If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   So it's the Monday after sequester...what happened to all the doom, gloom, mayhem, and despair predicted by the White House? White House: Um, yeah, we might have been exaggerating a little. Still the Republicans' fault, though   (foxnews.com) divider line 72
    More: Obvious, Kentucky Republican, White House, Senate Republican Leader, Kelly Ayotte, wage earners, Gene Sperling, military sciences, Mitch McConnell  
•       •       •

768 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2013 at 8:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-04 08:31:04 AM
5 votes:
once again:

THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.
2013-03-04 08:58:35 AM
4 votes:

MattStafford: machodonkeywrestler: Yes, and people usually don't flaunt their ignorance.

Then just explain how I was wrong - if bond yields go up we'll be forced to seriously cut spending or print our way out of debt.  Both options result in lots of pain for the average person.


1. Bond situation is not even a fraction of Greece's
2. Entitlement programs do not approach the level of Greece
3. USA actually has a GDP comprised of something other than tourism and olive oil
4. You are comparing apples and rocks. The 2 situations are so dissimilar that it's a real stretch to even mention the 2 as a problem of the same order of magnitude. You should really research the actual situation more before you make these baseless comments.
2013-03-04 08:37:26 AM
4 votes:
THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.
2013-03-04 10:08:29 AM
3 votes:

MattStafford: MindStalker: Normally yes, but bond rates are at record lows because they are set low to encourage banks to loan and create a stimulative effect. Once other interest rates rebound and people start looking elsewhere to put their money, bond rates will be forced to rise.

You are assuming that the government has control over bond yields.  They don't, yields are set by the market.  Of course, they could simply print money and buy bonds to keep yields low, but that is a surefire recipe for disaster.


http://www.ehow.com/about_6828637_prime-interest-rate-effect-bonds.h tm l

Sorry, it appears that your economics degree missed this little tidbit.
2013-03-04 08:38:13 AM
3 votes:
THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.
2013-03-04 08:30:58 AM
3 votes:

IamKaiserSoze!!!: MattStafford: GoodyearPimp: For a glimpse of the future, let's check in with Greece.  Things are totally awesome there, right?

If we keep our current borrow and spend policy as is, we will look like Greece once our bond yields go up a bit.

But it will get us through a few more election cycles.

Just read that the OMB is projecting the highest US revenue ever for 2013, so obviously our debt problem is a result of not taxing enough.

Nancy, Harry and Barry. Can't make this shiate up.


Actually yeah, it is part of the problem. We had two, trillion dollar wars that one President left off the books for 8 years, and cut taxes at the same time.

But it's convenient for the right wing to forget that, which is why it needs to be constantly brought back up.
2013-03-04 08:04:54 AM
3 votes:
"Nobody ever suggested that this ... was going to have all its impact in the first few days," he told "NBC's "Meet the Press." "It is a slow grind."

Pretty much this. Even with all the doom-and-gloom, it should be somewhat obvious to anyone with intelligence that it wasn't going to happen overnight.  Same way if you lose your job, even if you have no savings, you don't find yourself in a box on the street corner the very next morning.
2013-03-04 10:28:10 AM
2 votes:

MattStafford: Stile4aly: When those higher yields come, they will apply to new debt, not the existing obligations.

You realize we issue serious amounts of debt all the time, right?  If yields ticked up today, we would face serious funding constraints.


Why? Usually when yields tick up we sell less of them as other investments become "safer"

How can one economist be  so wrong about everything in his field? I only took a few classes at university and I know more than you do.
2013-03-04 10:27:57 AM
2 votes:

s2s2s2: THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF GENE SPERLING HADN'T COME UP WITH IT!

FTFY

Guess where Gene works.


the sequester was created as part of a deal reached with congressional republicans when they threatened to refuse to raise the debt ceiling - which would have caused america to default on its debt obligations. if republicans had simply raised the debt ceiling - AS THEY HAD DOZENS OF TIMES BEFORE* - there would have been no sequester. this GOP brinksmanship, by the way, caused markets to tumble, the US to receive a credit downgrade and the economy to stall.

and let's not forget, the sequester itself was created as a penalty for the failure of the so-called "super-committee" to reach a budget deal. the super-committee that was mandated by the aforementioned agreement.

republicans refused to negotiate on taxes, so the deal wasn't reached. and therefore the sequester happened.

*before the black guy became president, that is
2013-03-04 09:34:42 AM
2 votes:

netcentric: Huh.... you would have thought the 7 minute meeting that Obama held Wed. prior to the sequester would have been enough 'negotiating'.

Come to think of it,   7 minutes for Obama at The Hill would be just about enough time for a photo-op

He must not be very serious about the economy or budget.


The budget isn't his job, you goddamn moron. It's the House's job. Y'know, the place filled with economically-retarded Republicans, that do nothing but try to push theocratic nonsense, fellate the 1%, repeal Obamacare and obstruct?
2013-03-04 09:27:10 AM
2 votes:
Sloth isn't upset by real things, but by the way people talk about them.  Furloughs aren't troublesome, but having first responders stand behind him while he talked about Furloughs was inexcusable.

Barack Hussein Obama had 40 first responders stand with him while he made that speech.  That is almost 4 tens and that is terrible.
2013-03-04 09:20:34 AM
2 votes:

MattStafford: BeesNuts: How many years do you think it will take before "bond yields returned to their historical average"?

I'll throw a month of TF on it if you're willing to nut up and actually make a prediction instead of this weak shiat. Over and over. With slightly different analogies attached.

The market can stay rational longer than you can stay solvent, as they say.  All I can tell you is where our actions are leading us, accurately predicting a time frame is far more difficult.  I'd say it is similar to climate change science.  Will you discount climate change science because people refuse to make predictions about when the change will happen, or after you look back on failed past predictions?  I can tell you where our actions will lead us, similar to climate change scientists explaining where our actions will lead us - when is an entirely different matter.


