|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| slothrop wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| CDS are a kind of insurance that can be traded and are used by banks as hedges. Unless you're a hedge fund manager or a high net worth individual, I doubt you'd be investing in them. |
pension funds invest in them. if you've got a pension, chances are, you've had a stake in them, even if you didn't buy them directely. |
Good point, although you may be overestimating how many pension funds are invested in them and of how many people, other than public sector employees, have an actual pension these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
Dearest Atwood, please calm yourslef, there's no point to all this carrying on. If you want to show mathematically how a government works its way out of a negative $75T+ hole please do so. It's been my pet project for 5yrs now and nobody has shown me how it can be done (using math).
| atwood wrote: |
| What are the expected cash flows of the U.S. Treasury? You can only guess. |
It's not some grand mystery dear fellow.
Expected cash flows are plugged into the model (the US Govt has forecasts and they are available) then you adjust those up/down by inputting various assumptions into said model (GDP growth rate, tax rate, increased/decreased expenses, interest rate on debt, etc). It's called a financial model, you run different scenarios because you don't know the cash flows exactly. But when you build a super optimistic sceanrio, and even in that sceanio the cash flows don't work...you know it's game over.
| atwood wrote: |
| If it were game over for the U.S., why would investors continue to pour money into U.S. Treasuries? Into U.S. stocks? Into the U.S. RE market? |
Why did investors keep buying into sub-prime? Why did they keep buying CDOs? Why are you asking me, I didn't.
| atwood wrote: |
| What do you know that all of them don't? |
See point above.
| atwood wrote: |
| You're a lifelong finance professional. So was the London whale. So were the guys at Lehman Bros. |
I wasn't one of the guys at Lehman Bros though.
| atwood wrote: |
| Anyway, if you're so bright, tell me when to start shorting U.S. Treasuries. |
The US Govt is hosed financially speaking, that doesn't mean you are going to be able to time the market. To know the math doesn't work is to understand finance 101, to time the market is to have a crystal ball. Let's be reasonable dammit. |
And yet for five years, while your financial models were predicting the opposite, the U.S. government has kept on trucking and the U.S. economy is improving.
Financial models have a great history, a history of being wrong. Of course when the total U.S. government debt is $20 trillion and not the $75 trillion you're starting with I'm not sure how your model would ever work.
As for market timing, that's where the rubber hits the road. If your model can't do that, if it can't make money, it ain't jack.
How can the deficit be brought to heel?
| Quote: |
The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton�s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.
Clinton�s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn�t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
If it is positive, that is nice.
If it is negative, that's not so nice.
If it is negative $75+ TRILLION dollars, such as the case of the US government, then it is game over. You can adjust the model any way you like, you can double GDP growth rate, you can raise taxes like crazy, you can cut government expenses in half, there is no way out of that hole. |
There is a way out of that hole. The first step is the federal and state governments defaulting on all debt. The second step is the legal abolition of usury and the termination of the Federal Reserve System. There's more after that, but we've already walked completely out of what is realistically possible given the temperament of the common American citizen and the politicians they elect, so we're stuck with national economic suicide being the prevailing orthodoxy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
If it is positive, that is nice.
If it is negative, that's not so nice.
If it is negative $75+ TRILLION dollars, such as the case of the US government, then it is game over. You can adjust the model any way you like, you can double GDP growth rate, you can raise taxes like crazy, you can cut government expenses in half, there is no way out of that hole. |
There is a way out of that hole. The first step is the federal and state governments defaulting on all debt. The second step is the legal abolition of usury and the termination of the Federal Reserve System. There's more after that, but we've already walked completely out of what is realistically possible given the temperament of the common American citizen and the politicians they elect, so we're stuck with national economic suicide being the prevailing orthodoxy. |
Defaulting on out debt is incredibly dangerous, as the US will never be able to borrow at low rates, since we'd never be trusted again. Also, since the US dollar is the global currency standard, and the dollar's value would take a nosedive, a default would trigger a global recession at least, with a good chance at being a depression.
There are several valid complaints about the fed, but to get rid of it entirely and not replace it is dangerous. A central bank is very important to a stable currency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
Defaulting on out debt is incredibly dangerous, as the US will never be able to borrow at low rates, since we'd never be trusted again. |
See? The American people are beyond saving here. It's no lack of solution that traps them, it's their own urge to feel "adult" by defending a system which predates upon them. This urge makes them say things like:
| akcrono wrote: |
| There are several valid complaints about the fed, but to get rid of it entirely and not replace it is dangerous. A central bank is very important to a stable currency. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So how is that wrong? How is defaulting a better option than not defaulting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| So how is that wrong? How is defaulting a better option than not defaulting? |
Look at Fox's avatar, not to mention his handle, and you'll realize you're not going to get a reasonable answer from her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beeyee
Joined: 29 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| A central bank is very important to a stable currency. |
Oh man, thanks so much for that!
