Can you give us an evaluation of how likely it is that Goldman Sachs will even notice this in any significant way? I mean, is it the kind of thing that'll end with a settlement and get reported on page A-43, or the kind of thing that'll stay in the news and end up costing Goldman Sachs enough money to hurt? Inquiring (yet appallingly ignorant) minds want to know!
and that means loaded for bear with H-1B, L-1, other guest worker Visas and now this instant green card for anyone who gets anything labeled education (varies in requirements), focus on STEM, where we already have massive unemployment and displacement. Additionally even getting into college is very rough currently. The rejection rates are through the roof.
I'm fairly certain most of the country does not want the U.S. labor pool flooded with supply and I'm fairly certain most want Americans to be first in educational opportunities in the U.S. and folks, please do not post those spin papers trying to make the substitution variables set to zero. that just isn't reality by the statistics.
I watched a news report with some "immigrant" rights person claiming Arizona raids on human traffickers/smugglers was "discriminatory". (there was a big human trafficking ring bust yesterday). There is no sanity in this topic. These human traffickers charge $7,000 and up per person, often kidnap the people and extort more money from families, abuse them, treat them like cattle and cargo. How can anyone be for human trafficking? Seriously.
Cap & Trade is one of those topics which one would think will divide along party lines but my understanding on the details is it gives a new fictional trading market to Goldman Sachs. Billions expected to be made in trading credits. So while I'm fairly certain on this site at least most want environmental clean up, alt. energy, reduce global warming and so on, so far my understanding on Cap & Trade is they are using that general wish to of course get a bunch more $$ for a few "traders".
But on this post, the NBER, it is more of a science, which I like. This is taking a host of metrics and determining business cycles. The fact they wouldn't bow to pressure is a good sign to me the group has some ethics.
Wow, just loved all that you have written and taken the time to research. I would love to quote some of the passages because what you have to say is important for others to read.
but now the government has to accept it. But their strategy is to deny, deny, deny and to send pieces of propaganda out for the news to print and speak.
The gov is just willy-nilly throwing a $million here and a $billion there and crowing "we are doing this for you."
Meanwhile the "you" in the equation keep sinking lower and lower. They are actually going to revive the cap and trade. A Bill that even the President said would raise the energy cost of Americans.
I'm starting to wonder if they don't want to kill the small $$$-amounts remaining in our bank accounts.
Move our banking business to sound community banks and credit unions. I terminated all my banking business with B of A yesterday, and when I told them why (sleazy abuse of power by the mega banks, such as helping Greece hide its debt, which wasn't B of A but one of the others, I know) eyes went wide like it was the first time they had heard of such a thing. Of course they remained completely courteous, being well-trained in that regard, and I stressed that the things I was complaining about were happening well above their level. The branch manager, a young Asian, seemed interested in what I was saying, so I gave him this (EP) website - even wrote it down at his request. He honestly gave me the impression he was hearing about this for the first time. Wider dissemination is key, but I don't know how to accomplish it.
I'm skimming through Hank Paulson's book and just ignoring the issue of the Fed itself, the secrecy, lack of accountability and all of those issues, I really think Bernanke should not have been confirmed. He just seems to continually do the big banksters agenda as well as some globalist elite agenda, turn on the printing presses and damn even any real economic common sense, no problem putting taxpayers on the hook. Seriously. There are a host of others, right now, in the Federal Reserve who truly would be doing a better job, it's obvious. Bernanke goes to Congress over and over and we get this mealy mouthed (I'm going to do whatever the banksters want me to) kind of mentality where I would swear his background would be a work record at Goldman Sachs instead of Princeton.
I suggest reading Paulson's book for it becomes so clear just a few guys decided the end of the world was happening and it's also clear their end of the world was the DOW crashing and stocks tanking. I mean it's not a macro economic or international economic world view to declare Armageddon. I'll still reading it but I get the impression it's just these few people taking billions and billions and just kind of using dollar bills to plug up holes in a dam, no consideration what the leak in that damn even meant beyond "Oh God, Goldman Sachs might be hurt" or "the dow is crashing", at least so far that's my impression.
