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.

(The New York Times)   When the money runs out: Stephen King releases a new horror story   (nytimes.com) divider line 40
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

3703 clicks; posted to Business » on 08 Oct 2013 at 7:12 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-08 07:25:16 AM
It blows my noodle that people still pay economists that aren't Keynesians for their opinions after the last half decade or so where Keynesians were right about everything and non-Keynesians like this ass were wrong about everything.
 
2013-10-08 07:28:03 AM

Gunther: It blows my noodle that people still pay economists that aren't Keynesians for their opinions after the last half decade or so where Keynesians were right about everything and non-Keynesians like this ass were wrong about everything.


What should the Kenyesians do now instead then?
Marathons?
 
2013-10-08 07:37:11 AM
Does this involve the Capitol becoming encased in an impenetrable dome where the representatives are forced to eat each other to survive?
 
2013-10-08 07:52:24 AM

Sybarite: Does this involve the Capitol becoming encased in an impenetrable dome where the representatives are forced to eat each other to survive?


I think most of us would support that at this point.
 
2013-10-08 08:02:36 AM

houginator: Sybarite: Does this involve the Capitol becoming encased in an impenetrable dome where the representatives are forced to eat each other to survive?

I think most of us would support that at this point.


Charge $300 to watch and we'll see the debt reduced drastically.
Hell, how about we do this for the elections. To hell with voting, fight to get the job.
 
2013-10-08 08:15:41 AM
Maybe I missed a memo: are we supposed to be listening to bankers again now? I'd rather not do that.
 
2013-10-08 08:36:42 AM
I'll steal money from bankers, otherwise I simply can't respect them.
 
2013-10-08 08:59:14 AM
Thought he'd be rolling (or continuing to roll) in the dough with Under the Dome?

*reads article*

OOOHHHH
 
2013-10-08 09:40:54 AM

i1089.photobucket.com

 
2013-10-08 11:22:38 AM

Gunther: It blows my noodle that people still pay economists that aren't Keynesians for their opinions after the last half decade or so where Keynesians were right about everything and non-Keynesians like this ass were wrong about everything.


How can you be so sure Keynesians were right?  Maybe both schools were wrong?

It seems like we are financing debt with unbelievably low interest right now, but if the interest rates spike at all we are hosed.  The fed can only keeps rates low for so long.  I only took 1 macro economics class in college, so my understanding is probably (hopefully) way off.
 
2013-10-08 11:29:28 AM

Brontes: Gunther: It blows my noodle that people still pay economists that aren't Keynesians for their opinions after the last half decade or so where Keynesians were right about everything and non-Keynesians like this ass were wrong about everything.

How can you be so sure Keynesians were right?  Maybe both schools were wrong?

It seems like we are financing debt with unbelievably low interest right now, but if the interest rates spike at all we are hosed.  The fed can only keeps rates low for so long.  I only took 1 macro economics class in college, so my understanding is probably (hopefully) way off.


The biggest problem is that we are not really following Keynesian policy in the US right now.  The Congress won't let us, so the Fed is doing the best it can.
 
2013-10-08 11:31:44 AM
wow yet another article that totally misses the mark.

the reason for slow groth in japan, europe and to a lesser degree america is because of one
simple reason. declining population.

how are we supposed to have a recovery in home prices when the biggest population group
is getting to the age where they will be selling their home and moving into retirement communitties, nursing home or the grave.

this is the sole reason for the economic collapse. as the boomers entered the high earning years they dumped their savings into the stock market and it boomed for 30yrs. now they are drawing out their savings and the market will tank

the fact is our whole economy and all of our social programs are structured such that it only works if every successive generation is larger

the economic fix is easy in america...immigration. everyone opposed to immigration is wrong. if we throw open the gates and let the world in our economy will boom again, it will boom like it never has before
 
2013-10-08 11:32:52 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Brontes: Gunther: It blows my noodle that people still pay economists that aren't Keynesians for their opinions after the last half decade or so where Keynesians were right about everything and non-Keynesians like this ass were wrong about everything.

How can you be so sure Keynesians were right?  Maybe both schools were wrong?

It seems like we are financing debt with unbelievably low interest right now, but if the interest rates spike at all we are hosed.  The fed can only keeps rates low for so long.  I only took 1 macro economics class in college, so my understanding is probably (hopefully) way off.

The biggest problem is that we are not really following Keynesian policy in the US right now.  The Congress won't let us, so the Fed is doing the best it can.


Is it because Keynes would argue we need to be spending more right now?  If Keynes were monarch, what would he do differently (besides gun down congress).
 