Translation:

No, I'm really just throwing shiat at the walls.  Also, let me make an analogy because I don't really have that excellent a grasp of macroeconomics.  Aren't I just the smartest?

Your steadfast insistence that an increase in bond yields will be our economic downfall is more interesting than the blanket insistence that "something is coming!", but it doesn't compare to climate science for a couple reasons.

1.  Climate science is based on observations.  The predictions are made based on real data.
and
2.  These predictions are validated by scientist around the world, also making observations.

I don't doubt that the bond market will go through some kind of alteration in the next decade or two.  Nor do I doubt that interest rates will rise, also in that time frame.  I struggle with the same thing I struggled with before the specific culprit of bond yields arose.   Coconuts.
2013-03-04 08:56:44 AM
2 votes:

MattStafford: machodonkeywrestler: Yes, and people usually don't flaunt their ignorance.

Then just explain how I was wrong - if bond yields go up we'll be forced to seriously cut spending or print our way out of debt.  Both options result in lots of pain for the average person.


IF our bond yields go up.  IF.  Which means our economy would have to be stronger.  Which means government revenue would grow, which means we should be able to stop borrowing and eventually pay down our debt, until this whole cycle repeats itself again.  Relax dude.
2013-03-04 08:42:31 AM
2 votes:

MattStafford: Was I wrong?  What would happen if bond yields returned to their historical average?  Obviously, we couldn't afford to borrow as much as we do, and would have forced austerity - very similar to what Greece is going through.  Oh - I forgot, our bond yields will stay historically low forever and the dollar will be the global reserve currency for a million more years.  Get your heads out the sand.


How many years do you think it will take before "bond yields returned to their historical average"?

I'll throw a month of TF on it if you're willing to nut up and actually make a prediction instead of this weak shiat.  Over and over.  With slightly different analogies attached.
2013-03-04 08:25:38 AM
2 votes:

MattStafford: GoodyearPimp: For a glimpse of the future, let's check in with Greece.  Things are totally awesome there, right?

If we keep our current borrow and spend policy as is, we will look like Greece once our bond yields go up a bit.


Bond yields are the new coconut economy.
2013-03-04 12:59:28 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Why would our economy have to be stronger for bond yields to go up?  In fact - that is the opposite of what would happen.  Why would you demand higher rates from a stronger economy?


Good lord.  I have my own deep misunderstanding of bond rates, based primarily on misapplication of sympathetic magic, and even I know these are probably the two stupidest questions ever asked on Fark.
2013-03-04 12:28:07 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Ishkur: Doesn't mean they'll stop either. The stupidity of your statement is in the implicit assertion that the past has absolutely no relevance to future events.

That's complete horseshiat. Where the fark do you come up with this crap!?

No, it doesn't mean they'll stop.  The fact that they stopped means they'll stop.

Me - China has stopped increasing their Treasury holdings.  This graph shows that for the past few years, their holdings have remained stable.

Him - If you draw a line of best fit starting from 2000, I would expect China to continue to increase their holdings at the same rate.

But yeah, side with him if it helps you sleep at night.


Guess what.  The fact that their holdings have remained stable means that they are still buying Treasuries because otherwise the level would decrease as their existing holdings reach maturity.  They are rolling over their holdings from year to year.
2013-03-04 12:14:39 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: I'm getting called out now for saying that, just because China used to buy large amounts of Treasuries, they won't necessarily buy large amounts of Treasuries in the future? Christ.


Doesn't mean they'll stop either. The stupidity of your statement is in the implicit assertion that the past has absolutely no relevance to future events.

That's complete horseshiat. Where the fark do you come up with this crap!?
2013-03-04 12:06:32 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Past actions are not an indicator of future actions.


Wait, did you just try to dispute inductive reasoning?

Wow. Just, wow. That's beyond the pale, even for you.
2013-03-04 12:04:45 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Flab: It's almost as if your graph answered the other question you had earlier. Look at who else is buying those T-bills: Europe and Canada.

Europe?  Broke as all fark, about to collapse into social unrest Europe?  We're going to rely on them to lend us money?  You guys are delusional.


You're looking at this entirely wrong. The question is not whether the US economy is going to do good or bad tomorrow, the question is whether the US economy is going to be relatively stable over the foreseeable future, in relationship to other world economies.

The fact that people still want to buy our debt shows that most people still consider the US to be a strong and stable market, relative to the rest of the world. It's a little macabre to think about it this way, but as long as we're just doing the best, even if we weren't doing as well as we were a year or five years ago, we're still in a pretty strong position.
2013-03-04 11:59:13 AM
1 votes:
2013-03-04 11:53:34 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Fubini: I like how your own graph contradicts what you're saying. Draw a best-fit line to project that trend for any reasonable timespan (i.e. not just 2011 and 2012) and what do you think you're going to see?

Past actions are not an indicator of future actions.


Wow. Remind me not to take advice from you in the future.

We do occasionally have cataclysmic events that cause the course of events to completely defy our experience, but to act like every moment in time is totally unconnected to the past is foolish.
2013-03-04 11:45:53 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: What not increasing their holdings might look like. You see how it increases steadily for a while, then levels off? Yeah.


It's almost as if your graph answered the other question you had earlier.  Look at who else is buying those T-bills: Europe and Canada.
2013-03-04 11:45:48 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: NateGrey: China remains the largest foreign creditor of the United States after it increased its holdings of US treasury bonds by $19.7 billion in December, data released by the US Treasury Department showed on Friday.Link

China loves the US dollar again as America roars back
Jin Zhongxia, head of the central bank's research institute, said America's energy revolution and export revival had shaken up the global landscape and would lead to a stronger dollar over time. "The dollar's global dominance will continue," he said.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x527]

What not increasing their holdings might look like.  You see how it increases steadily for a while, then levels off?  Yeah.


