Schiff: The Real State of the Union 2013

[Yamato]

So you're agreeing that Hyper-inflation is hyperbole. And you're really just afraid that someday the sky will fall. Got it.

Hyperinflation (defined for our purposes as exponentially rising prices) is a concern that is proven to be caused by the inflation of money. The historical examples of this are undeniable. The time to worry about inflation is before it gets "hyper", whatever that means. Why does the sky have to fall? Poor people will suffer disproportionately as they already are. I don't think you seem to be aware of how energy, education, health care, and food prices have risen in this country in recent years. Don't get sick and wind up with a bill that the insurance didn't pay for, because then your agreement with me here will solidify quick.

[Yamato]

Everything you said is right, except you still fail to understand the depth that GM and other car mfg's linked their suppliers. Suppliers linked to Suppliers linked to suppliers. The chain goes for a considerable number of levels. These business depended on the level above for a large part of their business, You can say it was a poor model and it is. But you're joe businessman with product X. You sell a few and live modestly. Suddenly a supplier to GM wants millions. Your business takes off like a shot. You live high on the hog and employ zillions and expand. etc. This is not isolated. The automotive supplier chains are massive. It takes a bunch of parts to make a car. And believe it or not there a thousands of businesses that make just a few of those parts. And it's a huge, if not sole, part of their business. I worked with a place that made just the timing chain for one car. It had a huge plant, with many workers. And just one link in the chain.

Car makers don't just move a car model from one to another. You won't find a GM in a Ford. The parts are unique and specialized specs to each company. "contracts would not be given to anyone" that whole sector would disappear.

I don't disagree that this is wrong to not let GM go under. The problem is they were too big. And federal regulators should have broken them up to stop it. ATT was too big and it got broken up. GM was as well.

Too big to fail, yeah. Companies return from bankruptcy, they do it all the time. Shirking the laws of our land is a great moral hazard we're paying for today on many different levels.

If they're too big, the market would have taken care of that problem without immorally slapping the burden on the thighs of the young.

[ninjadude]

The time to worry about inflation is before it gets "hyper", whatever that means. Why does the sky have to fall?

good luck with that.

Poor people will suffer disproportionately as they already are. I don't think you seem to be aware of how energy, education, health care, and food prices have risen in this country in recent years.

really? you keep saying that and I keep giving you proof otherwise.

[ninjadude]

If they're too big, the market would have taken care of that problem without immorally slapping the burden on the thighs of the young.

how would the "market" take care of too big to fail? That almost never happens. And when does, the crash is horrendous. Enron comes to mind. The market encourages too big to fail. GOVERNMENT needs to break those up.

The United States antitrust laws were put in place by federal and state governments to regulate corporations. They are believed to be necessary for keeping companies from becoming too large and fixing prices, and also encourage competition so that consumers can receive quality products at reasonable prices. According to its proponents, these laws give businesses an equal opportunity to compete for market share. They believe, preventing monopolies ensures that consumer demand is met in a fair and balanced way. There are four sections that the laws focus on including agreements between competitors, contracts between buyers and sellers, mergers and monopolies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

[AsteroidX]

So you're agreeing that Hyper-inflation is hyperbole. And you're really just afraid that someday the sky will fall. Got it.

You said that somewhere.

[Einsteinium]

Too big to fail, yeah. Companies return from bankruptcy, they do it all the time. Shirking the laws of our land is a great moral hazard we're paying for today on many different levels.

If they're too big, the market would have taken care of that problem without immorally slapping the burden on the thighs of the young.

I hate to break your free market fantasy but the whole concept of being "too big to fail" is the fact that the Market CANNOT take care of the problem, specifically because they are too big. If the market could have taken care of the problem without causing economic catastrophe then the majority of economists would have recommended that they go through bankruptcy. In fact if the economy was booming then bankruptcy would not have been as big of a problem and may have been the solution. The fact of the matter is that the economy was so weak from the credit crisis at the time that most economists agreed that allowing GM to fail would have caused much too big of a shock to our already weakened economy. The risks and benefits were weighed and the decision was made that the path of least risk was for the Government to bail them out. Yes the taxpayers will end up with about a $7 billion loss for the GM bailout, but this will in no way be burdening the taxpayers, because the bank bailouts netted a decent profit, enough of a profit in fact, that it pays for the GM and Chrysler losses. In fact, the taxpayers actually end up with a modest profit when you add up all the numbers. So your argument is invalid.

I don't support our Government bailing out private companies, and I think that measures need to be taken to ensure that companies do not get so big that they can shock the entire economy if they fail. This is what government is supposed to do, but sadly there is so much lobbying power bought by these massive companies that politicians are too scared to mess with them. If we do not address the problem of companies that are too big, we will wind up right back in another crisis like what happened in 2008/2009 eventually.