2013-10-08 11:42:25 AM
The Keynesians have brought us to edge of collapse. They've spent around 7 Trillion over the last 5 or so years putting us in debt spiral and Ben Bernanke prints up 85 billion a month and NO Progress has been made. How far must we go for the magic of Keynes to kick in? 20 Trillion in debt? 30 Trillion? 50?
 
2013-10-08 11:50:44 AM

houginator: Sybarite: Does this involve the Capitol becoming encased in an impenetrable dome where the representatives are forced to eat each other to survive?

I think most of us would support that at this point.


My support is conditional on a fully armed Robot Nixon being put in there with them.
 
2013-10-08 12:22:29 PM

Spare Me: The Keynesians have brought us to edge of collapse. They've spent around 7 Trillion over the last 5 or so years putting us in debt spiral and Ben Bernanke prints up 85 billion a month and NO Progress has been made. How far must we go for the magic of Keynes to kick in? 20 Trillion in debt? 30 Trillion? 50?


This. Thank you.
 
2013-10-08 12:51:55 PM
TFA:
That means a higher retirement age, more immigration to increase the working-age population, less borrowing from abroad, less reliance on monetary policy that creates unsustainable financial bubbles, a new social compact that doesn't cannibalize the young to feed the boomers, a tougher stance toward banks, a further opening of world trade and, over the medium term, a commitment to sustained deficit reduction.


Hm. No mention of increasing marginal tax rates for higher income brackets, nor higher capital gains rates.
 
2013-10-08 12:55:24 PM
There is no infinite growth on a finite world. Well, money is a mathematical construct so you can keep making bigger numbers show up, but trillion dollar bills usually don't buy much (look at Zimbabwe).

Real things require real resources and energy. Oil is at 3x-4x the cost it was during the bubble period, and demand from developed countries is increasing. At some point it becomes a zero sum game - infinite needs chasing finite resources.

It's not a mystery. Physical resources are finite. Growth that depends on consumption of finite resources (or renewable resources at a rate faster than they can be replenished) will at some point end and eventually reverse.
 
2013-10-08 01:32:04 PM
Why is it that economists and writers for magazines etc love love to make predictions but we don't hold them accountable to the slightest bit when they are way way off.

Nobody knows what the future holds. History is absurd enough that it is useless to try to predict the future with it.
 
2013-10-08 01:40:29 PM

adamatari: There is no infinite growth on a finite world. Well, money is a mathematical construct so you can keep making bigger numbers show up, but trillion dollar bills usually don't buy much (look at Zimbabwe).

Real things require real resources and energy. Oil is at 3x-4x the cost it was during the bubble period, and demand from developed countries is increasing. At some point it becomes a zero sum game - infinite needs chasing finite resources.

It's not a mystery. Physical resources are finite. Growth that depends on consumption of finite resources (or renewable resources at a rate faster than they can be replenished) will at some point end and eventually reverse.


Technology and freer markets can and do increase the overall standard of living for everybody continuously.

And, no, oil is not 3-4 times the cost it was during the bubble period.  That's completely wrong.  Oil prices right before the crash were higher than they are now.
 
2013-10-08 01:44:55 PM

One word: Kongbucks.



imageshack.us

 
2013-10-08 02:06:30 PM
keynesian economic policies are horrible.
 
2013-10-08 02:09:20 PM
keynesian economic policies are brilliant.
 
2013-10-08 02:54:36 PM
"When the money runs out"

The money is NOT running out. It's just going to fewer and fewer people.

aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com

See that? It's GDP per capita - constant dollars (2005 here) per person in the US. Even though, or perhaps because, our population is increasing, every year there are more dollars per person in economic activity. In theory we are ALL getting a little richer every year.

In practice we aren't, of course. There are indeed more and more dollars produced, but they aren't being shared.

But if they were, we could be continuing the middle class boom years of 1945-1975. We could still have free higher education. Average workers could still get lifetime pensions. SNAP could still be fully funded.

But anyway, it's a lie to say that the money is running out. Every day there's more and more of it being created, due to the hard work and creativity of the American workforce.

And Mitt Romney, the Waltons and Warren Buffet thank you very much for that.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-10-08 02:58:24 PM
Stephen D. King, chief economist at HSBC, is the author of "When the Money Runs Out: The End of Western Affluence."

Columns by newly published authors are intended to sell books, not to educate.
 