I like how your own graph contradicts what you're saying. Draw a best-fit line to project that trend for any reasonable timespan (i.e. not just 2011 and 2012) and what do you think you're going to see?
2013-03-04 11:45:40 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: NateGrey: China remains the largest foreign creditor of the United States after it increased its holdings of US treasury bonds by $19.7 billion in December, data released by the US Treasury Department showed on Friday.Link

China loves the US dollar again as America roars back
Jin Zhongxia, head of the central bank's research institute, said America's energy revolution and export revival had shaken up the global landscape and would lead to a stronger dollar over time. "The dollar's global dominance will continue," he said.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x527]

What not increasing their holdings might look like.  You see how it increases steadily for a while, then levels off?  Yeah.


lol Sept 2012. Seems legit.
2013-03-04 11:42:44 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Social Security is now running at a deficit, meaning they won't be buying any new Treasuries.


Just because they're issuing more checks than what they are collecting doesn't mean they don't still have money in the bank.

And what do you think SS is doing with the amount of money they have on hand?  Keeping it under their mattress, or investing it in something relatively safe?

MattStafford: I doubt there would be this much interest in gold if there weren't questions about the stability of the dollar.


Could it be that they see the current rise in price of gold as a short term gain possibility?  Why do you assume that the only possible scenario is that Central Banks have all decided that T bills stink, all of a sudden?

MattStafford: The Federal Reserve is already monetizing our Treasuries in order to keep yields low.


Again, you come to the wrong conclusion.  They are doing it to stimulate the economy.  Keeping bond rates low is only a side effect of a growing economy.
2013-03-04 11:40:16 AM
1 votes:
This is maybe not doom gloom and mayhem, but I walk by our state's official research library on my way to work, and they had posted notices that they're no longer doing business on Mondays. I don't know that's from the sequester for sure, but they weren't there last Friday.

What really incenses me is the trivialization of the cuts by the GOP, as though all that money had zero impact. It's not that it had no impact, it's just that THEY don't care because it doesn't impact them. It's the epitome of "I got mine, fark you" boiled down into social programs. I routinely see schoolchildren taking field trips to the aforementioned library, as well as a lot of college age kids and others who go there, who are all obviously getting something out of the institution.

Like I've said in other threads about the sequester- this money isn't coming out of organizations that are flush with cash, a lot of discretionary programs have already had deep cuts from the recession, and this is just taking more out. I know more than a few people who are getting furloughed directly as a consequence of the sequester- they're educators, social services people, and defense contractor people. I guess the GOP is content with just being 80% as good a country as we used to be.
2013-03-04 11:35:10 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Lusiphur: First, another investment mechanism needs to rise to the stability level of US bonds. Since no other nation is anywhere near being in a position to offer it's own bonds (either due to instability or due to not issuing enough bonds to satisfy demand), we're looking at a bond alternative. The only two seriously floated are gold and mixed currency baskets. Gold has both a supply and a volatility problem, as well as being impractical. Currency baskets both make amassing large reserves more complicated and costly, as well as being largely irrelevant so long as the US maintains economic hegemony and the dollar it's still seen as the standard currency.

Then certainly you would find it interesting all of the recent investment in gold by central banks?  China is buying record amounts.  Countries are verifying their reserves held in other countries.  I doubt there would be this much interest in gold if there weren't questions about the stability of the dollar.

Lusiphur: Second, the US needs to become seriously destabilized. Not 'omg deficit!' destabilized, but 'omg no one will finance our debt, and interest rates have already risen above inflation' destabilized. Yes, this is circular logic, but it's largely accurate, if a little simplistic. In order for bond yields to rise, bound yields need to have already risen.

The Federal Reserve is already monetizing our Treasuries in order to keep yields low.  Do you believe that is a sustainable practice?

Lusiphur: So, Matt, tell me what cataclysm is going to make China or the eurozone a safer place for long term investment than the US. Difficulty: every possible alternative has the same underlying structural problems we do, except larger in magnitude.

Everywhere has massive problems - globalization is a biatch.  But again, I would point to the massive gold purchases by central banks to see where we are headed.


Gold process have flattened. Large scale institutional buying would raise process significantly. Why are gold process not soaring higher?

At this point, i have to conclude that you are intentional making shiat up. No one can be that stupid.
2013-03-04 11:33:23 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.

Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

Greece?

Greece sells US bonds? No wonder their economy is so farked, they're not even servicing their own debt!

Its almost like you moved the goal posts on that one.  Greece is an economy whose rates dramatically increased due to perceived weakness in their economy.


 Greece's rates increased dramatically because they took advantage of their participation in the Eurozone to sell tremendous amounts of debt backed by the strength of the Euro despite the fact that the Greek economy couldn't support it.  When that debt began to default and Greece's banks collapsed, the Greeks could not rescue them without coordination from other EU partners unless they chose to exit the Euro (which would have been a catastrophe of its own accord).

In short, the fact that the EU uses a central currency without a central government creates a serious problem of moral hazard for those member states with weaker economies.  The US does not have that problem because our central bank and Federal government work in concert.   Rates will go up, certainly, but not in the dramatic fashion you suggest.
2013-03-04 11:32:12 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: So those who currently hold a VAST majority of the debt aren't currently buying new debt? What's your evidence for that?

Social Security is now running at a deficit, meaning they won't be buying any new Treasuries.  China has stopped increasing their Treasury holdings.  Both of these are facts.


