don't have it, we have additional costs, and this is, in particular, which makes credits problematic.

>> That old Keynesian economics you reject, just pulled the world out of the Great Recession and prevented another Great Depression.

> No. It made the Great Depression really Great.

The Great Depression occurred and ended before Keynes advanced published his theories. But hey, you not one to let facts or reason get in the way of your ideological beliefs.

Fine, apply this to your original statement. Anyway, it is irrelevant, because if some politicians have done what Keynes would have recommended, this would count.

I guess you are that dense. The fact is you created a straw man and you are following up with a nonsensical rant. First, the world is not Mother Russia. So government isn't filled with the worst guys in the population. And outside of Mother Russia, in the Western world, government workers don't steal.

Feel free to believe in fairy tales, I couldn't care less. Actually, I would expect that American corruption is much more problematic, else Russia could not reach with 1/10th of the military budget get a military which is not afraid of the American one. By the way, the question was about what Keynesianism assumes, explicitly or implicitly, about the abilities and aims of the government.

The fact is Keynes has been proven largely correct. That is why most Keynesian economics have become mainstream and widely used for almost a century.

There is no such animal in science as theories proven correct.

Patents incent new technologies and new products. It isn't a monopoly for the reasons previously given. Patents drive innovation and change.

And, again, whatever you explain, a patent is a monopoly, and a state-created and enforced one. You may think that such an artificial monopoly is a good thing, your choice, but a monopoly remains a monopoly.

The US government did in fact give away a lot of land during the late 19th century because it had a lot of land which had little value. It gave land to immigrants. It gave land to anyone and everyone in order to develop the land. So the fact some railroads received land grants doesn't prove your case. Giving away land didn't create monopolies.

And in fact there were no relevant monopolies. And certainly there were no cases there these monopolies have done what they are accused of, namely to artificially increase prices. The "monopolies" became the largest players because they were able to make the cheapest offers.

And it doesn't explain way the other monopolies like John D. Rockefeller, the first monopolist.

Which, first of all, was simply a very big player but not a monopolist, and, second, he was a big player because he sold his products very cheap. Which made the competitors angry. So, they used political power to destroy their competitor.

LOL....I explained to you why your inflationary proclamations were wrong. And you stated you don't accept the normal and accepted definition of inflation, that you accept the Austrian definition of inflation. I asked you to explain what your special definition of inflation is and you have responded with your usual round of obfuscation.

What the Austrians name inflation is, roughly, printing money. For more details, read a book about Austrian economics.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, it takes more than just printing money, as you have repeatedly asserted, to cause inflation. And the US was given to you as a case in point which clearly demonstrates your error.

No, it only demonstrates that you use a different definition of inflation.

Did Keynes advocate slave labor? No, he did not.

Irrelevant, read the link I have given.

Keynes had nothing to do with Nazism.

His economic theory was that of fascism. And this is what we are talking about here, so it is the piece about Nazism which is important in this context. If he personally liked or hated Hitler is completely irrelevant.

You want to smear Keynes because you cannot debunk his work, and yet you justify and celebrate Putin's repetition of Hitler's militarism and fascism (e.g. invading and annexing the lands of neighboring states).

The Russian economic system is the same as the Western one, and above are corporatism, which is the economic system of fascism. So, in his economic policy, Russia is fascistic in the same way as American and Europe.

Irrelevant claims of me not understanding some irrelevant trivialities deleted.

 

[pjdude1219]

His economic theory was that of fascism.

no that is a lie. but than again your a libertarian lying is kind of your thing. also your heroes of the autrian school were actually the big supporters of fascism but nice try.

 

[joepistole]

Yes, but this is much less problematic because usually there is a simple exchange, money against the product. Where we don't have it, we have additional costs, and this is, in particular, which makes credits problematic.

Oh, and why is that? Be specific and spare the ideological rants. Let me remind you what is different about government receiving payments for the goods an services it delivers versus private industry receiving payments for goods and services it provides? What differentiates government spending from private spending that is detrimental as you have repeatedly asserted?

Fine, apply this to your original statement. Anyway, it is irrelevant, because if some politicians have done what Keynes would have recommended, this would count.

Yeah, if pigs flew it would count too, but they don't. You brought up the issue, you made the assertion, and as previously pointed out it was a false assertion.

