The point is, the "pay for it" part would only have reached $10.6 trillion, tops. That was not enough to tank the market as the fear of losing the inflated $62 trillion was. Kevin Puvalowski, assistant to SIGTARP, testified before Congress that the total amount of government support for the private sector was $23.7 trillion. That's far more than the total mortgage debt. It would have been much better to bail out the homeowners, instead of the banks.
Note also how you cleverly cite a figure from 1850 to 1870, which includes the Civil War. Most of the "doubling" took place before 1860, thanks to the (enforced) productivity of slaves.
Our scaffolding is built on the solid foundation of over 600 thousand daily cotton picking observations drawn from the archives of over 110 slave plantations. We show that in the 60 years preceding the Civil War the average amount of cotton picked per slave in a day increased about four-fold.
That productivity was not matched by post-war cotton producers. Capitalism is best when it is immoral and doesn't respect unalienable rights.
No, financial panics were common before the government intervened. The private sector on its own evolved a centralized system of clearinghouses to expand the money supply in panics; the problem was the for-profit members of the clearinghouses would help their friends and hurt their enemies. The Fed was created as a more equitable alternative to J. P. Morgan ending the panic of 1907. Morgan was in a position to buy out his competitors at fire sale prices.
In the Great Depression, Hoover tried the free market approach for 4 years. No government intervention, let the market end the crisis itself. Except it didn't work, so the people elected Roosevelt. The General Welfare is not served by the free market, which only cares about the welfare of those who have money.
Biology is not reducible to economics. Genes have no concept of debt, for example. Trying to force everything into economics is fundamentally flawed, because money is a human invention.
No, quantum physics does not claim to know (or that it will ever know) why a particle collapses to one of two states when measured. It is not assumed that there is a rational explanation why.
Quantum physicists have questioned the scientific worldview. From wikipedia: "for objects governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, like photons and electrons, it may make no sense to think of them as having well defined characteristics. Instead, what we see may depend on how we look."
The defaults alone weren't the problem. The groupthink and perverse psychology of the private sector was the problem. Government just wanted to help people get homes. The greed of the private sector created such a mess that everything crashed because of their shenanigans.
If government was guilty of anything, it was not being cynical enough about the moral hazards and perverse incentives that drive markets.
Dot-com was a more productive use of capital, but Greenspan popped that. Also, markets aren't very efficient on their own. Sure, slavery produced more cotton than the post-Civil-War south did, but only by using force and ignoring unalienable rights. Markets left to themselves leave a lot of people out, and even finance founder Fischer Black thought markets were only efficient to within a factor of 2. So that house might cost $50k or $200k, a wide spread for salesmen to profit. That's what Paul thinks is better than government trying to help poor people? Let the salesmen get rich off arbitrage while the poor stay homeless?
And standards of living have been going up, because technology keeps advancing. Deficits don't matter. They are a distraction. The advance of knowledge and technology should be the real focus.
The private sector lives by kicking the can down the road. Banks borrow every day to kick the can down the road. Kicking the can down the road was invented by the private sector and is used all the time. To say government can't use the same mechanism is unrealistic, because it works so well for the private sector.
How about subsidies? The point is to encourage alternative energy sources, and government can invest without needing to make a profit. It provides for the General Welfare.
"the tradeoff of CLI is between working more efficiently (by typing commands and not having to use your mouse too often to interrupt your flow) and a steeper learning curve (learn commands and their params, config file locations and their syntax etc.)."
Solution: use natural language to tell the computer what you want to do. "Copy myfile.txt to mydirectory." "Change my password from old to new." "Change the file permissions on myfile.txt so anyone can read or write to it."
Kleinrock and others have explicitly said that economic gain was not a motivation for the beginnings of the internet. And Berners-Lee wasn't interested in profiting from the World Wide Web. How much did Mendel profit from his theory of inheritance? Why didn't Pasteur pursue profits instead of basic research? Were Watson and Crick thinking of money when they thought of the double helix structure of DNA?
Consider also that the Human Genome Project outcompeted Ventner's for-profit attempt.
Source for the UBS claim: file:///C:/trane/coursera/money/184614_Transparencyreport_en.pdf
On page 6, under "Remuneration", the incentive structure is described as encouraging "income generated by exploiting market advantages, such as low funding costs." Bonuses were paid based on future expectations of continued low funding costs, etc. I'm sure you can imagine how those expectations made their way onto the balance sheet.
