Hahahaha...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Jan 25, 2008 6:44 AM EDT |
I couldn't agree more. How about a couple more articles on this subject? Tax Rebates: Old Wine in Old Skins http://www.mises.org/story/2856 More Free Money! http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi80.html And on the subject of Shuttleworth, how about a little something on private space travel? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01... Edit: In case anyone is interested, decreasing the funds rate and going further into debt was not always how recessions were handled. In 1836, the money supply contracted ("deflation") by about 1/3, a value unmatched until the Great Depression, but with a very different result. http://www.mises.org/mp3/Pres/Pres11a.mp3 |
| NoDough Jan 25, 2008 6:53 AM EDT |
Am I the only one who finds it very odd for Shuttleworth to be publicly commenting on this? |
| dinotrac Jan 25, 2008 6:56 AM EDT |
Bob - You don't need to go that far back. Ronald Reagan's first term included the same kind of approach. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 25, 2008 7:25 AM EDT |
Dino, unfortunately, R.R. did not retract or repeal or reduce anything in terms of spending, which is being repeated now. What Carter had tried doing is borrowing in order to cover the deficits, which is why the prime rate went up to something like 18%. Reagan came in and stopped the borrowing, but only by printing more money. That's what happening again. What I wanted to point out is that recessions haven't always been met by simply making the money worth less (even if there is more of it, which goes hand in hand), with very different results than people are seeing now. |
| dinotrac Jan 25, 2008 7:42 AM EDT |
>Dino, unfortunately, R.R. did not retract or repeal or reduce anything in terms of spending, which is being repeated now. I suppose you could give credit to Paul Volcker, but Fed Chairmen ultimately report to The Boss... Under Reagan, inflation was a top priority and controlling the money supply via high interest rates was the mechanism. |
| Abe Jan 25, 2008 9:37 AM EDT |
This thread might be going outside the TOS, but what the heck, it is the season for politics. The economic problems the country is in is mainly due to the out of this world government plans and decisions. The Iraq war is on the top of the list. If it wasn't for the war, we wouldn't have the high oil prices. If it wasn't for the high oil prices, we wouldn't have so many layoff especially in the car industry. If it wasn't for the layoff in the car industry, we wouldn't have such a bad housing crisis. If it wasn't for the war, we wouldn't have such a huge deficient forcing us to borrow money from foreign countries increasing the debt to a record high. If it wasn't for the huge debt, the Dollar value wouldn't have reached record low. Low Dollar value doesn't mean much if we don't have much to export. We don't have much to export right now. A stimulus package doesn't do anything other than escalating the problem. the money being give the people as a stimulus will only help foreign economies since we import everything people buy. If it wasn't for the war, we would have used the Fed funds in taking care of health care, schools, infrastructure, etc. Diverting most of our funds to the war starved all other Gov. departments of desperately needed funds. Argh, it makes me sick. Why go on! you got the picture On the top of all that, the Gov. is relying on and trusting the "genius" economists who come up with a new theory every day to solve the economic problems. All what these economists are doing is using our economy to test their outrageous theories. That is what keeps digging the hole we are in deeper. Gov. has projects to accomplish for us, but it shouldn't spend money we don't have. Money needed by the Gov. comes from taxes and we shouldn't borrow money to spend unless we know we it will have a return to repay the debt. Industry and jobs are the main source for Gov. to get needed funds. Industry is what should be the primary focus. Our industry is in shamble. We already know we can't pay all this debt unless we have flourishing industries. We don't have that and it sure looks like we are not able to compete world wide unless we revolutionize the way we conduct our business. US companies are not interested in industries any more since it doesn't bring them as much money as the stock market would or investment in foreign countries does. There is nothing sure about the stock market and so we go round and round applying band aids to solve our economic problems I agree with Ron Paul, if it wasn't for the Iraq war, we wouldn't be in such an massive mess. We need a new president, congress and senate to turn things up side down. We need to stop the war and a Marshall plan to build our industries. We need different decision makers with out of the box thinking to lead this effort and make good plans. Albert Einstein: We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. Things will be touch, but it can be done. People are going to have to make less money for a while, give up on some luxuries, sacrifice some, contribute in the effort to rebuild a new system that can compete with the rest of the world. If we don't, it sure looks like we are heading into an abyss or problems. |