I liked Ron Paul asking "is the United States supposed to bail out the globe"? There is more than one policy going on or proposed that has the U.S. taxpayer/national body being held responsible for some global agenda, pouring our money at the rest of the globe with nothing in return.
here's a thought. Here is the U.S. dumping that much money into the IMF. Then, the IMF seems to demand that workers get royally screwed and social safety nets obliterated in order to get help. So....
is that what U.S. taxpayer money is being used for....to wipe out other nation's social safety nets and middle classes?
was how Ron Paul kept asking the same question over and over again, "Where will the money come from?"
Ben kept dodging the question, until finally, at the end, Paul just flat out asked the question without any conditions, "Where will the money come from?"
Ben dodged the question again, except even more obviously than before, and you could here Paul laughing into the microphone as the video ended.
I saw a report link here that BoA is going to increase foreclosures 600% in 2010. Yet, supposedly before Congress, the claim is they will be open to principle reduction.
(you might use EP posts on these topics as references btw)
So these banks are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
It seems the game has been to get people to continue to pay, get just a little more money out of 'em, and also delay dumping more distressed properties at once onto the market, (what's the shadow inventory these days?) ...and it's all just a bunch of delay tactics.
It seems almost the agenda is to foreclose. I also hit upon something mentioned in the COP report, but I believe some blogger somewhere has gone into way more detail and it amounts to it's more profitable for banks to foreclose. I didn't follow through on it, but is that the situation here and now we have yet another profit agenda...
putting families out into the street because it makes more money? (anyone have some of those silent movies with the evil landlord throwing out the widow with her kids out into the street in the dead of winter?)
Look, this site isn't kindergarten and we need a hell of a lot more content in terms of detailed analytical posts. I primarily look for economic fiction, that's veiling policies which may say one thing but are actually another and that's because I do not want policies promoted that by any economic theory are going to hurt the U.S. as well as working America. That's the spin zone and the point of this site is to try to navigate through that, learn what's really going on and bring the facts to light as well as solutions that are plausible.
So, I personally would appreciate it if people fostered legitimate discussions on the topic at hand, with well sourced facts that aren't from some lobbyist spin machine.
he's not saying a tantrum and you're over reacting but the point is these comments are devoid of facts and statistics. I don't even know what anyone is arguing about.
So, consider EP to be like a classroom or a business meeting and write accordingly. If you wouldn't say it to your Grandmother, it's probably not appropriate to this site, including continuing on a non-issue non-issue whatever this is thing. Drop it.
"There is nothing wrong with your refusal to adopt the dominant habits here ..."
My, I'm relieved to have your approval, son.
Perhaps you'd want to offer us your reasons for having given it.
"I could call you names too, but I choose not to."
Yeah, I noticed that. What was the expression you used, "pretty damn useless"?
Let me explain something to you in plain English, chief. Here's my "dominant habit". I put up with an abusive tone from someone exactly once. And I put up with it exactly once whether its delivered to me in private e-mail through the site or here in the comments area. I'm not here to satisfy your arrogant demands for answers and the sooner you come to terms with that the happier you're likely to be, capische? The next one of these tantrums I get from you goes to Robert Oak and he can make a decision as to whether he'd want me to continue commenting here, its just that simple. I mean, do I need you? Not really.
I watched some of that the other day. These people had clear cases of fraud ongoing and with knowledge of it under their watch.
My question where is the FBI on this same issue?
I'll know Wall Street is being treated properly when the criminal RICO Act is rolled out to clean it all up. They pay civil fines and the reasoning is that an investigation would be too costly and they may not get convictions. Thats complete BS. The RICO Act can convict anyone on slim evidence thats why it was created. They only want to use it selectively on 'real' criminals not people stealing billions and causing the collapse of the world economy - those people are upstanding citizens wearing suits. If you wear a suit to work in the US you can steal with impunity. Thats been proven aside from the occasional sacrificial lamb.
ya all need to read the FAQ in the about section. The point of EP is discuss and learn about economics, policy details and what that actually really implies. The rules are when in doubt, use a calculator. That means one should try to ferret out the details and that is a group effort, no doubt about it. But just getting into the typical comment world of "other sites", I hope and try to make sure that happens here.
There is so much BS out there, critically important to America's pocket book, the key is to focus on that and start researching out the details as well as what can we do about it.