2013-10-08 03:03:46 PM

Geotpf: adamatari: There is no infinite growth on a finite world. Well, money is a mathematical construct so you can keep making bigger numbers show up, but trillion dollar bills usually don't buy much (look at Zimbabwe).

Real things require real resources and energy. Oil is at 3x-4x the cost it was during the bubble period, and demand from developed countries is increasing. At some point it becomes a zero sum game - infinite needs chasing finite resources.

It's not a mystery. Physical resources are finite. Growth that depends on consumption of finite resources (or renewable resources at a rate faster than they can be replenished) will at some point end and eventually reverse.

Technology and freer markets can and do increase the overall standard of living for everybody continuously.

And, no, oil is not 3-4 times the cost it was during the bubble period.  That's completely wrong.  Oil prices right before the crash were higher than they are now.


Meh.....depends on how you want to define bubble period or which bubble. Column on right is price adjusted for inflation. Ah the millennium.

1998    $11.91     $17.01
1999    $16.56     $23.08
2000    $27.39     $37.01
2001    $23.00     $30.25
2002    $22.81     $29.49
2003    $27.69     $35.05
2004    $37.66     $46.37
2005    $50.04     $59.59
2006    $58.30     $67.30
2007    $64.20     $71.94
2008    $91.48     $98.58
2009    $53.48     $57.92
2010    $71.21     $76.01
2011    $87.04     $90.08
2012    $86.46     $87.68
2013    $87.13     $87.52
 
2013-10-08 03:09:36 PM

Geotpf: adamatari: There is no infinite growth on a finite world. Well, money is a mathematical construct so you can keep making bigger numbers show up, but trillion dollar bills usually don't buy much (look at Zimbabwe).

Real things require real resources and energy. Oil is at 3x-4x the cost it was during the bubble period, and demand from developed countries is increasing. At some point it becomes a zero sum game - infinite needs chasing finite resources.

It's not a mystery. Physical resources are finite. Growth that depends on consumption of finite resources (or renewable resources at a rate faster than they can be replenished) will at some point end and eventually reverse.

Technology and freer markets can and do increase the overall standard of living for everybody continuously.

And, no, oil is not 3-4 times the cost it was during the bubble period.  That's completely wrong.  Oil prices right before the crash were higher than they are now.


Nice mantra there - "everything is getting better, there are no limits". Doesn't make it true. Does standard of living take into account high debt levels and millions on food stamps (still millions more than before the crash)? I'm sure those people have a rising standard of living!

As for the oil price spike, even accounting for that prices were lower as yearly average, and for all those years before 2008 prices were MUCH lower. Besides which, the fact that the economy crashed shortly after the price spoke only proves my point.
 
2013-10-08 08:30:23 PM

abb3w: TFA: That means a higher retirement age, more immigration to increase the working-age population, less borrowing from abroad, less reliance on monetary policy that creates unsustainable financial bubbles, a new social compact that doesn't cannibalize the young to feed the boomers, a tougher stance toward banks, a further opening of world trade and, over the medium term, a commitment to sustained deficit reduction.

Hm. No mention of increasing marginal tax rates for higher income brackets, nor higher capital gains rates.


As a person in an industry and region that entirely depends on venture capital, I merely ask that you let us get to Series A before you start spouting your crazy talk.

Besides, how much of our higher GINI is just better careers?  My uncle started as a mover living out of an unheated garage with a roommate, went to night school, and ended up bootstrapping himself into a HIGH muckity-muck position at Ford.  So now his executive pension is more than my salary, he has another job being a high-up muckity-muck at some other company, and he gets a free car for the rest of his life.  So he moved from the very bottom into the 2% by effort and luck.

Or heck, how does GINI account for cost of living?  I'm making twice as much as my father and he's WAY richer than me because 1) he functionally doesn't pay taxes thanks to being right on the bubble and 2)He's in MIchigan (1500 sq.ft. 3BR/1.5BA=$500/mo) and I'm in California (650 sq ft. 2BR/1BA=$2200/month).

I've never really been convinced that pursuing GINI for GINI's sake was a good idea.  If your other policies happen to lower GINI that's nice, but it's not a primary goal.
 
2013-10-08 08:51:35 PM

Spare Me: The Keynesians have brought us to edge of collapse. They've spent around 7 Trillion over the last 5 or so years putting us in debt spiral and Ben Bernanke prints up 85 billion a month and NO Progress has been made. How far must we go for the magic of Keynes to kick in? 20 Trillion in debt? 30 Trillion? 50?


OK, I'm going to put this as simply as I can for you.