Feel free to believe in fairy tales, I couldn't care less. Actually, I would expect that American corruption is much more problematic, else Russia could not reach with 1/10th of the military budget get a military which is not afraid of the American one. By the way, the question was about what Keynesianism assumes, explicitly or implicitly, about the abilities and aims of the government.

So you don't remember writing, "It simply does not discuss the problems related with government regulation. So one could argue if it would be an appropriate theory if the government is ideal. If the government is not ideal, but a collection of the worst guys among the population (those who prefer to steal instead of creating and working) all those receipts will make things worse."?

As previously pointed out to you, your Mother Russia is one of them corrupt governments on the face of the planet.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results
And military budgets have nothing to do with this issue. Japanese WWII warriors were fearless too. I'm sure your Russia soldiers are pretty fearless too after they get liquored up. But that has nothing to do with military budgets or Keynesian economics for that matter.

Yes, but this is much less problematic because usually there is a simple exchange, money against the product. Where we don't have it, we have additional costs, and this is, in particular, which makes credits problematic.

Oh, and why is that? Be specific and spare the ideological rants. Let me remind you what is different about government receiving payments for the goods an services it delivers versus private industry receiving payments for goods and services it provides? What differentiates government spending from private spending that is detrimental as you have repeatedly asserted?

Fine, apply this to your original statement. Anyway, it is irrelevant, because if some politicians have done what Keynes would have recommended, this would count.

Yeah, if pigs flew it would count too, but they don't. You brought up the issue, you made the assertion, and as previously pointed out it was a false assertion.

There is no such animal in science as theories proven correct.

Well, lucky for us we are not talking about animal science. We are talking about Keynesian economics and how it is dominate throughout the world, because it has worked for nearly a century.

And, again, whatever you explain, a patent is a monopoly, and a state-created and enforced one. You may think that such an artificial monopoly is a good thing, your choice, but a monopoly remains a monopoly.

Well at least you didn't call it NATO propaganda. I guess that is progress.

And in fact there were no relevant monopolies. And certainly there were no cases there these monopolies have done what they are accused of, namely to artificially increase prices. The "monopolies" became the largest players because they were able to make the cheapest offers.

I think you have been hitting the happy juice comrade. You have once again contradicted yourself by denying the existence of monopolies and then admitting to their existence. Monopolies came into existence because they were good. They were efficient and they ruthlessly suppressed competition. That wasn't so good. The problem isn't in the process of becoming a monopoly. The problem is once a monopoly forms, it continues to suppress competition and change. It become inefficient because it no longer needs to compete. The bad thing about monopolies is the suppression of competition and change.

Which, first of all, was simply a very big player but not a monopolist, and, second, he was a big player because he sold his products very cheap. Which made the competitors angry. So, they used political power to destroy their competitor.

I think you forgot the issue here. You said monopolies are always formed by government. You have been given a number of examples which proves that is not the case.

What the Austrians name inflation is, roughly, printing money. For more details, read a book about Austrian economics. No, it only demonstrates that you use a different definition of inflation.

Well in the real world, using words as they are defined in the dictionary. The dictionary definition of inflation is, "a continual increase in the price of goods and services"
There is nothing in there about printing money. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inflation

And as previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, the US has been printing money for many years now and has zero inflation. So obviously, your definition of inflation has a few problems.

Irrelevant, read the link I have given.

His economic theory was that of fascism. And this is what we are talking about here, so it is the piece about Nazism which is important in this context. If he personally liked or hated Hitler is completely irrelevant.

LOL..except it is very relevant. Keynesian economics has nothing to do with slavery or Nazism as you have asserted.

The Russian economic system is the same as the Western one, and above are corporatism, which is the economic system of fascism. So, in his economic policy, Russia is fascistic in the same way as American and Europe.

Well actually it isn't. Russia is operating under a system of mercantilism, a practice that was abandoned in the West centuries ago. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Merchantilism

Irrelevant claims of me not understanding some irrelevant trivialities deleted.

Well they are relevant, you obviously have no understanding of economics.

 

[Schmelzer]

no that is a lie. but than again your a libertarian lying is kind of your thing. also your heroes of the autrian school were actually the big supporters of fascism but nice try.

I have given a reference, https://www.vse.cz/aop/25?lang=en which says:

The conclusion is that despite his explicit repudiation of socialism and dictatorship and his efforts to "save" capitalism, Keynes's concept of economic policy was similar to the economic policy of Nazi Germany and opened the way towards socialism and planning.