Take financial reform, right now we have the usual war going on with out the facts! The entire resolution authority stuff is a disaster but when it comes to breaking up the big banks, period or say break up commercial from investment banking or anything known to work, those solutions are now getting buried alive in the non-debate debate....just like health care.
So can we please learn the facts, the details, and that's from each other instead of whatever this latest brew is?
Realize there is BS everywhere, from the most liberal think tank to the most conservative and including Academia...that's why it's so difficult to understand what policy has what effect and frankly to understand that, one really has to get their head around a lot of theory, statistics and details. You just cannot jump on some political philosophy or lobbyist group bandwagon because superficially "it sounds good".
...and pretty damn useless, if people just gave their opinions without giving reasons for them. You have your opinion(s) and I have mine. What would be the point? But the reasoning, data, and justifications give others food for thought, allowing others to learn something from the whole process, whether they are convinced or not. There is nothing wrong with your refusal to adopt the dominant habits here (of explaining and justifying), but why even share the opinion then? I could call you names too, but I choose not to.
The accepted or pat answer is wage-price spirals and too much money supply. But is it really? We had oil dramatically rise in price plus the embargo plus the end of Bretton Woods. I haven't studied the 1970's enough to really get a solid handle on it (unlike the 1930's, 1950's).
The pat answer on solutions was Volcker raising interest rates, but unemployment also soars, the economy hit a deep recession so, then you have less demand, an economy not operating at full capacity, so what does that mean?
Frankly, I'm long past the point in life that I feel it necessary to justify an opinion or explain myself to anyone but God, Steve. Its enough that I have the opinion. And how that fact might strike another human being is a matter of the most monumental insignificance to me, truthfully. Perhaps one day, you'll feel a similar comfort with yourself. We certainly can hope that you do, eh?
Can you give us an evaluation of how likely it is that Goldman Sachs will even notice this in any significant way? I mean, is it the kind of thing that'll end with a settlement and get reported on page A-43, or the kind of thing that'll stay in the news and end up costing Goldman Sachs enough money to hurt? Inquiring (yet appallingly ignorant) minds want to know!
and that means loaded for bear with H-1B, L-1, other guest worker Visas and now this instant green card for anyone who gets anything labeled education (varies in requirements), focus on STEM, where we already have massive unemployment and displacement. Additionally even getting into college is very rough currently. The rejection rates are through the roof.
I'm fairly certain most of the country does not want the U.S. labor pool flooded with supply and I'm fairly certain most want Americans to be first in educational opportunities in the U.S. and folks, please do not post those spin papers trying to make the substitution variables set to zero. that just isn't reality by the statistics.
I watched a news report with some "immigrant" rights person claiming Arizona raids on human traffickers/smugglers was "discriminatory". (there was a big human trafficking ring bust yesterday). There is no sanity in this topic. These human traffickers charge $7,000 and up per person, often kidnap the people and extort more money from families, abuse them, treat them like cattle and cargo. How can anyone be for human trafficking? Seriously.
Cap & Trade is one of those topics which one would think will divide along party lines but my understanding on the details is it gives a new fictional trading market to Goldman Sachs. Billions expected to be made in trading credits. So while I'm fairly certain on this site at least most want environmental clean up, alt. energy, reduce global warming and so on, so far my understanding on Cap & Trade is they are using that general wish to of course get a bunch more $$ for a few "traders".
But on this post, the NBER, it is more of a science, which I like. This is taking a host of metrics and determining business cycles. The fact they wouldn't bow to pressure is a good sign to me the group has some ethics.
Wow, just loved all that you have written and taken the time to research. I would love to quote some of the passages because what you have to say is important for others to read.
but now the government has to accept it. But their strategy is to deny, deny, deny and to send pieces of propaganda out for the news to print and speak.
The gov is just willy-nilly throwing a $million here and a $billion there and crowing "we are doing this for you."
Meanwhile the "you" in the equation keep sinking lower and lower. They are actually going to revive the cap and trade. A Bill that even the President said would raise the energy cost of Americans.
I'm starting to wonder if they don't want to kill the small $$$-amounts remaining in our bank accounts.