| NoDough Jan 25, 2008 9:45 AM EDT |
Bob, I agree. That was way off topic and probably way outside the TOS. |
| tuxchick Jan 25, 2008 9:57 AM EDT |
nodough, it does seem weird for shuttleworth to comment on this, especially since he's South African. But what the heck, could be he's right. It's not like he could be any lamer than the people making the decisions. |
| alc Jan 25, 2008 10:15 AM EDT |
For anyone interested in economics, I'd recommend The Creature from Jekyll Island by Edward Griffin.Lots of good stuff to keep you awake at night. |
| NoDough Jan 25, 2008 10:27 AM EDT |
>> could be he's right Yeah, could be. The interest rates for long-term debt are pretty close to bottomed out anyway. So fed rate cuts probably aren't going to have a huge impact. The real question is whether the rate cuts will accelerate inflation. Of course, inflation was inevitable anyway as you cannot increase the cost of transportation (fuel) by half without affecting the cost of goods. Still, it's weird to see a South African businessman commenting about it. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 25, 2008 10:41 AM EDT |
You hit it -- the weird part is that he lives in South Africa. I'm no economist, but what the country needs is a whole lot of foreign investment -- or at least that's what they tell me on NPR. Maybe Mr. Shuttleworth wants to open a big ol' Canonical branch right here in the States (if he hasn't already ...) |
| tuxchick Jan 25, 2008 10:55 AM EDT |
He did, Steven- it's called Dell :) |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 25, 2008 11:38 AM EDT |
> The real question is whether the rate cuts will accelerate inflation. Of course, inflation was inevitable anyway as you cannot increase the cost of transportation (fuel) by half without affecting the cost of goods. You are conflating two different meanings of the word "inflation". 1: an increase in the supply of money. This happens only because the FED prints, and prints, and prints. This is the primary reason behind #2. 2: a general increase in prices. Blaming "inflation" on particular things, like an increase in the price of oil, is just a snow-job by the people with their fingers on the printing presses. Indeed this rate cut is going to increase "inflation", because for every $1 printed (or otherwise put into circulation because of more borrowing at the lower rate) by the Fed, fractional reserve banking means $10 is going to get dumped into the general economy. But never fear, that won't happen until _after_ the people who printed the money get to use it, so the depreciation of the value of money is just another form of taxation. The the dollar has not lost 98% of its value because of the price of gasoline since the founding of the Federal Reserve. It has lost its value because there is all that much more numbers of dollars in circulation. If those who have been keeping US dollars out of circulation by using dollars as their reserve currency, such as China, ever decide to dump them in favor of something else, it will be 1923 all over again. Actually, by increasing the "price" of oil, lots of dollars are being taken _out_ of circulation, helping to disguise the reality of the inflation of the money supply that has been going on continuously since the founding of the Federal Reserve, and since 1972 at an ever increasing rate. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 25, 2008 12:35 PM EDT |
Question: Do you use your $600-$1,200 rebate check for the new Linux-equipped Dell laptop? And while we're at it, is Dell planning to support the upcoming Ubuntu 8.04 LTS release, or will it stick with 7.10 for awhile? |
| ColonelPanik Jan 25, 2008 12:46 PM EDT |
>>...it's weird to see a South African businessman commenting about it." Not at all weird, this thinking in terms of countries is so 500 years ago! Anyone from anywhere can and should speak to any issue that could effect them. And the usOFa is still big enough that if it borkes the whole economy at home, well for sure most other countries will be circling the drain just like us gringos. >>"South African businessman" The operative word there is "businessman". Business, money commerce, ECONOMY. Better him with his track record than the Colonel here who has just run off the tracks money wise. |