Feel free to ignore it. To name von Mises, who had to emigrate, a supporter of fascism is simply laughable, whatever evidence you have that some Austrians have supported some fascism you can present here.

Oh, and why is that? Be specific and spare the ideological rants. Let me remind you what is different about government receiving payments for the goods an services it delivers versus private industry receiving payments for goods and services it provides?

The difference is that private industry needs the agreement of the customer, else it gets nothing. The government takes taxes using a thread of violence, like a robber. So that the "customer" of government services has to pay, even if he hates the "service".

So you don't remember writing, "It simply does not discuss the problems related with government regulation. So one could argue if it would be an appropriate theory if the government is ideal. If the government is not ideal, but a collection of the worst guys among the population (those who prefer to steal instead of creating and working) all those receipts will make things worse."?

There is no contradiction.

As previously pointed out to you, your Mother Russia is one of them corrupt governments on the face of the planet.

By a Western propaganda source.

And military budgets have nothing to do with this issue.

Please continue to think so. I think it is very good if the US spends its military money as they do now. It would be even better for the world if all these money would end up directly in the pockets of the military-industrial complex of the US, without creating so much weapons to be given to terrorists.

Well, lucky for us we are not talking about animal science. We are talking about Keynesian economics and how it is dominate throughout the world, because it has worked for nearly a century.

Flat Earth theory also works nicely most of the time. Feel free to use Keynesian economics if you don't mind about what happens with the economy.

I think you have been hitting the happy juice comrade. You have once again contradicted yourself by denying the existence of monopolies and then admitting to their existence.

Monopolies are a rare exception if not for the state protection. Of course, it depends what one names a monopoly. Some firm with, say, 90% market is often named a monopoly, but it has competitors.

Monopolies came into existence because they were good. They were efficient and they ruthlessly suppressed competition. That wasn't so good.

Why? If they offer something better than the competitors, what is wrong with this?

The problem isn't in the process of becoming a monopoly. The problem is once a monopoly forms, it continues to suppress competition and change.

And this is mainly a mythos. If they do so, competitors will reappear (usually they always exist yet, thus, they can increase their market share).

I think you forgot the issue here. You said monopolies are always formed by government. You have been given a number of examples which proves that is not the case.

Examples of firms with high market share are not really examples of monopoles. What often exists are local monopolies - only one provider of electricity, gas, water and so on in a town or so. But even these are often supported by government, which simply forbids competition.

Well in the real world, using words as they are defined in the dictionary. The dictionary definition of inflation is, "a continual increase in the price of goods and services"
There is nothing in there about printing money. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inflation

Ok, feel free to study economic science using a dictionary. I couldn't care less about dictionary economic science.

Well actually it isn't. Russia is operating under a system of mercantilism, a practice that was abandoned in the West centuries ago. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Merchantilism

Not really a big difference, above heavily depend on government interrogation.

Of course, the particular form of government interrogation depends on fads, personal preferences of the rulers, whatever. But it is all far away from a free market and all harmful for the economy.

 

[joepistole]

I have given a reference, https://www.vse.cz/aop/25?lang=en which says:

Feel free to ignore it. To name von Mises, who had to emigrate, a supporter of fascism is simply laughable, whatever evidence you have that some Austrians have supported some fascism you can present here.

Well here is the truth of the matter:

Views on race[edit]
Keynes sometimes explained the mass murder during the first years of the communist era in Russia on a racial basis as part of the “Russian and Jewish nature” rather than as a feature of the communism itself which was more common approach. Writing in his "Short View of Russia" published after a trip in Russia that there is "beastliness on the Russian and Jewish natures when, as now, they are allied together". He also accused Russian nation for "cruelty and stupidity" saying that "Out of the cruelty and stupidity of the Old Russia nothing could ever emerge, but (...) beneath the cruelty and stupidity of the New Russia a speck of the ideal may lie hid" which together with other comments may be construed as anti-Russian and antisemitic.[123] Some critics, such as Murray Rothbard, have sought to infer that Keynes had sympathy with Nazism, and a number of writers have described him as antisemitic. Keynes's private letters express portraits and descriptions, some of which can be characterized as antisemitic, others as philosemitic.[124][125]Scholars have suggested that these reflect clichés current at the time that he accepted uncritically, rather than any racism.[126] Keynes several times used his influence to help his Jewish friends, most notably when he successfully lobbied for Ludwig Wittgenstein to be allowed residency in the United Kingdom explicitly in order to rescue him from being deported to Nazi-occupied Austria. Keynes was a supporter of Zionism, serving on committees supporting the cause.[126]