...I didn't come up with the idea on my own. I first heard Rebel Capitalist talking about it.
The actual movement I believe was started by a union and promoted by the Huffington Post.
I agree, just move your money out of there but even better, I've just found better rates, services and so on from credit unions.
Good for you though! I think that move as a protest is a great one.
Move our banking business to sound community banks and credit unions. I terminated all my banking business with B of A yesterday, and when I told them why (sleazy abuse of power by the mega banks, such as helping Greece hide its debt, which wasn't B of A but one of the others, I know) eyes went wide like it was the first time they had heard of such a thing. Of course they remained completely courteous, being well-trained in that regard, and I stressed that the things I was complaining about were happening well above their level. The branch manager, a young Asian, seemed interested in what I was saying, so I gave him this (EP) website - even wrote it down at his request. He honestly gave me the impression he was hearing about this for the first time. Wider dissemination is key, but I don't know how to accomplish it.
I'm skimming through Hank Paulson's book and just ignoring the issue of the Fed itself, the secrecy, lack of accountability and all of those issues, I really think Bernanke should not have been confirmed. He just seems to continually do the big banksters agenda as well as some globalist elite agenda, turn on the printing presses and damn even any real economic common sense, no problem putting taxpayers on the hook. Seriously. There are a host of others, right now, in the Federal Reserve who truly would be doing a better job, it's obvious. Bernanke goes to Congress over and over and we get this mealy mouthed (I'm going to do whatever the banksters want me to) kind of mentality where I would swear his background would be a work record at Goldman Sachs instead of Princeton.
I suggest reading Paulson's book for it becomes so clear just a few guys decided the end of the world was happening and it's also clear their end of the world was the DOW crashing and stocks tanking. I mean it's not a macro economic or international economic world view to declare Armageddon. I'll still reading it but I get the impression it's just these few people taking billions and billions and just kind of using dollar bills to plug up holes in a dam, no consideration what the leak in that damn even meant beyond "Oh God, Goldman Sachs might be hurt" or "the dow is crashing", at least so far that's my impression.
I liked Ron Paul asking "is the United States supposed to bail out the globe"? There is more than one policy going on or proposed that has the U.S. taxpayer/national body being held responsible for some global agenda, pouring our money at the rest of the globe with nothing in return.
here's a thought. Here is the U.S. dumping that much money into the IMF. Then, the IMF seems to demand that workers get royally screwed and social safety nets obliterated in order to get help. So....
is that what U.S. taxpayer money is being used for....to wipe out other nation's social safety nets and middle classes?
was how Ron Paul kept asking the same question over and over again, "Where will the money come from?"
Ben kept dodging the question, until finally, at the end, Paul just flat out asked the question without any conditions, "Where will the money come from?"
Ben dodged the question again, except even more obviously than before, and you could here Paul laughing into the microphone as the video ended.
I saw a report link here that BoA is going to increase foreclosures 600% in 2010. Yet, supposedly before Congress, the claim is they will be open to principle reduction.
(you might use EP posts on these topics as references btw)
So these banks are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
It seems the game has been to get people to continue to pay, get just a little more money out of 'em, and also delay dumping more distressed properties at once onto the market, (what's the shadow inventory these days?) ...and it's all just a bunch of delay tactics.
It seems almost the agenda is to foreclose. I also hit upon something mentioned in the COP report, but I believe some blogger somewhere has gone into way more detail and it amounts to it's more profitable for banks to foreclose. I didn't follow through on it, but is that the situation here and now we have yet another profit agenda...
putting families out into the street because it makes more money? (anyone have some of those silent movies with the evil landlord throwing out the widow with her kids out into the street in the dead of winter?)
I'm out of here, Robert, and I won't be coming back. Remove my user name from your records.
Look, this site isn't kindergarten and we need a hell of a lot more content in terms of detailed analytical posts. I primarily look for economic fiction, that's veiling policies which may say one thing but are actually another and that's because I do not want policies promoted that by any economic theory are going to hurt the U.S. as well as working America. That's the spin zone and the point of this site is to try to navigate through that, learn what's really going on and bring the facts to light as well as solutions that are plausible.
