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 15
    More: Obvious, Kentucky Republican, White House, Senate Republican Leader, Kelly Ayotte, wage earners, Gene Sperling, military sciences, Mitch McConnell  
•       •       •

775 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 (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-04 08:25:38 AM
3 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 11:28:05 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-04 11:27:28 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: NateGrey: rlv.zcache.com

So was that a yes?  Or a refusal to answer the question?


www.flixya.com
2013-03-04 11:18:47 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: NateGrey: Is that what it is? You have trouble reading more than one line? You are a lost cause, I dont see why you need to lie about your education. From your writing it is very apparent. Back to ridiculing.

Japan, with their 230% debt to GDP ratio, is going to be buying our treasuries in significant enough quantities to keep yields down?


rlv.zcache.com
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 10:48:37 AM
1 votes:

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!
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 10:14:43 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: China entering into agreements to bypass the dollar is evidence

No, it isn't. You have yet to be able to provide evidence that they are entering these agreements "to bypass the dollar"


Evidence? Where he's going he doesn't need evidence.
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 09:27:10 AM
1 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
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.


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 09:20:21 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."


Or "The poor aren't really poor 'cuz they have refrigerators!"
2013-03-04 08:58:02 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.


Are... Are you saying that people on one "side of the aisle" won't die?
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."
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report