Allegations that he was racist or had totalitarian beliefs have been rejected by biographers such as Robert Skidelsky.[29] Professor Gordon Fletcher writes that "the suggestion of a link between Keynes and any support of totalitarianism cannot be sustained".[51] Once the aggressive tendencies of the Nazis towards Jews and other minorities became apparent, Keynes made clear his loathing of Nazism. As a lifelong pacifist he had initially favoured peaceful containment, yet he began to advocate a forceful resolution while many conservatives were still arguing for appeasement. After the war started he roundly criticised the Left for losing their nerve to confront Hitler:

The intelligentsia of the Left were the loudest in demanding that the Nazi aggression should be resisted at all costs. When it comes to a showdown, scarce four weeks have passed before they remember that they are pacifists and write defeatist letters to your columns, leaving the defence of freedom and civilisation to Colonel Blimp and the Old School Tie, for whom Three Cheers.[47] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes#Views_on_race

Because Libertarians cannot make a logical or factual case against Keynesian economics, it has become popular with folks like you to smear Keynes with their falsehoods as you have done.

The difference is that private industry needs the agreement of the customer, else it gets nothing. The government takes taxes using a thread of violence, like a robber. So that the "customer" of government services has to pay, even if he hates the "service".

Except, outside of Mother Russia, and in the civilized West, that simply isn't true. Governments don't use the threat of violence to collect taxes. The don't even imprison people for not paying taxes as is the norm in your beloved Mother Russia. If you don't pay your taxes the government will come after your assets through legal means, but that is no different from would happen in private industry.

So again, answer the question. What is government receiving tax revenues as compensation for the goods and services it provides any different than a private enterprise charging a price for the goods and services it produces? And why is government compensation detrimental to the economy and private enterprise compensation isn't?

There is no contradiction.

A simple denial isn't much of an argument.

By a Western propaganda source.

Well unfortunately for you comrade, all credible sources with you are "Western propaganda and NATO propaganda". Just because reality doesn't comport with your beliefs, it does not make it Western propaganda or NATO propaganda.

Please continue to think so. I think it is very good if the US spends its military money as they do now. It would be even better for the world if all these money would end up directly in the pockets of the military-industrial complex of the US, without creating so much weapons to be given to terrorists.

Good, but that or Russia's military spending and Russian chest beating has nothing to do with the issue.

Flat Earth theory also works nicely most of the time. Feel free to use Keynesian economics if you don't mind about what happens with the economy.

Except Keynesian economics isn't even remotely like the Flat Earth Theory. Actually, you are the guy who eschews empiricism - remember? The unfortunate fact for you is Keynesian economics has been successfully used for almost a century and is used almost universally. And you don't have to look far to find recent success stories. Your stick your head in the sand approach and ignore vast and overwhelming evidence doesn't work in the real world comrade. You get run over, and that is what has happened to your Libertarian ideology. That's why libertarian ideology has been and will remain a fringe ideology.

Monopolies are a rare exception if not for the state protection. Of course, it depends what one names a monopoly. Some firm with, say, 90% market is often named a monopoly, but it has competitors.

Why? If they offer something better than the competitors, what is wrong with this?

And this is mainly a mythos. If they do so, competitors will reappear (usually they always exist yet, thus, they can increase their market share).

Examples of firms with high market share are not really examples of monopoles. What often exists are local monopolies - only one provider of electricity, gas, water and so on in a town or so. But even these are often supported by government, which simply forbids competition.

As previously pointed out your assertion that monopolies form only with government action, was and remains wrong. You were given examples, examples which led to the creation of anti-monopoly laws. Laws which regulate and prevent monopolies.

Ok, feel free to study economic science using a dictionary. I couldn't care less about dictionary economic science.

LOL...yeah, it's much better to invent word meanings as you have done, as every Libertarian I have known does. The unfortunate fact for you and your Libertarian fellows is, you and your Libertarian fellows need to misuse words in an attempt to rationalize your irrational beliefs. The fact is you know nothing of economics. You don't even know what inflation is. It isn't printing money as you have repeatedly asserted and the causes of inflation are more complicated than you seem to be able to comprehend.