| azerthoth Jan 25, 2008 12:50 PM EDT |
This current situation can be tracked back further than the Iraq war, much further. It may be a factor but not the driving force. One of the major instabilities right now was in fact caused by the collapse of the tech bubble, which forced the fed into one of it's infamous bail outs. In slashing interest rates then and a weak housing market at the same time was the beginning of the current "housing bubble". Which in turn was exacerbated by 2 factors, poor lending practices by the banking and financial industries, and insane property speculation. We have been due for a market correction since well before 9/11, however since then the markets and the fed have been playing touchy feely. Every time the market seems a little shaky the fed props it up making the inevitable of a major and painful market correction even worse. Some can blame the cost of gas and associated assumptions on the problem, however if you ask any economist, when the correction happens (not if), the price of both oil and gas will fall as well. |
| montezuma Jan 25, 2008 1:11 PM EDT |
The move by the Fed was classical Keynesian manipulation. They are afraid of fear. Remember FDR: "We have nothing to fear except fear itself" There is always a strong psychological component to markets and this can drive large and sometimes catastrophic over-corrections of speculative bubbles. The crash of 1929 (which Keynes cut his teeth on) was like this and many classical economists at the time urged non-intervention which delayed ultimate recovery. So my view is that Shuttleworth is being rather too judgmental of the Fed. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 25, 2008 1:42 PM EDT |
> The crash of 1929 (which Keynes cut his teeth on) was like this and many classical economists at the time urged non-intervention which delayed ultimate recovery.
Bwahahaha! Non-intervention? The disaster was _caused_ by intervention, and the greater the intervention the worse it got. There was in fact the beginnings of a recovery in 1936 after the Supreme Court ruled many of FDRs massive interventions unconstitutional, but 1937 things got worse again because FDR used the threat to stack the Court with his own people to prevent many of the same programs from being declared unconstitutional again. The myth of "non-intervention" was created by Keynes and the other backers of FDR in order to discredit Hoover, while simply extending and expanding the same programs that Hoover had implemented (Smoot-Hawly tarriff anyone?) in the first place. > There is always a strong psychological component to markets and this can drive large and sometimes catastrophic over-corrections of speculative bubbles. Bubbles created in the first place by making credit cheaper than it would otherwise be, causing mal-investment and a "bubble", which has a crash when those mal-investments come due. The timing and degree certainly have emotional elements, but the bubbles/crashes themselves are caused by fiscal policies. Once a country goes on a fiat currency, the minor recessions during a commodity money standard pale in comparison. It took the creation of the Fed and a substantial portion of the world going off the gold standard before there could be such a thing as a world-wide "Great Depression". |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 25, 2008 1:47 PM EDT |
This is WAY outside the TOS and I am unsure how to bring it back inside of it. I do not want to just delete it without notice, but what can be done to reign the conversation in? |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 25, 2008 1:55 PM EDT |
> but what can be done to reign the conversation in? So, since the article is about economics, and an attack upon interventionist fiscal policies, what's left? Can we only talk about Shuttleworth? Gee, he has a long last name. Never tried his Ubuntu. Ok, I'm out of material. |
| dinotrac Jan 25, 2008 2:46 PM EDT |
Lets face it, Scott, the thread is actually on topic with the article. Sometimes you're screwed, sometimes you're royally screwed. |
| thenixedreport Jan 25, 2008 2:54 PM EDT |
Here's the thing. If the U.S. economy completely tanks, it will affect the entire world, so one shouldn't be surprised when Shuttleworth comments on the Fed cutting interest rates in the first place. This affects the value of the dollar on the world wide market. "For anyone interested in economics, I'd recommend The Creature from Jekyll Island by Edward Griffin.Lots of good stuff to keep you awake at night." Bullseye! Fiat currencies are debt-driven. The problem with a fiat system such as the Federal Reserve is that the assumption is made that the amount of debt won't be too high and can always be accounted for to the point that the economy stays alive. Sure, Shuttleworth may appear to be snooty because he was able to afford a ride in outer space. However, there is a question that needs to be asked: How many of these so called "experts" on TV millionaires themselves? Probably not very many. You see, the wealthy actually know how to invest. They are the true experts on retaining wealth in most circumstances, and I would listen to a millionaire before listening to Bernake. |