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-01/18/content_16135181.htm

This article from a month and a half ago says that you are either an idiot or lying. Either way, i hope you don't actually invest, because i really don't feel like supporting you with food stamps when you loose everything.
2013-03-04 11:26:52 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: machodonkeywrestler: 1. Bond situation is not even a fraction of Greece's
2. Entitlement programs do not approach the level of Greece
3. USA actually has a GDP comprised of something other than tourism and olive oil
4. You are comparing apples and rocks. The 2 situations are so dissimilar that it's a real stretch to even mention the 2 as a problem of the same order of magnitude. You should really research the actual situation more before you make these baseless comments.

1 - What does that mean?  Are you suggesting that we would be able to afford an increase in bond yields?  I can assure you, we cannot.  A rise in yields to historical averages would be catastrophic.

2 - When you include the DoD as an elaborate jobs program (which is what it is) - our state welfare system is extremely large, and a period of time where it is difficult to finance our borrowing would result in serious cuts, which would ripple through the economy.

3 - The US GDP is 70% consumption, financed to a large extent via debt (both public and private).  The health care industry and the MIC are large components of our GDP, and both would take a severe hit were we unable to continue our current borrowing trends.

4 - The situation in Greece was that they borrowed large amounts of money to build a massive federal government.  They were able to do this because being in the Eurozone (and lying about their deficits) gave them lower rates than they otherwise should have had.  Bond yields went up, and they were no longer able to afford that massive federal government.  The situation in the US that we have borrowed large amounts of money to build a massive federal government.  We were able to do this for a variety of reasons - some artificial, some deserved, which have combined to give us extremely low bond yields (which we still have). The fundamental problem is the same - significant borrowing financed by low interest rates.  When those interest rates increase, problems abound.


Ok, I'm really sick of this shtick. Let's look at this from an economically sound perspective.

1. Bond yields are entirely a product of demand. So long as the majority of buyers accept a lower yield, it won't go up.

2. Demand for bonds is driven by a desire for safe and stable shelter investments.

Given those two underlying premises, in order for demand for us bonds to drop, and thus raise yields, both of the following conditions need to be met:

First, another investment mechanism needs to rise to the stability level of US bonds. Since no other nation is anywhere near being in a position to offer it's own bonds (either due to instability or due to not issuing enough bonds to satisfy demand), we're looking at a bond alternative. The only two seriously floated are gold and mixed currency baskets. Gold has both a supply and a volatility problem, as well as being impractical. Currency baskets both make amassing large reserves more complicated and costly, as well as being largely irrelevant so long as the US maintains economic hegemony and the dollar it's still seen as the standard currency.

Second, the US needs to become seriously destabilized. Not 'omg deficit!' destabilized, but 'omg no one will finance our debt, and interest rates have already risen above inflation' destabilized. Yes, this is circular logic, but it's largely accurate, if a little simplistic. In order for bond yields to rise, bound yields need to have already risen.

We've seen so far that us bonds appear very resistant to yields going up. They actually dropped, IIRC, after our credit reasoning went down, because as bad as it is here, it's still safer than investing in China, the Eurozone, India, and pretty much anywhere else.

So, Matt, tell me what cataclysm is going to make China or the eurozone a safer place for long term investment than the US. Difficulty: every possible alternative has the same underlying structural problems we do, except larger in magnitude.
2013-03-04 11:03:51 AM
1 votes:

Big Man On Campus: FlashHarry: once again:

THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.

There would be no sequester if Obama had used his supermajority properly and forced a budget resolution in his first 2 years in office. But he couldn't be bothered to properly lead then so I don't expect him to now.


Please remind us how long Obama had a "supermajority". Also please remind us how we could know at that time that the Republicans would commit economic treason in 2011, and why failure to account for that is the Democrats' fault. And, y'know, since recovering from recession requires short-term deficits, and thus the debt ceiling was going to have to be raised anyway, what you seem to be saying is that had Democrats run roughshod over Republicans (and I thank you for your admission that they did not), Republicans would have either been less likely to commit economic treason upon taking the slightest bit of power, or they would've continued to be a non-entity in Congress.

In other words, what you're saying is that we can only have nice things if Republicans are reduced to the most inconsequential minority in Congress possible.
I thank you and agree with your conclusions.
2013-03-04 10:59:58 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: LyingPieceofSh*t: cameroncrazy1984: LyingF*ckingTurdBlossom: I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.

Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

cameroncrazy1984: TrollingF*ckingAsshole: cameroncrazy1984: Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

Greece?

Greece sells US bonds? No wonder their economy is so farked, they're not even servicing their own debt!

Its almost like you moved the goal posts on that one.  Greece is an economy whose rates dramatically increased due to perceived weakness in their economy.

Yes Greece is exactly like the US. Do you wonder why people laugh at you?


His answers are on the level of "not even wrong." They're so bad, so false and so stupid they don't even qualify as wrong. He has to actually understand what he's talking about to even be wrong.
2013-03-04 10:55:45 AM
1 votes:

Big Man On Campus: FlashHarry: once again:

THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.

There would be no sequester if Obama had used his supermajority properly and forced a budget resolution in his first 2 years in office. But he couldn't be bothered to properly lead then so I don't expect him to now.


HOW DARE THE PRESIDENT NOT DO CONGRESS' JOB!!!
2013-03-04 10:55:32 AM
1 votes:
Austrian economists:

Predicting economic doom is just around the corner for nearly 50 years.
2013-03-04 10:54:43 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.

Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

Greece?

Greece sells US bonds? No wonder their economy is so farked, they're not even servicing their own debt!

Its almost like you moved the goal posts on that one.  Greece is an economy whose rates dramatically increased due to perceived weakness in their economy.


Oh, forgive me for assuming you'd want to be intellectually consistent for once. Greece's debt is a completely different animal from US debt due to several factors but most notably that the world reserve currency is the US dollar.
2013-03-04 10:51:35 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: http://www.ehow.com/about_6828637_prime-interest-rate-effect-bonds.h tm l

Sorry, it appears that your economics degree missed this little tidbit.