 

[Schmelzer]

Governments don't use the threat of violence to collect taxes. The don't even imprison people for not paying taxes as is the norm in your beloved Mother Russia.

ROTFL.

Well unfortunately for you comrade, all credible sources with you are "Western propaganda and NATO propaganda".

All sources you accept as credible.

Actually, you are the guy who eschews empiricism - remember?

Who cares, empiticism is dead in science. Except in some pseudosciences. The modern scientific methodology is Popper's critical rationalism.

As previously pointed out your assertion that monopolies form only with government action, was and remains wrong. You were given examples, examples which led to the creation of anti-monopoly laws. Laws which regulate and prevent monopolies.

Laws which allow to destroy some competitors of politically connected firms. That's all they are used for. The examples you have listed have not been really monopolies, simply big firms, and have had no negative consequences.

Local monopolies are possible on a free market, but have only local consequences.

 

[pjdude1219]

I have given a reference, https://www.vse.cz/aop/25?lang=en which says:

which doesn't say what you are claiming it does

Feel free to ignore it

I usually do to falsehoods.

To name von Mises, who had to emigrate, a supporter of fascism is simply laughable,

you mean like this quote

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error

sounds like support to me. and the only evidence he ran from the nazis comes from the institute named for him hardly a impartial source.
whatever evidence you have that some Austrians have supported some fascism you can present here. [/QUOTE]
Lew Rockwell has been viewed as promoting fascism, Hayek along with the chicago school supported pinochet, not to mention the fact as a claimant to the throne of the austrian hungarian empire von mises was a monarchist which did have certain ideological parities with fascism.

 

[joepistole]

ROTFL.

All sources you accept as credible.

LOL....yeah, who cares about reality? You obviously don't.

Who cares, empiticism is dead in science. Except in some pseudosciences. The modern scientific methodology is Popper's critical rationalism.

Except that isn't even remotely true. Critical rationalism also brought us the world is flat and the heliocentric universe.

Laws which allow to destroy some competitors of politically connected firms.

Except like your other assertions, that isn't true either. Anti-monopoly laws are enforced and do prevent monopolies. The world isn't like your Mother Russia.

That's all they are used for. The examples you have listed have not been really monopolies, simply big firms, and have had no negative consequences.

The monopolies I listed were national monopolies. I suggest you reread the previously provided references comrade. By definition if you are a big company, you are not local. So once again you are contradicting yourself, and they did have negative consequences, that's why laws were passed to break them up.

Local monopolies are possible on a free market, but have only local consequences.

That sounds like another contradiction. Before you had said monopolies are not possible in a free market with out any qualifiers. Now you are adding a "local" qualifier. Well that isn't true either. None of the monopolies I have referenced were "local"...oops.

 

[Schmelzer]

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error

sounds like support to me.

It is translated from a book of 1927, thus, has nothing to do with the Nazis. It is about Mussolini, and if one can accept him, in that time, at an "emergency makeshift", one would have to evaluate the history of that time, that means https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biennio_Rosso followed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Rome and, of course, also with what the communism has already shown to be at that time in Russia.

In general, it makes sense to evaluate which of the sides in actual political battles is less evil, even if above sides are evil. Not? At least I do this, and support actually the forces which fight for a multipolar world, instead of an American-ruled unipolar world, because such a multipolar world is less evil than a world government.

Lew Rockwell has been viewed as promoting fascism, Hayek along with the chicago school supported pinochet, not to mention the fact as a claimant to the throne of the austrian hungarian empire von mises was a monarchist which did have certain ideological parities with fascism.

A "has been viewing" sounds like a propaganda claim, Chicago is not Austrian, and I have no problem if one suggests whatever ruler of a country libertarian economic reforms. This is support of the country, not of the guy who rules it.

But von Mises as a claimant of the throne? On which base? Sounds like you have mingled something. There are libertarians which view monarchy as less evil than democracy (like Hoppe), with sound arguments (a king will think about long term interests of the country, because it is the long term interest of his family, while the democratic politician has different personal interests). But this does not make them monarchists, and even less fascists.