So, I personally would appreciate it if people fostered legitimate discussions on the topic at hand, with well sourced facts that aren't from some lobbyist spin machine.
he's not saying a tantrum and you're over reacting but the point is these comments are devoid of facts and statistics. I don't even know what anyone is arguing about.
So, consider EP to be like a classroom or a business meeting and write accordingly. If you wouldn't say it to your Grandmother, it's probably not appropriate to this site, including continuing on a non-issue non-issue whatever this is thing. Drop it.
This is a must see and that nailing Bernanke on how we'll give money to the IMF while not doing anything about California is priceless.
Looks like Ron Paul noticed this little item too.
"There is nothing wrong with your refusal to adopt the dominant habits here ..."
My, I'm relieved to have your approval, son.
Perhaps you'd want to offer us your reasons for having given it.
"I could call you names too, but I choose not to."
Yeah, I noticed that. What was the expression you used, "pretty damn useless"?
Let me explain something to you in plain English, chief. Here's my "dominant habit". I put up with an abusive tone from someone exactly once. And I put up with it exactly once whether its delivered to me in private e-mail through the site or here in the comments area. I'm not here to satisfy your arrogant demands for answers and the sooner you come to terms with that the happier you're likely to be, capische? The next one of these tantrums I get from you goes to Robert Oak and he can make a decision as to whether he'd want me to continue commenting here, its just that simple. I mean, do I need you? Not really.
I watched some of that the other day. These people had clear cases of fraud ongoing and with knowledge of it under their watch.
My question where is the FBI on this same issue?
I'll know Wall Street is being treated properly when the criminal RICO Act is rolled out to clean it all up. They pay civil fines and the reasoning is that an investigation would be too costly and they may not get convictions. Thats complete BS. The RICO Act can convict anyone on slim evidence thats why it was created. They only want to use it selectively on 'real' criminals not people stealing billions and causing the collapse of the world economy - those people are upstanding citizens wearing suits. If you wear a suit to work in the US you can steal with impunity. Thats been proven aside from the occasional sacrificial lamb.
ya all need to read the FAQ in the about section. The point of EP is discuss and learn about economics, policy details and what that actually really implies. The rules are when in doubt, use a calculator. That means one should try to ferret out the details and that is a group effort, no doubt about it. But just getting into the typical comment world of "other sites", I hope and try to make sure that happens here.
There is so much BS out there, critically important to America's pocket book, the key is to focus on that and start researching out the details as well as what can we do about it.
Take financial reform, right now we have the usual war going on with out the facts! The entire resolution authority stuff is a disaster but when it comes to breaking up the big banks, period or say break up commercial from investment banking or anything known to work, those solutions are now getting buried alive in the non-debate debate....just like health care.
So can we please learn the facts, the details, and that's from each other instead of whatever this latest brew is?
Realize there is BS everywhere, from the most liberal think tank to the most conservative and including Academia...that's why it's so difficult to understand what policy has what effect and frankly to understand that, one really has to get their head around a lot of theory, statistics and details. You just cannot jump on some political philosophy or lobbyist group bandwagon because superficially "it sounds good".
...and pretty damn useless, if people just gave their opinions without giving reasons for them. You have your opinion(s) and I have mine. What would be the point? But the reasoning, data, and justifications give others food for thought, allowing others to learn something from the whole process, whether they are convinced or not. There is nothing wrong with your refusal to adopt the dominant habits here (of explaining and justifying), but why even share the opinion then? I could call you names too, but I choose not to.
The accepted or pat answer is wage-price spirals and too much money supply. But is it really? We had oil dramatically rise in price plus the embargo plus the end of Bretton Woods. I haven't studied the 1970's enough to really get a solid handle on it (unlike the 1930's, 1950's).
The pat answer on solutions was Volcker raising interest rates, but unemployment also soars, the economy hit a deep recession so, then you have less demand, an economy not operating at full capacity, so what does that mean?
Steven,
Frankly, I'm long past the point in life that I feel it necessary to justify an opinion or explain myself to anyone but God, Steve. Its enough that I have the opinion. And how that fact might strike another human being is a matter of the most monumental insignificance to me, truthfully. Perhaps one day, you'll feel a similar comfort with yourself. We certainly can hope that you do, eh?
Pages