Its almost like you didn't read my post.  The Federal Reserve can print money and buy Treasuries, but in that capacity they are acting as a market participant - and buying new debt with freshly printed currency is an extremely dangerous practice, which, if continued, will surely lead to disaster.


You really believe this, don't you. Like, 100% think that this is completely true.

Again, please let me know where you got your economics degree from so that I can make sure I never accidentally take a class from that university. Because whatever you paid, it was too much.

Then go back to being a terrible quarterback.
2013-03-04 10:50:10 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: verbaltoxin: But...they haven't. So you're point is, as usual, "But bond yields!"

All your statements rely on "if" and yet you can't be bothered to predict anything.

I've made a ton of predictions - I'm only refusing to predict a time frame.  You're making the argument that bond yields will stay historically low in the near future.  I'm making the argument that they will not.

The reasons I believe bond yields will increase in the near future:  Central banks have been moving en masse to gold.  Our largest purchaser of treasuries, the SSTF, will no longer be increasing their holdings.  Our largest foreign purchaser of treasuries, China, will no longer be increasing their holdings.  Several of our other large foreign purchasers, particularly Europe and Japan, are not in position to increase their Treasury holdings.  The Federal Reserve is already monetizing a great deal of Treasuries in order to keep their yields down.

This all indicates to me that there will be a serious drop in demand for Treasuries in the near future, and the Federal Reserve will try to monetize the Treasuries to keep yields low.  This is obviously an unsustainable and short sighted practice.

So that is my argument - what is your argument about why yields will stay low in the future?  Who will be buying the bonds?


Hey look who's pretending I argued things I didn't! I didn't say yields would stay low in the future. I made no prediction whatsoever. I pointed out what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING. It's also known as "reality."

Quanlify "serious drop." Point out what that actually means. Look at what's actually happening around us. Look at real, macroeconomic indicators. Not the stuff you keep pretending.

Your argument on its face says, "DUH." Of course yields will rise, because demand will drop. I've already pointed out WHY to you a dozen times already. The "why" is what counts. You don't seem to understand it's not 2007 anymore. Unemployment is lower and tax revenue will grow this year. The US government, once it un-f*cks this sequester mess, is on track to pay down more debt in the near future. We're very slowly recovering. So what does that do to bond prices, Matthew? What happens when demand drops on bonds?What happens to the yields? What happens when a government has more revenue to pay down debt? Come on, you've only predicted it and I've only explained it numerous times now, what does that actually mean?
2013-03-04 10:44:03 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: NateGrey: lol You are kidding right? You never provide evidence. You simply make stupid statements and are called out on it. You are the guy who tried to use an isolated island as an analogy for the Economy? The same guy who tried to equate the US Budget to a Household Budget when even Rush Limbaugh says thats wrong? Absolutely and utterly stupid.

So was I wrong about China not increasing their holdings of Treasuries relative to their past purchases recently?  I can post the graph again that shows their Treasury holdings leveling off again, if that would help.  Am I wrong about China making massive investments in gold over the past few years?  Because I can source that.  Am I wrong about China making numerous bilateral trade agreements to bypass the dollar?  Sources on sources on sources for that?  What makes you think China will continue to buy large amounts of treasury debt when their actions indicate just the opposite?


You were wrong and embarrassed when you said that China was buying NO treasuries. Why are you so hung up on China anyway, someone else will step in.

Japan's purchases of U.S. Treasuries helped it overtake China last year as the largest foreign holder of American securities, including equities, asset-backed paper and U.S. government debt, U.S. Treasury Department figures show.


No one is disputing China is slowing down, but your speculation as to why is nonsensical and wrong like everything else you say.

Chinese buying of Treasuries has slowed due to the gradual appreciation in the yuan, with China not needing quite so many Treasuries to keep the currency fixed in place. Link

The good thing is the dumber the things you say, the easier it is for everyone to put your GED in Economics in place.
2013-03-04 10:43:57 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: NateGrey: lol You are kidding right? You never provide evidence. You simply make stupid statements and are called out on it. You are the guy who tried to use an isolated island as an analogy for the Economy? The same guy who tried to equate the US Budget to a Household Budget when even Rush Limbaugh says thats wrong? Absolutely and utterly stupid.

So was I wrong about China not increasing their holdings of Treasuries relative to their past purchases recently?  I can post the graph again that shows their Treasury holdings leveling off again, if that would help.


Please do.

  Am I wrong about China making massive investments in gold over the past few years?  Because I can source that.

Why don't you, then?

  Am I wrong about China making numerous bilateral trade agreements to bypass the dollar?
  Sources on sources on sources for that?


You are not wrong about China making bilateral agreements.  You are wrong about their motives to do so, though.

 What makes you think China will continue to buy large amounts of treasury debt when their actions indicate just the opposite?

Because the Chinese are not stupid and they will continue to buy stable bonds as part of their investment strategy.  For the foreseable future, US Treasury bonds are still a safe investment, and investors worldwide (which includes China) will continue to add them to their investment baskets.
2013-03-04 10:42:19 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: verbaltoxin: Holy f*cking sh*t, is it so hard to read the Investopedia link in my goddamned comment? It explains exactly what the relationship is between bond prices and yields in the economy. It's inverse. It's the exact situation we have RIGHT NOW: high bond prices and low yields, and a weakened economy that's slowly leaving a recession.

How hard is that to understand? Seriously.

I'm not talking about the relationship between yields and prices, I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.


I'm not "acting" anything. I literally explained what happens in the market. It's a phenomenon so well-understood, it's in every Investing 101 book everywhere. Which you seem to haven't read. I even explained WHY it happens. I did it in the most basic way possible, outside of using coconuts to analogize it. I also answered why yields could go up on bonds during a bad economy - which you also conveniently ignored.