 

[Michael]

What you're watching here is the North Korean Giverment blowing through enough food to feed 15 million half-starved North Koreans in 28 seconds. Which to a rational person, is insane. To Joe, this is 'stimulating' the economy. You know, because when Giverment diverts resources to Crony-Capitalists to build billions of vacuum tubes, this a 'good' for the economy. Oh, and as all of society shifts to produce vacuum tubes (and other useless endeavours) it has no impact whatsoever on any other person's behavior. Nope, it's all good for the economy because - Jerbs. Which is why a month or so ago Joe was extolling the economic virtues of Germany letting in a million refugees, 90% of whom are 20 year old men who left their starving mothers and sisters in Syria and Iraq for a chance at free German poontang.

Our Giverment has a 52 billion dollar slush fund that the Pentagon uses to simply waste resources on every and any inane idea you could think up. People are literally digging through draws to find ANY idea to spend money on / waste resources on. Meanwhile, for some weird reason, most Americans don't have $1000 savings to their name! Jesus, talk about perverse. Oh, and also, for some reason Banking criminals are not in jail, but instead are rewarded as SlumLords 'renting' to Giverment welfare recipients.

The Economic Recovery is here to stay, truly the State is Gawd.

 

[Michael]

Wall Street Journal: After 7 Years of Slow Growth, U.S. Now Sees More of Same

Economists, business executives and American workers have waited a long time for the U.S. to shake off its postrecession hangover. Robust growth often seemed right around the corner—maybe next quarter, maybe next year.

Not anymore.

Most Federal Reserve policy makers and private forecasters are giving up on the long-awaited breakout and instead predicting little change in 2016 and beyond: an economy growing a little faster than 2%, just like it has for years.

“To tell a story of 3% growth at this point—it’s not that it can’t happen, but it’s unlikely,” said Joseph LaVorgna, the once-optimistic chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank. The broadest measure of goods and services produced across the U.S. economy, gross domestic product, exhibits ups and downs but on average has expanded at an inflation-adjusted annual pace of 2.2% since the recession ended in mid-2009, far below its 3.6% average during the second half of the 20th century, according to Commerce Department data.

The impact goes beyond mere numbers: An economy experiencing sustained fast growth creates more jobs, raising household incomes and living standards, while very slow growth can mean stagnation. Economists aren’t sure why growth has slowed down. Some argue it reflects powerful long-term trends affecting the U.S. and other advanced economies. Others point to temporary, if stubbornly persistent, headwinds generated by the financial crisis and recession. And to be sure, some optimists still predict growth soon will return to its old form—if the global economy regains its footing, if expansionary fiscal policy provides a tailwind for growth, if tax and regulatory reform unleashes business investment, if productivity gains pick up.

Read the rest from the link.

So? How much longer until QE4eva-pro is announced?

Also, do you suppose, there may come a day when *GASP* the law is enforced and all these ex-bankers who sold everything from liar-loans to fraudulent derivatives are prosecuted? I doubt that will ever happen.

Anyway, enjoy "The" Great Recovery from "The" Great Recession - unless all the ex-Bankers are rounded up and their possessions 'taxed' for the 'good of the roads' then, it'll be here for a looooong time. Decades at least.

 

[Michael]

From Sovereignman.com: The world’s oldest business lasted for 1,428 years here’s what brought it down.

In 578 AD, a Korean immigrant named Shigemitsu Kongo made his way to Japan at the invitation of the royal family. Buddhism was on the rise in Japan at the time; though it had only been introduced a few decades prior, the Empress consort had been actively encouraging the adoption of Buddhism across Japan. But since the Japanese had no experience building Buddhist temples, they looked overseas for help.

That’s where Kongo came in.

Shigemitsu Kongo was a renowned temple builder, and the royal family in Japan commissioned him to build the Shitenno-ji temple, which still stands today in Osaka. Kongo saw an incredible opportunity. Buddhism was catching on fast, and he knew he could be kept busy for decades building temples. It turned out to be centuries. Over 14 centuries, in fact.

Shigemitsu Kongo formed his construction company Kongo Gumi in 578 AD, and it lasted 1,428 years. It’s extraordinary that any single enterprise could last so long. Even as late as 2004, temple building accounted for more than 80% of the company’s revenue, which exceeded USD $60 million. But ten years ago the company finally went under due to the massive debt burden they had accumulated.

It started back in the 1980s. Japan was in the midst of an epic financial bubble thanks to unconstrained credit growth and expansion of the money supply. Go figure, central bankers artificially suppressed interest rates, keeping them way too low for way too long. And it created a huge asset bubble.
Asset prices in Japan got so out of control that for a short time during the 1980s, it was said that the grounds of the imperial palace in Tokyo were worth more than all of the real estate in the entire state of California.