Source: http://www.thedailyb...tors-stock.html

Edited February 21, 2013 by Einsteinium

[Yamato]

how would the "market" take care of too big to fail? That almost never happens. And when does, the crash is horrendous. Enron comes to mind. The market encourages too big to fail. GOVERNMENT needs to break those up.

https://en.wikipedia...s_antitrust_law

The market would take care of too big to fail by letting the failure of these companies take place. It's called Bankruptcy. Stop subverting it and acting ignorant.

Government needs to break what up? Shirking the law or violating the law, companies do not deserve to survive and that's what's happening in this soft-fascist state you are defending every day.

[Yamato]

good luck with that.

really? you keep saying that and I keep giving you proof otherwise.

Around and round we go again:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=242999&st=15#entry4666784

[Yamato]

I hate to break your free market fantasy but the whole concept of being "too big to fail" is the fact that the Market CANNOT take care of the problem, specifically because they are too big. If the market could have taken care of the problem without causing economic catastrophe then the majority of economists would have recommended that they go through bankruptcy. In fact if the economy was booming then bankruptcy would not have been as big of a problem and may have been the solution. The fact of the matter is that the economy was so weak from the credit crisis at the time that most economists agreed that allowing GM to fail would have caused much too big of a shock to our already weakened economy. The risks and benefits were weighed and the decision was made that the path of least risk was for the Government to bail them out. Yes the taxpayers will end up with about a $7 billion loss for the GM bailout, but this will in no way be burdening the taxpayers, because the bank bailouts netted a decent profit, enough of a profit in fact, that it pays for the GM and Chrysler losses. In fact, the taxpayers actually end up with a modest profit when you add up all the numbers. So your argument is invalid.

I don't support our Government bailing out private companies, and I think that measures need to be taken to ensure that companies do not get so big that they can shock the entire economy if they fail. This is what government is supposed to do, but sadly there is so much lobbying power bought by these massive companies that politicians are too scared to mess with them. If we do not address the problem of companies that are too big, we will wind up right back in another crisis like what happened in 2008/2009 eventually.

Source: http://www.thedailyb...tors-stock.html

It's not the government's job to run the economy. "Economic catastrophe" is just political hyperbole that has never been explained. It's rhetoric for swallowing the antidote. We'd have sunk into a deep recession, the big banksters and the crooks still working for them with raises and promotions today would have been dead and buried long ago and a real recovery would have already begun. Instead, we have this vile Keynesian poison that kicked the can down the road and didn't fix the fundamental problem with the system. The government needs to get the hell out of the way and let the people decide. You and me, you know, the market.

Natural monopolies, when they serve the market the most efficiently, are fine. We want maximum efficiency, not maximum waste.

[ninjadude]

It's not the government's job to run the economy.

in the US it is.

Article I, Section 8

Congress has the power to

- levy and collect taxes

- borrow money on the credit of the US

- regulate commerce

- establish bankruptcy laws

- coin and regulate money and its value

- establish penalties for counterfeiting money and securities

- establish copyright, patent, and trademark laws

- determine a budget for the US and appropriate funds for operations

- make treaties with other nations, which may include economic issues

- make any laws necessary for carrying out its duties and powers.

[AsteroidX]

in the US it is.

Article I, Section 8

Congress has the power to

- levy and collect taxes

- borrow money on the credit of the US

- regulate commerce

- establish bankruptcy laws

- coin and regulate money and its value

- establish penalties for counterfeiting money and securities

- establish copyright, patent, and trademark laws

- determine a budget for the US and appropriate funds for operations

- make treaties with other nations, which may include economic issues

- make any laws necessary for carrying out its duties and powers.

Good then when it falls apart we specifically know who to blame. Oh wait it already fell apart.

[Yamato]

in the US it is.

Article I, Section 8

Congress has the power to

- levy and collect taxes

- borrow money on the credit of the US

- regulate commerce

- establish bankruptcy laws

- coin and regulate money and its value

- establish penalties for counterfeiting money and securities

- establish copyright, patent, and trademark laws

- determine a budget for the US and appropriate funds for operations

- make treaties with other nations, which may include economic issues

- make any laws necessary for carrying out its duties and powers.

I consider this progress. Now don't subvert, disobey, defy or rhetorically ignore those powers anymore now that you've actually read them. The bailouts subvert our bankruptcy laws and you support the bailouts. You want even more federal spending and even more bailouts because bankruptcy suddenly isn't an option for this greedy selfish generation of gimme-gimmes and illegal gimmicks.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I support the idea of bailouts, just not designated recipients.

You know, a "mum and pop" store, looking down the barrel of insolvency getting a few thousand dollars VOILA no longer going to go bust.