For one contract, in July 2000, Enron and Blockbuster Video signed a 20-year agreement to introduce on-demand entertainment to various U.S. cities by year-end. After several pilot projects, Enron recognized estimated profits of more than $110 million from the deal, even though analysts questioned the technical viability and market demand of the service.[23] When the network failed to work, Blockbuster withdrew from the contract. Enron continued to recognize future profits, even though the deal resulted in a loss.
UBS did similar things with risk-free MBSes, because they were so risk-free.
Some dealers I knew said things like: if they leagalize drugs I'd have to find something else illegal to do. They were simply criminal-minded.
But the advantage of legalization is for the user who just wants to get his medicine without having to deal with criminals. Trying to buy pot or harder drugs led to violent incidences in my life in a way that going to a store to buy alcohol never did.
Sure you may still have some bootleggers. But the violent drug cartels will disappear because their market will be gone. The might become corporate crooks, but they won't be kidnapping and killing over territory.
The law said it was okay to steal people's labor if they had a certain skin color, once. Was the law right then? No, it violated unalienable rights, no matter what the Supreme Court of the time said. The law was morally wrong.
The law now as you interpret it says that the recent surge in children crossing the border should be met with indifference. Is it ethical to turn your back on a 6-year-old caring for a 4-year-old, send them back into violence and disease?
No. We have a humanitarian obligation to provide for the children. It comes from the General Welfare clause. How is it in the General Welfare to turn away hundreds or thousands of minors who need help?
The economic argument is simply wrong. The US is not "out of money". The Fed has proved that stimulus works for the stock market and the banks and corporations sitting on trillions. Fiscal policy can expand dramatically because, as Reagan proved, deficits don't matter. Saying that figures in a ledger book are more important than peoples' lives is to worship a golden calf. Money is a tool we invented to serve us, not the other way around.
Probably the best thing to do to mitigate this humanitarian crisis is to legalize drugs. Drug violence, caused by its illegality, is the primary cause of the children trying to get across the border. Legalize drugs and take the violence out of them.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, the "pay for it" part would only have reached $10.6 trillion, tops. That was not enough to tank the market as the fear of losing the inflated $62 trillion was. Kevin Puvalowski, assistant to SIGTARP, testified before Congress that the total amount of government support for the private sector was $23.7 trillion. That's far more than the total mortgage debt. It would have been much better to bail out the homeowners, instead of the banks.
How about bankers' rights to take away homes whose mortgages they don't own?
Wait, are you one of those economists that are the subject of this article?
The figures I found indicate the US by 1876 still hadn't produced the same cotton it had in 1860: http://www.sailsinc.org/durfee...
Note also how you cleverly cite a figure from 1850 to 1870, which includes the Civil War. Most of the "doubling" took place before 1860, thanks to the (enforced) productivity of slaves.
From http://www.history.upenn.edu/e...:
That productivity was not matched by post-war cotton producers. Capitalism is best when it is immoral and doesn't respect unalienable rights.
No, financial panics were common before the government intervened. The private sector on its own evolved a centralized system of clearinghouses to expand the money supply in panics; the problem was the for-profit members of the clearinghouses would help their friends and hurt their enemies. The Fed was created as a more equitable alternative to J. P. Morgan ending the panic of 1907. Morgan was in a position to buy out his competitors at fire sale prices.
In the Great Depression, Hoover tried the free market approach for 4 years. No government intervention, let the market end the crisis itself. Except it didn't work, so the people elected Roosevelt. The General Welfare is not served by the free market, which only cares about the welfare of those who have money.
The market cuts interest rates on its own. Remember the LIBOR rate-fixing scandal? Traders manipulated rates lower. Pure free market at work!
Biology is not reducible to economics. Genes have no concept of debt, for example. Trying to force everything into economics is fundamentally flawed, because money is a human invention.
Even the Austrian school criticizes the quantity theory of money.
What you're saying is your Bayesian prior probability is 1, so no amount of evidence will convince you (see Cromwell's rule)?
No, quantum physics does not claim to know (or that it will ever know) why a particle collapses to one of two states when measured. It is not assumed that there is a rational explanation why.
Quantum physicists have questioned the scientific worldview. From wikipedia: "for objects governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, like photons and electrons, it may make no sense to think of them as having well defined characteristics. Instead, what we see may depend on how we look."
I'm a photon and I demand more energy!
Who forced the banks to inflate $10.6 trillion in mortgage debt into $62 trillion in derivatives?