As part of this bubble, banks had relaxed their lending standards and were handing out loans to just about anyone. And many Japanese companies took on vast amounts of debt, including Kongo Gumi. Debt was like a popular drug. Everyone was doing it. But when the bubble burst in 1989, asset prices collapsed. And companies that had borrowed heavily were left with nothing but debt. Kongo Gumi didn’t go out of business right away. The company was able to limp along for more than two decades on basic life support. Soon they were borrowing money just to pay interest on the money they had already borrowed, even though interest rates were at record lows. But eventually the company’s revenues were no longer sufficient to service the debt.

And in 2006 Kongo Gumi was forced into liquidation.
This company lasted over 1,400 years.
They survived countless political crises, wars, and natural disasters.
They survived the Meiji Restoration in the 1800s, a period in which the government set out to eradicate Buddhism from Japan, and hence, the temple building industry.
They even survived two atomic bombs.

What Kongo Gumi couldn’t survive was debt.

It doesn’t matter if you’re an individual, a company, a government, or even a central bank; if your balance sheet doesn’t add up, sooner or later you’re going under. It’s concerning to see consumer debt once again on the rise in the Land of the Free, at the fastest pace since the days of the financial bubble. Perhaps most appropriate was a Superbowl commercial from Quicken Loans advertising how easy they have made it to obtain a loan. “Push button. Get mortgage.” says the commercial. More appropriate would be “Push button. Get into debt. Then buy more useless stuff.” It’s a blatant snapshot of how far along we are in this latest financial bubble. Of course, most western governments are in this position as well; they can go further into debt with a few strokes of the pen. No surprise that many governments must borrow money to pay interest on money they’ve already borrowed, even at a time when interest rates are at record lows! And yet the leading mainstream economic minds claim that debt (and money printing) are actually CURES to economic problems, and not causes of them. As my colleague Tim Price points out, medieval doctors used to advocate leeches as a way to cure sick people. Yet this approach turned out be largely ineffective and tended to kill the patient.

Sometimes the final consequences take years. Even decades. Old, established institutions have the ability to kick the can down the road, just like Kongo Gumi did. And even in terminal decline they can even give the appearance of strength. Just a few years before its demise, Kongo Gumi was still a media darling that seemed strong, fit, and likely to last another 1,400 years. The LA Times, for example, ran a story in 2003 praising the company for its deft ability to outlast Japan’s tough economic conditions.

Kongo Gumi folded less than three years later. This is an incredibly important lesson: debt is a killer. And no one is immune to this inevitability.

 

[Michael]

I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to QE4-eva Pro Edition!!!

This is where WallStreet is doubly bailed out - bonuses all around! Then the SlumLords are bailed out - Slum all around! Then the middle class is bailed out - Free University, Healthcare, Cars, Boats, Houses, Vacations, ALL of it. And hey! WE deserve it too! Finally! We Americans will get exactly everything we deserve. And, won't THAT be nice.

In a way, we already are.

 

[iceaura]

Shigemitsu Kongo formed his construction company Kongo Gumi in 578 AD, and it lasted 1,428 years. It’s extraordinary that any single enterprise could last so long. Even as late as 2004, temple building accounted for more than 80% of the company’s revenue, which exceeded USD $60 million.

The transition from government funded enterprise to capitalist market funded enterprise is often a rough one. Lots of companies don't make it.

It doesn’t matter if you’re an individual, a company, a government, or even a central bank; if your balance sheet doesn’t add up, sooner or later you’re going under.

So you agree that the consequences of failing to tax the wealthy enough to pay for one's government can be terrible.

Or actually, since that entire post was a quote from one of your wingnut sources of misinformation, you agree with that guy when he agrees with us that failing to tax the wealthy enough to pay for one's government is a recipe for disaster.

Which is why a month or so ago Joe was extolling the economic virtues of Germany letting in a million refugees, 90% of whom are 20 year old men

Less than half the total Syrian refugees are male, of any age (a quarter of those are male children). Of those not only fleeing Syria but additionally crossing the Mediterranean, 57% are adult men of any age. According to the UN, which is counting.

 

[Michael]

Are ANY of these Banksters going to prison?
Probably not.

Anyway, this is entertaining.

 

[iceaura]

Are ANY of these Banksters going to prison?
Probably not.

So the complaint is what - that you see a lack of government oversight here?