[Frank Merton]

One of the biggest bailouts in the US is the fact that corporate taxes are levied on earnings, not revenues. This means that companies that are mismanaged and losing money pay no taxes, that companies that are highly profitable pay huge taxes. If mismanaged companies still had to pay taxes based on revenues, they would be removed from the system more quickly and therefore the economy would be more efficient. This system also leads to a race to find ways to hide earnings by inflating expenses, etc. Hiding revenues is not so easy. Finally, it creates a false value in such companies because of the possibility of tax-loss carry-forwards.

[Yamato]

Keeping interstate commerce regular isn't picking winners and losers. The federal government has no authority to avert the law. It's immoral and blatantly unfair. How dare these sweet-pumping suits save their favorite giganto-corporations from the same market forces that see the end of smaller businesses every day. Who do these sanctimonious sweethearts think they are? It's time to run 'em all out of Washington before they compromise what little respect for the law some of us still have left. Liberals love to pretend they're so intellectual but they're apparently not smart enough to run a business or know anything about being an employer and how difficult that is, much less how valuable it is to the country and the economy. Their rulebook is a great big "whatever", and it's usually whatever some two-faced liberal politician says he wants to do. Now they're cuddling in bed with their beloved bipartisan Corporatocracy. We can do far better than that in this country and if we want another 100 years of greatness we need to.

[Yamato]

One of the biggest bailouts in the US is the fact that corporate taxes are levied on earnings, not revenues. This means that companies that are mismanaged and losing money pay no taxes, that companies that are highly profitable pay huge taxes. If mismanaged companies still had to pay taxes based on revenues, they would be removed from the system more quickly and therefore the economy would be more efficient. This system also leads to a race to find ways to hide earnings by inflating expenses, etc. Hiding revenues is not so easy. Finally, it creates a false value in such companies because of the possibility of tax-loss carry-forwards.

It means more than just companies that are mismanaged. New companies in early stages of growth often take years before they can produce earnings. Your idea that will stifle new entrants to the marketplace and further entrench the largest most entrenched companies in their industries. That would cause predatory practices and market monopolization by the leverage the largest companies enjoy. They can easily survive without earnings for a few years while laying waste to every other market competitor on the field. It's a terrible idea for competition and innovation, it will cause more problems than it'll solve.

And taxes aren't bailouts. Bailouts are a misappropriation of funds. Taxes are legitimate but if we want a healthy growing economy, low taxes are not only important they're essential.

[ninjadude]

Good then when it falls apart we specifically know who to blame. Oh wait it already fell apart.

what fell apart?

[ninjadude]

I consider this progress. Now don't subvert, disobey, defy or rhetorically ignore those powers anymore now that you've actually read them. The bailouts subvert our bankruptcy laws and you support the bailouts. You want even more federal spending and even more bailouts because bankruptcy suddenly isn't an option for this greedy selfish generation of gimme-gimmes and illegal gimmicks.

congress passed the bailouts so no they don't subvert bankruptcy laws. I support "some" bailouts. One spends more in a down economy. I have not supported even more bailouts. You need to understand the words that you read.

[Yamato]

congress passed the bailouts so no they don't subvert bankruptcy laws.

You supported the bailouts in Obama's first term. You need not support "all" bailouts; accepting some was enough on principle.

Your premise doesn't support your conclusion. Making laws isn't mutually exclusive to breaking laws as the bailouts proved. Anytime you save a company from inevitable bankruptcy you are avoiding the bankruptcy and shirking the rule of law. That business should be done with someone's own money, not someone else's. Let the rich risk their own capital and lose it when they're wrong; don't be a shill for the establishment and bail the crooks out. Don't support Barack Obama when he does it. For hating capitalism so much you have an endless liberal appetite for cronyism and propping up corporations whose time had come.

Your diatribes against the market are senseless - when you don't even let the market work, you can't blame the market anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Marie. Pick one. There is no better substitute in the long run than the freedom and honesty of the free market. No utopian gang of liberal bureaucrats cutting backroom deals in their marble halls are smarter or more righteous than all of us. Let the People decide, dude.

We see this latest Congress is the most disappointing gang of louts in Congressional history after we read the polls. Reasoning with me that it's okay because the Congress said so isn't a winning argument.

[Yamato]

Sequester: A matter of National Security. A nation run on FEAR.

[Einsteinium]

You supported the bailouts in Obama's first term. You need not support "all" bailouts; accepting some was enough on principle.

Your premise doesn't support your conclusion. Making laws isn't mutually exclusive to breaking laws as the bailouts proved. Anytime you save a company from inevitable bankruptcy you are avoiding the bankruptcy and shirking the rule of law. That business should be done with someone's own money, not someone else's. Let the rich risk their own capital and lose it when they're wrong; don't be a shill for the establishment and bail the crooks out. Don't support Barack Obama when he does it. For hating capitalism so much you have an endless liberal appetite for cronyism and propping up corporations whose time had come.