The whole point is to spend during bad times (to shore up the economy) and save during good times.  Which we didn't do. Spending money in the aftermath of the GFC is fine, having two expensive wars and tax cuts going while times were good was not fine.
 
2013-10-08 08:52:09 PM

mr0x: Why is it that economists and writers for magazines etc love love to make predictions but we don't hold them accountable to the slightest bit when they are way way off.

Nobody knows what the future holds. History is absurd enough that it is useless to try to predict the future with it.


How would one ever hold them accountable?  They get paid to write just-so stories in two basic genres: comfort tales, and horror.  If you pay too much attention to them you'll go off the rails.

I've been watching experts predict doom of various sorts for quite a few decades now; things are worse than in the past in many unexpected ways, and better in some unexpected ways.  The only thing I remember that was dead-on correct long-term was an article in the Atlantic in 1984 that predicted an increasing future disparity in wealth and a slow wasting away of the middle class.
 
2013-10-08 09:16:46 PM
Wow there's some dumb shiat going down in this thread.
 
2013-10-08 09:48:36 PM
Well, that was a farking depressing read.
 
2013-10-08 11:23:31 PM
The only economist you dipshiats should be reading at this point is Marx. The class war is here.
 
2013-10-09 01:01:17 AM
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
My next book is going to be...uhhh..a lamp monster!  Grrrr!
 
2013-10-09 05:55:30 AM
This is exactly what appears in my head whenever the Fark economics threads start heading into bickering...

img.fark.net

/because I'm old
 
2013-10-09 06:27:46 AM

adamatari: It's not a mystery. Physical resources are finite. Growth that depends on consumption of finite resources (or renewable resources at a rate faster than they can be replenished) will at some point end and eventually reverse.


Wow this is stupid. So a 1980s walkman is more valuable than a modern iPod because it uses more resources? A tonne of soil sitting in your backyard is more valuable than a diamond because it has more carbon in it?

Physical resources are finite. But they are not consumed, they are converted into different forms, so this idea that at some point they will all be "gone" is very peculiar.

/except maybe Helium due to its unique nature
 
2013-10-09 10:56:01 AM

Gunther: It blows my noodle that people still pay economists that aren't Keynesians for their opinions after the last half decade or so where Keynesians were right about everything and non-Keynesians like this ass were wrong about everything.


As someone with a degree in economics and almost 2 decades of experience in finance I can't stop laughing at the ignorance of your statement.
 
2013-10-09 01:29:05 PM

Gunther: Spare Me: The Keynesians have brought us to edge of collapse. They've spent around 7 Trillion over the last 5 or so years putting us in debt spiral and Ben Bernanke prints up 85 billion a month and NO Progress has been made. How far must we go for the magic of Keynes to kick in? 20 Trillion in debt? 30 Trillion? 50?

OK, I'm going to put this as simply as I can for you.

The whole point is to spend during bad times (to shore up the economy) and save during good times.  Which we didn't do. Spending money in the aftermath of the GFC is fine, having two expensive wars and tax cuts going while times were good was not fine.


Yea, that is the theory. But no good times are coming after 7 Trillion in debt with a capital T. And there's no end in sight. That's why keynes doesn't work.The only thing keynes brings is government dependency and downward spiral.
 
2013-10-09 02:47:47 PM

Spare Me: The Keynesians have brought us to edge of collapse. They've spent around 7 Trillion over the last 5 or so years putting us in debt spiral and Ben Bernanke prints up 85 billion a month and NO Progress has been made. How far must we go for the magic of Keynes to kick in? 20 Trillion in debt? 30 Trillion? 50?


Aww aren't you precious. I mean you have an opinion and shiat, it's wrong, but still. You want to see the economy boom? Place a 20 percent tax a year on every one billion dollars in cash. Those mountains of cash that firms and individuals have been sitting on will suddenly flood back into the market as capital and investments.
 
2013-10-09 02:49:14 PM

xria: adamatari: It's not a mystery. Physical resources are finite. Growth that depends on consumption of finite resources (or renewable resources at a rate faster than they can be replenished) will at some point end and eventually reverse.

Wow this is stupid. So a 1980s walkman is more valuable than a modern iPod because it uses more resources? A tonne of soil sitting in your backyard is more valuable than a diamond because it has more carbon in it?

Physical resources are finite. But they are not consumed, they are converted into different forms, so this idea that at some point they will all be "gone" is very peculiar.

/except maybe Helium due to its unique nature


Meh, plenty of Helium on the moon, and we can make Helium from fusion. Helium is not going to run out.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report