The defaults alone weren't the problem. The groupthink and perverse psychology of the private sector was the problem. Government just wanted to help people get homes. The greed of the private sector created such a mess that everything crashed because of their shenanigans.
If government was guilty of anything, it was not being cynical enough about the moral hazards and perverse incentives that drive markets.
Dot-com was a more productive use of capital, but Greenspan popped that. Also, markets aren't very efficient on their own. Sure, slavery produced more cotton than the post-Civil-War south did, but only by using force and ignoring unalienable rights. Markets left to themselves leave a lot of people out, and even finance founder Fischer Black thought markets were only efficient to within a factor of 2. So that house might cost $50k or $200k, a wide spread for salesmen to profit. That's what Paul thinks is better than government trying to help poor people? Let the salesmen get rich off arbitrage while the poor stay homeless?
Because molecules raise their prices if there's an increase in the energy supply?
And standards of living have been going up, because technology keeps advancing. Deficits don't matter. They are a distraction. The advance of knowledge and technology should be the real focus.
The private sector lives by kicking the can down the road. Banks borrow every day to kick the can down the road. Kicking the can down the road was invented by the private sector and is used all the time. To say government can't use the same mechanism is unrealistic, because it works so well for the private sector.
How about subsidies? The point is to encourage alternative energy sources, and government can invest without needing to make a profit. It provides for the General Welfare.
Here's a story about investors in traditional power generation plants in Texas looking at losses because of new alternative energy power production:
http://www.renewableenergyworl...
"the tradeoff of CLI is between working more efficiently (by typing commands and not having to use your mouse too often to interrupt your flow)
and a steeper learning curve (learn commands and their params, config file locations and their syntax etc.)."
Solution: use natural language to tell the computer what you want to do. "Copy myfile.txt to mydirectory." "Change my password from old to new." "Change the file permissions on myfile.txt so anyone can read or write to it."
Kleinrock and others have explicitly said that economic gain was not a motivation for the beginnings of the internet. And Berners-Lee wasn't interested in profiting from the World Wide Web. How much did Mendel profit from his theory of inheritance? Why didn't Pasteur pursue profits instead of basic research? Were Watson and Crick thinking of money when they thought of the double helix structure of DNA?
Consider also that the Human Genome Project outcompeted Ventner's for-profit attempt.
Just use drones to drop some of the huge food surplus we produce on them.
For the link, google UBS Transparency Report: https://www.google.com/webhp?s...
It should come up as the first result. I don't seem to be able to copy a direct link.
Source for the UBS claim: file:///C:/trane/coursera/money/184614_Transparencyreport_en.pdf
On page 6, under "Remuneration", the incentive structure is described as encouraging "income generated by exploiting market advantages, such as low funding costs." Bonuses were paid based on future expectations of continued low funding costs, etc. I'm sure you can imagine how those expectations made their way onto the balance sheet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
UBS did similar things with risk-free MBSes, because they were so risk-free.
Some dealers I knew said things like: if they leagalize drugs I'd have to find something else illegal to do. They were simply criminal-minded.
But the advantage of legalization is for the user who just wants to get his medicine without having to deal with criminals. Trying to buy pot or harder drugs led to violent incidences in my life in a way that going to a store to buy alcohol never did.
Sure you may still have some bootleggers. But the violent drug cartels will disappear because their market will be gone. The might become corporate crooks, but they won't be kidnapping and killing over territory.
The law said it was okay to steal people's labor if they had a certain skin color, once. Was the law right then? No, it violated unalienable rights, no matter what the Supreme Court of the time said. The law was morally wrong.
The law now as you interpret it says that the recent surge in children crossing the border should be met with indifference. Is it ethical to turn your back on a 6-year-old caring for a 4-year-old, send them back into violence and disease?
No. We have a humanitarian obligation to provide for the children. It comes from the General Welfare clause. How is it in the General Welfare to turn away hundreds or thousands of minors who need help?
The economic argument is simply wrong. The US is not "out of money". The Fed has proved that stimulus works for the stock market and the banks and corporations sitting on trillions. Fiscal policy can expand dramatically because, as Reagan proved, deficits don't matter. Saying that figures in a ledger book are more important than peoples' lives is to worship a golden calf. Money is a tool we invented to serve us, not the other way around.
Probably the best thing to do to mitigate this humanitarian crisis is to legalize drugs. Drug violence, caused by its illegality, is the primary cause of the children trying to get across the border. Legalize drugs and take the violence out of them.