Your diatribes against the market are senseless - when you don't even let the market work, you can't blame the market anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Marie. Pick one. There is no better substitute in the long run than the freedom and honesty of the free market. No utopian gang of liberal bureaucrats cutting backroom deals in their marble halls are smarter or more righteous than all of us. Let the People decide, dude.

We see this latest Congress is the most disappointing gang of louts in Congressional history after we read the polls. Reasoning with me that it's okay because the Congress said so isn't a winning argument.

Can you please back up your argument with some historical facts showing that the 'free market' more efficiently fixes recessions? Because historically, the opposite is true. Recessions are much, much deeper, and much more drawn out if the government does not intervene in some way. This historical fact, this nugget of economic truth, is why our current government steps in during recessions to mitigate the effect on the economy as a whole. The debate here should be about the best way government CAN intervene in the market to speed up economic recovery, not if they should. Because historically speaking, YES THEY SHOULD.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Einsteinium

[ninjadude]

You supported the bailouts in Obama's first term. Making laws isn't mutually exclusive to breaking laws as the bailouts proved. Anytime you save a company from inevitable bankruptcy you are avoiding the bankruptcy and shirking the rule of law.

no. no. no. and nada. I support some bailouts. The rest you've stated is just wrong.

[Yamato]

Can you please back up your argument with some historical facts showing that the 'free market' more efficiently fixes recessions? Because historically, the opposite is true. Recessions are much, much deeper, and much more drawn out if the government does not intervene in some way. This historical fact, this nugget of economic truth, is why our current government steps in during recessions to mitigate the effect on the economy as a whole. The debate here should be about the best way government CAN intervene in the market to speed up economic recovery, not if they should. Because historically speaking, YES THEY SHOULD.

Every recession we had is an historical fact. They occur approximately every four years. We recovered from them all with no quantitative easing. This immoral generation of greed mongers needs to be put in their place. Government can speed up an economic recovery by getting out of the way and letting the natural free market forces figure out who stays and who goes. Pet politicians pouring the money down the holes they prefer is a horrid way to run an economy. Where do you get such trust in these irresponsible liars?

[Yamato]

no. no. no. and nada. I support some bailouts. The rest you've stated is just wrong.

Please refer me to this great post where you've explained why you're against Obama's bailouts. And if you can't do that, then no I'm not psychic, and can only go by what you post here.

[Einsteinium]

Every recession we had is an historical fact. They occur approximately every four years. We recovered from them all with no quantitative easing. This immoral generation of greed mongers needs to be put in their place. Government can speed up an economic recovery by getting out of the way and letting the natural free market forces figure out who stays and who goes. Pet politicians pouring the money down the holes they prefer is a horrid way to run an economy. Where do you get such trust in these irresponsible liars?

"The average duration of the 11 recessions between 1945 and 2001 is 10 months, compared to 18 months for recessions between 1919 and 1945, and 22 months for recessions from 1854 to 1919" - Source

Notice how recessions have decreased in length in modern times as compared to 100 years ago. Indeed, they are about half as long, and most agree they are less severe. Notice that in the era's when non-interventionist-very 'free-market, let the market take care of itself' type thinking was the standard, that recessions were indeed longer and indeed more severe. This is historical evidence that non-interventionist policies actually prolong recessions.

" This has prompted some economists to declare that the business cycle has become less severe.^[7] Factors that may have contributed to this moderation include the creation of a central bank and lender of last resort, like theFederal Reserve System in 1913, the establishment of deposit insurance in the form of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933, increased regulation of the banking sector, the adoption of interventionist Keynesian economics, and the increase in automatic stabilizers in the form of government programs (unemployment insurance, social security, and later Medicare and Medicaid)." (same source as above)

However, not all economists agree, and it is complicated to say the least. But there is no solid historical evidence that I have found or heard of that backs up your assertion that simply "getting out of the way" is the best action government can take during recession. Prevailing economic theory is that Government should spend at a deficit, should use stimulus, and prevailing economic theory also states that stimulus gets you 'more bang for the buck' than tax cuts do. I am simply stating what the prevailing economic theory is. I am not an economist, but I have taken several University Economics courses and that is why I know what the prevailing theories are. If you really want to dig into the data that these economic theories are substantiated by then good luck! Conservatives tend to take an overly simplistic view of the economy and often fail to recognize how complex the global economic system has become when arguing for non-interventionist economic policy. This debate has been raging for literally hundreds of years and I suspect will continue to rage for as long as capitalism and 'free market' systems are in existence.