Do you think the bank involved here - a private, for profit financial enterprise - should be more closely supervised and regulated by the Federal government?

 

[joepistole]

Are ANY of these Banksters going to prison?
Probably not.

Anyway, this is entertaining.

A revisionist Republican grandstanding....nothing new there. Duffy delivered documents to the Fed after the close of business yesterday and he grills her about them today....seriously? That is grandstanding. This has nothing to do with the issues at hand. It's not an issue that should be addressed during a Humphrey Hawkins briefing. The alleged leak was investigated by the Fed and is being investigated by the US Department of Justice. This is a little more complicated than what you would have people believe. This material is potential evidence in criminal proceedings.

Duffy should go back to being a reality television entertainer. He's over his head as a congressman. That's a pretty low bar.

 

[Michael]

So the complaint is what - that you see a lack of government oversight here?

First of all. Let's makes sure you understand what you're talking about.

You think that the problem is a lack of 'government oversight'. Which is to say, the problem in your mind is a 'lack of one group of people with the legal right to INITIATE violence against another group of INNOCENT people.'

No iceaura, I do not think it's INNOCENT people we need to initiate violence against, but GUILTY people. The problem is, the "Givernment", for the most part, PROTECTS guilty people - even to the point of bailing them out when they commit a crime. Even to the point of LEGALIZING said crimes by waiting for the Statute of Limitations to run out. Even to the point of BEING part of the crime syndicate. Then, when it all goes to hell in a hand basket, the "Government" raises the money it needs to bail out these criminals (including itself) by selling T-Bonds on the labor of the innocent Tax Chattel it effectively owns/manages on it's Tax Farm. The "Government" then threatens to shoot said Tax Chattel (well, more often than not, the children and grandchildren of current Tax Chattel) if not paid.

SO, again, no iceaura, the problem isn't we don't have enough Government. The problem is we have too much.

Do you think the bank involved here - a private, for profit financial enterprise - should be more closely supervised and regulated by the Federal government?

Profit in a free society, is virtuous. Too bad we don't live in one.

Oh, and one more time: No, I do not think we need more incompetent crony-Public Servants looking to brown-nose their way into a Big TBTF Crony Bank 'supervising' supposed TBTF banks.

 

[Michael]

CNBC: Squawk Box
In Gold We Trust

There is a serious credit contraction underway, I think [Yellen] should acknowledge that. I think she has to look at the capital base being wiped off the banks in this downdraft and equities: that's not supposed to be happening right now. They're supposed to be bulletproof, and oh, by the way, gold at $1,200 an ounce, what does that tell you? It tells you that in a flight to quality, in a safe haven, people have more confidence in gold than in bank deposits or paper money. I think things have gotten out of control."

-- Bob Michele of JPMorgan


--o--
O' Ye of little faith. The Central Banster Gawds know ALL. They know the value of my coffee
cup here in my hand, and they know the value of all money. So, Be Ye Goo'd State-bots, sacrifice your children's Labour at the alter of the T-Bond.... and perhaps their lives when the Public Psychopaths.... ah, Servants. Servants!!...send em' to die in a Glorious Banker funded Phony War against Aliens or something.....

LOL

Anyway, must be more of The Great Recovery from The Great "Recession"....

So, next stop is we elect a Socialistic POTUS, which probably won't work well given the whole checks and balances thing (remember, "Limited Givernment") and so he'll/she'll have to be blessed more "Executive' powers. Then said Dictator....errr POTUS can 'redistribute' for the Good of Society and in the same breadth return many of our Civil Liberties.
Lose-Win.
But, that's okay, because we'll all be materially better off, which is what really matters. Once we're used to a Dictator, errrr.... Executive / POTUS making all the rules, how about having one for live?
That sound good?
Maybe WWIII will change your mind?

 

[iceaura]

First of all. Let's makes sure you understand what you're talking about.

I was talking about your perception of that video you posted. It showed a Congressman attempting to browbeat a stonewalling official of a private, for-profit bank, demanding documents. You must have had some kind of motive, or point, for posting it.

Oh, and one more time: No, I do not think we need more incompetent crony-Public Servants looking to brown-nose their way into a Big TBTF Crony Bank 'supervising' supposed TBTF banks.

So your hero in that little video was the banker, stonewalling the incompetent brown-noser?

Or was it that you think the bankster there should be facing prison, for their misdeeds?