Edit: Wait, maybe I am doing you a disservice. A central bank run by a democratically elected government or a run for profit private foreign bank accountable to no one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| So how is that wrong? How is defaulting a better option than not defaulting? |
Well, Atwood says you aren't going to get a reasonable answer from me, and I'd hate to prove the poor fellow wrong, so I'll tell you what. Instead of giving you an answer, I'll reformulate your question, and maybe you'll see the essence of my objection. You are asking me:
"Fox, why is it economically and morally wrong to forcibly confiscate an ever-increasing amount of the wealth created by productive, mostly middle and lower class citizens and hand it over to wealthy, non-productive, parasitic usurers?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| So how is that wrong? How is defaulting a better option than not defaulting? |
Well, Atwood says you aren't going to get a reasonable answer from me, and I'd hate to prove the poor fellow wrong, so I'll tell you what. Instead of giving you an answer, I'll reformulate your question, and maybe you'll see the essence of my objection. You are asking me:
"Fox, why is it economically and morally wrong to forcibly confiscate an ever-increasing amount of the wealth created by productive, mostly middle and lower class citizens and hand it over to wealthy, non-productive, parasitic usurers?" |
Thanks for proving my point! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| So how is that wrong? How is defaulting a better option than not defaulting? |
Well, Atwood says you aren't going to get a reasonable answer from me, and I'd hate to prove the poor fellow wrong, so I'll tell you what. Instead of giving you an answer, I'll reformulate your question, and maybe you'll see the essence of my objection. You are asking me:
"Fox, why is it economically and morally wrong to forcibly confiscate an ever-increasing amount of the wealth created by productive, mostly middle and lower class citizens and hand it over to wealthy, non-productive, parasitic usurers?" |
Because it will have a SEVERE impact on future investment.
Besides, that's not reformulating the question at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Beeyee wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| A central bank is very important to a stable currency. |
Oh man, thanks so much for that!
Edit: Wait, maybe I am doing you a disservice. A central bank run by a democratically elected government or a run for profit private foreign bank accountable to no one? |
Both would fall under the title "a central bank". Notice how I have not said that I like the central bank we have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
Because it will have a SEVERE impact on future investment. |
The fact that you can't look at the world and recognize how completely dysfunctional it is to expect nations which have their own currency and the power to levy taxes to operate like for profit businesses and rely on "investment" to operate illustrates why this is pointless. I didn't enter this thread to have a chat with you, I've seen enough of your inanity torn apart on CE. I made a casual comment to KimchiNinja, and then mocked -- not responded to, mocked -- your uninvited and unwelcome response to me. I'm just not interested in hearing yet another ill-conceived defense of modern bankocracy.
| akcrono wrote: |
| Besides, that's not reformulating the question at all. |
Yes, it is. That is what you are supporting and defending: poor people being taxed to hand the money to rich people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
Because it will have a SEVERE impact on future investment. |
The fact that you can't look at the world and recognize how completely dysfunctional it is to expect nations which have their own currency and the power to levy taxes to operate like for profit businesses and rely on "investment" to operate illustrates why this is pointless. I didn't enter this thread to have a chat with you, I've seen enough of your inanity torn apart on CE. I made a casual comment to KimchiNinja, and then mocked -- not responded to, mocked -- your uninvited and unwelcome response to me. I'm just not interested in hearing yet another ill-conceived defense of modern bankocracy.
| akcrono wrote: |
| Besides, that's not reformulating the question at all. |
Yes, it is. That is what you are supporting and defending: poor people being taxed to hand the money to rich people. |
I see why atwood said what he said. You suggest a ridiculous solution that would cause far more harm than benefit, and then when I call you on it, you rephrase it as "poor people being taxed to hand the money to rich people." That's NOT what your answer solves. If you want to solve that problem, you go with a more progressive tax, and more money in education and social programs. You said it would be a good idea to have a catastrophic depression. That would make things worse for the poor.
It's like a building is on fire, you want to blow up all the buildings in the neighborhood to prevent the fire from spreading, I say that's a terrible idea because it causes a lot of unnecessary damage, and you say that I must be pro-fire if I disagree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Weigookin74 wrote: |
Won declining in value to Canadian dollar over the past 5 years.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=KRWCAD=X&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Only wish it went back 6 or 7 years to see that the won really use to be worth something. Started slowly declining at the end of 2007 and then accelerating through 2008. By the end of 2008 until now, it's been up and down but averaging the same low dismal amount. |
Not only that, but jobs now are paying less while demanding more.
| Quote: |
Part time Position
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Working Time : afternoon
Hourly Pay : 23,000 won
Tax : 3.3 %
Class Size : Mini 1 ~ Max 5 students for SAT & AP (History)
Qualification : Bachelor's Degree ( from top ranking 20 univ. in US )
Please send your resume with not-retouched photo, copy of passport photo page and degree |
Unbelievable a part time job would require a degree from a top ranked U.S. university (the U.S. has the best universities in the world) while paying only 23,000 an hour. Just a few years ago, simply just being a Westerner with a pulse was enough to get double that for part time work.
OMG, I just saw also that ad says, "Please send your resume with not-retouched photo," so they are discriminating based on looks as well. They want someone who graduated from one of the best unis in the world...but that is not enough? Dashing good looks is a requisite too? Can they really get that for 23k an hour? So sickening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