It doesn't need reexplaining that US bonds are not Greek bonds. We're in no danger of reaching junk status. Greek bonds are cheap, but their yield is high due to RISK. Greek bonds are high risk due to their lack of industry, high unemployment, huge (Vastly huge per capita) debt, and inability to borrow cheaply. The US has high debt but we have ways to pay it off. Our bonds are also expensive with low yields. There's reasons for all this, but you, the pretend economist, have no way to explain that.
2013-03-04 10:37:46 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.


Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.
2013-03-04 10:34:17 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: DeaH: I live in a base town. Furloughs are scheduled to begin in April. If the Republicans want the cuts to be permanent, we'll see how happy their voters are come April.

Would you prefer a slow down in spending on that base now, or a complete shut down of that base at some point in the future?  Those are the options we are being presented with, and having politicians make the choice for the long term over the short term is impressive, even if unintentional.


Actually, I doubt Wright Patt would be one of the bases that closes at any time in the near future. I have no problem with cuts to military spending. It's indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts that are the problem. You are presenting a false choice. The real option would be to look at things that are not needed (live certain weapons systems the military has said it doesn't need), not cuts to everything. And it's not just slow spending now, or lose everything later. It's more like a punnet square where "Big Cuts During a Weak Economy" and "Big Cuts During a Strong Economy" are along one side and "Smart Cuts" and "Indiscriminate Cuts" are along the top. We are now in the Dumb Cuts/Big Cuts During a Weak Economy square.
2013-03-04 10:24:37 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: verbaltoxin: And thanks to cameroncrazy1984, people are now using e-how to disprove your idiocy. Begone, coconut lord. Next time it'll be Wikipedia itself. You know what, screw it. I'll see if I have an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader somewhere, and use something in there to disprove your bullcrap

This could be a fun game. What's the most basic fact that we can stump  MattStafford on using the most random of sources?


I say we just go to the same place he probably does, Zero Hedge, and use his own BS against him.
2013-03-04 10:23:30 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Intragovernment debt holdings currently stand at about $4.6T. Out of a total of about $16T

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the government buying all of our new debt?

Did you somehow miss the word new?  The fark is wrong with your reading comprehension?  And I know they aren't buying all of our new debt, but the Federal Reserve is monetizing a significant portion of it.


No one can have this little self-awareness, right?
2013-03-04 10:23:28 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: And I know they aren't buying all of our new debt, but the Federal Reserve is monetizing a significant portion of it.


And you're also wrong about that. Try and keep up. Those numbers are from Jan 2013.
2013-03-04 10:21:55 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: verbaltoxin: Bond prices drop in a good economy, because people tend to have more cash to put into stocks.

Ceteris paribus, you are making the argument that bond yields are positively correlated with the strength of an economy?  The stronger the economy, the higher the yields?


Holy f*cking sh*t, is it so hard to read the Investopedia link in my goddamned comment? It explains exactly what the relationship is between bond prices and yields in the economy. It's inverse. It's the exact situation we have RIGHT NOW: high bond prices and low yields, and a weakened economy that's slowly leaving a recession.

How hard is that to understand? Seriously.
2013-03-04 10:19:21 AM
1 votes:

verbaltoxin: And thanks to cameroncrazy1984, people are now using e-how to disprove your idiocy. Begone, coconut lord. Next time it'll be Wikipedia itself. You know what, screw it. I'll see if I have an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader somewhere, and use something in there to disprove your bullcrap


This could be a fun game. What's the most basic fact that we can stump  MattStafford on using the most random of sources?
2013-03-04 10:19:21 AM
1 votes:

Stile4aly: MattStafford: BeesNuts: I don't doubt that the bond market will go through some kind of alteration in the next decade or two. Nor do I doubt that interest rates will rise, also in that time frame. I struggle with the same thing I struggled with before the specific culprit of bond yields arose

There is evidence that demand for US Treasuries will be lower in the future than it is now.  Lower demand means higher yields.  The US cannot afford higher yields on its debt, and if subjected to higher yields, would face an extremely serious economic (and social) crisis.  What more do you need to understand that there is a serious problem with our current financial situation?

Of course there will be higher yields in the future.  We're at a record low because of a farking global economic collapse.  When those higher yields come, they will apply to new debt, not the existing obligations.Our current ability to borrow is practically at will and what's more the rates on our new debt are such that when inflation is taken into account we will end up paying a negative return in real dollars.  In short, this is not an immediate concern.  We can devise a tax structure that would allow us to do some borrowing now to pay for jobs to keep our roads and bridges from collapsing and still be able to pay that debt off in 30 years.


cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: http://www.ehow.com/about_6828637_prime-interest-rate-effect-bonds.h tm l

Sorry, it appears that your economics degree missed this little tidbit.

Its almost like you didn't read my post.  The Federal Reserve can print money and buy Treasuries, but in that capacity they are acting as a market participant - and buying new debt with freshly printed currency is an extremely dangerous practice, which, if continued, will surely lead to disaster.

It appears that you don't understand the Fed also can set the prime rate.


Just QFT'ing for coconut economists out there.
2013-03-04 10:14:21 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: BeesNuts: I don't doubt that the bond market will go through some kind of alteration in the next decade or two. Nor do I doubt that interest rates will rise, also in that time frame. I struggle with the same thing I struggled with before the specific culprit of bond yields arose

There is evidence that demand for US Treasuries will be lower in the future than it is now.  Lower demand means higher yields.  The US cannot afford higher yields on its debt, and if subjected to higher yields, would face an extremely serious economic (and social) crisis.  What more do you need to understand that there is a serious problem with our current financial situation?