| azerthoth Jan 25, 2008 3:08 PM EDT |
So Bob, what exactly is a shuttle worth? |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 25, 2008 3:22 PM EDT |
Your funny, Like many I wonder why Mark of all people is making a comment on this, like this. What's his interest in this? edit: Your right dino, sometimes your just screwed.. LOL!! |
| jezuch Jan 25, 2008 3:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:it's weird to see a South African businessman commenting about it Maybe... But... Quoting:After going to school at Diocesan College, Shuttleworth obtained a Business Science degree in Finance and Information Systems at the University of Cape Town.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth I *think* a "Business Science degree in Finance" makes him kinda competent in this field... But maybe the important part is "South African" :) |
| jezuch Jan 25, 2008 3:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:What's his interest in this? Imagine you're rich like him. Any fluctuation in the market swing your fortune by millions. Doesn't that make you interested in the state of affairs? |
| hkwint Jan 25, 2008 4:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:Shuttleworth obtained a Business Science degree in Finance OK, here's my view; it's very simple (one of my shorter posts): American people buy things they can't afford, they can't pay it back, and they're in trouble. They can't lend more money, because they are not creditworthy. They make the rest of the world believe this is a problem for them too, and to end this problem, their government lends more money to give to the Americans who couldn't pay back their debts. Now the government can't pay back its debts either, and the situation becomes worse. However, the US-stock-indexes still go up so all looks fine, and therefore American people keep continue to buy things they can't afford. Forget about the war, oil and other crappy excuses, this is just the way it is, and you don't have to study Finance to understand it. Back on topic: Shuttleworth is right. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 25, 2008 4:40 PM EDT |
> what exactly is a shuttle worth? As a launch platform, it sucks. Low earth orbit is _boring_. The only mission yet that actually needed humans was to refit the Hubble. That's one. As a propaganda tool, it's somewhat valuable, but with the European and Japanese, soon Chinese, launch capabilities, it's lifetime in that regard is sorely limited. As a way of blocking private space efforts, it's invaluable. > American people buy things they can't afford, they can't pay it back, and they're in trouble. They can't lend more money, because they are not creditworthy. Indeed, this is part and parcel of the so-called "business cycle". It's not limited to businesses, especially since it's been building upon itself for nearly a century of overly-easy credit. Having artificially low interest rates changes the incentives of spending now verses spending later. Same with individuals, and then add in the awareness that if we don't spend the money today it will be worth less tomorrow, then it becomes a "rational" choice to spend as quickly as possible. Don't disregard how the effects of such things as the FDIC has warped the investment/savings over the entire country. Why invest wisely when any losses are covered regardless of why the loss occurs? |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 26, 2008 4:22 AM EDT |
Quoting:Low earth orbit is _boring_. Could be. But when I win the lottery (or prices come down enough) you bet I am going up there. Whether it's with SpaceShipTwo, SpaceShipSix, that japaneese space hotel or a Russian ICBM I don't care :-) |
| gus3 Jan 26, 2008 8:33 AM EDT |
Russian ICBM's are notorious for their rough landings. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 26, 2008 8:48 AM EDT |
Good thing then that the ICBM is only for going up. Going down would be with a Sojuz |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 26, 2008 11:53 AM EDT |
Oh! Cute conspiracy theory I heard: Mir was going to be purchased privately, so they had to knock it down. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 26, 2008 12:39 PM EDT |
I doubt that very much. If Russia could have sold it, it would have. It was old, too expensive to maintain and they really needed the money. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!