Of course there will be higher yields in the future.  We're at a record low because of a farking global economic collapse.  When those higher yields come, they will apply to new debt, not the existing obligations.  Our current ability to borrow is practically at will and what's more the rates on our new debt are such that when inflation is taken into account we will end up paying a negative return in real dollars.  In short, this is not an immediate concern.  We can devise a tax structure that would allow us to do some borrowing now to pay for jobs to keep our roads and bridges from collapsing and still be able to pay that debt off in 30 years.
2013-03-04 10:11:04 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: China isn't even buying all of our new debt NOW.

Sure - The Federal Reserve is.  I'm sure you think that is a sustainable and smart practice, of course.

Intragovernment debt holdings currently stand at about $4.6T. Out of a total of about $16T

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the government buying all of our new debt?


Oh, and of THAT, the Fed owns about $1.66T
2013-03-04 10:10:23 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: China isn't even buying all of our new debt NOW.

Sure - The Federal Reserve is.  I'm sure you think that is a sustainable and smart practice, of course.


Intragovernment debt holdings currently stand at about $4.6T. Out of a total of about $16T

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the government buying all of our new debt?
2013-03-04 10:08:35 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Tomahawk513: IF our bond yields go up. IF. Which means our economy would have to be stronger. Which means government revenue would grow, which means we should be able to stop borrowing and eventually pay down our debt, until this whole cycle repeats itself again. Relax dude.

Why would our economy have to be stronger for bond yields to go up?  In fact - that is the opposite of what would happen.  Why would you demand higher rates from a stronger economy?


That sounds like a claim, maybe the makings of a prediction. Care to elaborate on that?

Why would you demand higher rates from a stronger economy?

Really? You don't know how bond prices and yields can change during a boom economy?

Oh that sure was hard info to find. Bond prices drop in a good economy, because people tend to have more cash to put into stocks. They're not as interested in parking their money in a bond at that point, because in general, the bond-selling institution has more revenue and is selling fewer bonds. They're actually making and doing sh*t worth investing into via stock. For the government, this means during a boom it's paying down debt due to increased revenue, thanks to higher tax rates, and citizens having more money to spend. So bond prices drop and yields go up. Its an inverse relationship. Hence right now where bonds are expensive and yields are crap. (Thank jebus I got into a TIPS fund when I did).

So not only have people pointed out you're wrong about your, "But the bond yields!" argument loop, they're now using Investopedia to show you don't know the basics of the goddamned stock market.

Coconuts.
2013-03-04 10:05:57 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: Raharu: [img7.imageshack.us image 800x800]

Yeah, that quote is outdated now.  If you have seen any of John Boehner's recent quotes, he has backtracked considerably from that.


So, he was wrong when he said that? Or is he wrong now?

It's so hard to keep up with the lies sometimes.
2013-03-04 10:05:40 AM
1 votes:
I already got an e-mail this morning from one of our big buyers that deals with DOD stuff.

Bottom line is DOD is no longer doing accelerated payments to this huge corporation, so they in turn will not be doing accelerated payments to its suppliers (like my small business).

/Economic ripple... what is that? *rolls eyes at GOP*
2013-03-04 10:00:39 AM
1 votes:

BeesNuts: MattStafford: BeesNuts: How many years do you think it will take before "bond yields returned to their historical average"?

I'll throw a month of TF on it if you're willing to nut up and actually make a prediction instead of this weak shiat. Over and over. With slightly different analogies attached.

The market can stay rational longer than you can stay solvent, as they say.  All I can tell you is where our actions are leading us, accurately predicting a time frame is far more difficult.  I'd say it is similar to climate change science.  Will you discount climate change science because people refuse to make predictions about when the change will happen, or after you look back on failed past predictions?  I can tell you where our actions will lead us, similar to climate change scientists explaining where our actions will lead us - when is an entirely different matter.

Translation:

No, I'm really just throwing shiat at the walls.  Also, let me make an analogy because I don't really have that excellent a grasp of macroeconomics.  Aren't I just the smartest?

Your steadfast insistence that an increase in bond yields will be our economic downfall is more interesting than the blanket insistence that "something is coming!", but it doesn't compare to climate science for a couple reasons.

1.  Climate science is based on observations.  The predictions are made based on real data.
and
2.  These predictions are validated by scientist around the world, also making observations.

I don't doubt that the bond market will go through some kind of alteration in the next decade or two.  Nor do I doubt that interest rates will rise, also in that time frame.  I struggle with the same thing I struggled with before the specific culprit of bond yields arose.   Coconuts.


His whole thing is that he lies about having an economics degree and then says stupid stuff. Just sayin'.
2013-03-04 09:57:41 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Tomahawk513: IF our bond yields go up. IF. Which means our economy would have to be stronger. Which means government revenue would grow, which means we should be able to stop borrowing and eventually pay down our debt, until this whole cycle repeats itself again. Relax dude.

Why would our economy have to be stronger for bond yields to go up?  In fact - that is the opposite of what would happen.  Why would you demand higher rates from a stronger economy?


Normally yes, but bond rates are at record lows because they are set low to encourage banks to loan and create a stimulative effect. Once other interest rates rebound and people start looking elsewhere to put their money, bond rates will be forced to rise.
2013-03-04 09:54:31 AM
1 votes:
Welcome back to 1996 Republicans! You gonna get a box of rape rape in 2014!
MFK
2013-03-04 09:15:41 AM
1 votes:
THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.
2013-03-04 09:10:46 AM
1 votes:
THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.
2013-03-04 09:09:12 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: So this is the thread where all the Farkers living in 'reality' selectively forget how they said this country would turn cataclysmic if we had sequester?

Let's back to February 19th, 2013:

F. Chuck Todd last night on MSNBC Nightly News. Brian Williams talked to him, and Brian Williams said, "What's gonna happen here, Chuck -- and, if it does happen, and if it's fixed, you wonder why people are so deeply angry and cynical and checked out of our politics?"

TODD: I can understand if viewers tonight think this is Chicken Little all over again: The president holding another event surrounded by people who could see, uhh, dire effects of a budget compromise. It feels like we've been through this before. "The sky is falling! What are we gonna do?" The president is testing the political limits of the public cynicism, which is, "How much are they gonna believe this? Are they gonna look up and say, 'How often are you gonna say this? I'm through listening to Washington."


What are you arguing here? Use your words.
2013-03-04 09:06:55 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: BeesNuts: How many years do you think it will take before "bond yields returned to their historical average"?

I'll throw a month of TF on it if you're willing to nut up and actually make a prediction instead of this weak shiat. Over and over. With slightly different analogies attached.

The market can stay rational longer than you can stay solvent, as they say.  All I can tell you is where our actions are leading us, accurately predicting a time frame is far more difficult.  I'd say it is similar to climate change science.  Will you discount climate change science because people refuse to make predictions about when the change will happen, or after you look back on failed past predictions?  I can tell you where our actions will lead us, similar to climate change scientists explaining where our actions will lead us - when is an entirely different matter.


They do make predictions in climatology. They also adjust those predictions in light of new evidence, which comes in from the field and has to be peer-reviewed. It's why climatology uses models to buttress its theory. The models shift overtime, gradually adding understanding to the theory.

The same happens in economics. You aren't an economist though. You just pretend to know things about it. So you stay in your specious gray area so nobody can nail you down to one thing or another, and you can keep braying your Von Mises Institute talking points over and over.

You keep asking people to answer questions you set up in the first place. So they do, and you ignore it and go back to the original question. I've lost track of the number of times "bond yields" have shown up in your posts. It keeps getting explained to you, but you blow it off and go back to it again, and whine that nobody answers you.

One more time, here we go:

IF our bond yields go up.  IF.  Which means our economy would have to be stronger.  Which means government revenue would grow, which means we should be able to stop borrowing and eventually pay down our debt, until this whole cycle repeats itself again.  Relax dude.

1. Bond situation is not even a fraction of Greece's
2. Entitlement programs do not approach the level of Greece
3. USA actually has a GDP comprised of something other than tourism and olive oil
4. You are comparing apples and rocks. The 2 situations are so dissimilar that it's a real stretch to even mention the 2 as a problem of the same order of magnitude. You should really research the actual situation more before you make these baseless comments.


Thanks to Tomahawk513 and machodonkeywrestler for summarizing better than I can.
2013-03-04 08:49:12 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: lordjupiter: They can sometimes actually see long-term, even if it is just biological impulse.

Funny coming from the "in the long run, we're all dead" side of the aisle.


Not sure if troll or just unaware of how stupid, but I've seen enough from you to know it doesn't matter.
2013-03-04 08:45:46 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Was I wrong?  What would happen if bond yields returned to their historical average?  Obviously, we couldn't afford to borrow as much as we do, and would have forced austerity - very similar to what Greece is going through.  Oh - I forgot, our bond yields will stay historically low forever and the dollar will be the global reserve currency for a million more years.  Get your heads out the sand.


Yes, and people usually don't flaunt their ignorance.
2013-03-04 08:45:45 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: GoodyearPimp: For a glimpse of the future, let's check in with Greece.  Things are totally awesome there, right?

If we keep our current borrow and spend policy as is, we will look like Greece once our bond yields go up a bit.


Only if about 1000 other random variables that separate us from Greece were suddenly magically true. But keep on repeating that right wing news talking point.
2013-03-04 08:35:07 AM
1 votes:

verbaltoxin: lordjupiter: Yakk: I learned this weekend that the president played Golf with Tiger Woods so the problems are non-existent. These are the types on insights you can only gain from watching FoxNews.

Kind of like years ago when they saw people in a shopping mall before Xmas, therefore "no recession".

Or, "It snowed a lot, so no global warming."



Cavepeople.  We're dealing with cavepeople.

At least animals have instincts that tell them when the superficial and dominant characteristics in their surroundings don't tell the entire story.  They don't sit on an egg for 5 minutes and think, "well, that didn't work".  They store nuts for the coming winter while food is plentiful.  They can sometimes actually see long-term, even if it is just biological impulse.  Fox Newzers lack such instincts in addition to the higher orders of reason that might approximate or compensate for them.

The show shouldn't be "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader", it should be "Are You Smarter Than A Squirrel?"
2013-03-04 08:28:10 AM
1 votes:
Furloughs haven't started yet.  Wait until the 800,000 federal employees get that 20% pay cut which will then get passed on to all the local businesses that they won't be spending money at anymore.
2013-03-04 08:18:51 AM
1 votes:

GoodyearPimp: For a glimpse of the future, let's check in with Greece.  Things are totally awesome there, right?


If we keep our current borrow and spend policy as is, we will look like Greece once our bond yields go up a bit.
2013-03-04 08:12:07 AM
1 votes:
So Uncle Sam goes into the hospital and asks Paul Krugman what's wrong with him. Krugman says "You have a fecalith lodged in your legislative system and severe media fatigue."

Uncle Sam wipes the sweat from his forehead and says "Well, at least I don't have a fecalith lodged in my legislative system."
2013-03-04 08:09:00 AM
1 votes:

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Relax, subby.  Teapartygeddon just takes a while to build up steam.


I'm giving it 15 days until, "No one saw this disaster coming!"
2013-03-04 08:05:03 AM
1 votes:
Bullshiat mountain just got a little bit taller.
MFK
2013-03-04 08:02:47 AM
1 votes:
STFU Fox News.
 
Displayed 72 of 72 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report