Author Topic: Mainstream Economics Thread  (Read 11184 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2014, 12:41:42 PM »
Not very "mainstream" but we should talk about the labor participation rate!

inflation!  let's talk about inflation.

hmm. Not mainstream either. Hardly ever hear about it on CNBS, when in reality we're all much poorer since the start of the millennium!

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2014, 12:43:01 PM »
Not very "mainstream" but we should talk about the labor participation rate!

inflation!  let's talk about inflation.


Inflation has been low recently.  The US inflation rate currently sits at 1.6%.  The optimal level is around 2.5%, right?  What do we need to do to increase inflation, sys?

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 78882
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #52 on: February 27, 2014, 12:44:43 PM »
very little economics talk itt  :frown:

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #53 on: February 27, 2014, 12:45:08 PM »
Not very "mainstream" but we should talk about the labor participation rate!

inflation!  let's talk about inflation.


Inflation has been low recently.  The US inflation rate currently sits at 1.6%.  The optimal level is around 2.5%, right?  What do we need to do to increase inflation, sys?

Ok, thinking inflation is good is pretty mainstream. It would be nice to pay less for things, imo.

We should like try going

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #54 on: February 27, 2014, 12:52:45 PM »
Not very "mainstream" but we should talk about the labor participation rate!

inflation!  let's talk about inflation.


Inflation has been low recently.  The US inflation rate currently sits at 1.6%.  The optimal level is around 2.5%, right?  What do we need to do to increase inflation, sys?

Ok, thinking inflation is good is pretty mainstream. It would be nice to pay less for things, imo.

We should like try going


You seem to have a very poor understanding of economics. 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/19/news/economy/low-inflation-risks/

Quote
The Fed typically aims to keep inflation around 2% a year. Inflation at that level is considered healthy, coinciding with solid economic growth, a growing job market and gradually rising wages.

"Economic history has shown that economies perform best with slightly higher levels of inflation, such as 2% to 3%," said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist for the Economic Outlook Group. "Low and dormant inflation translates into a dormant economy."

Why is low inflation bad? There are a few key reasons.

First, when companies don't have any leeway to raise prices, they're more apt to cut costs, which could mean a cutback in hiring. Second, if inflation remains so low, consumers are not as motivated to rush out and spend, Baumohl said.

Third, when inflation is low, it doesn't offer a large buffer against deflation if an economic shock occurs. Deflation -- when prices fall -- often freezes up spending, because who wants to go out and buy an item now, if they expect it to be cheaper in six months?

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 37857
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #55 on: February 27, 2014, 12:55:31 PM »
Not very "mainstream" but we should talk about the labor participation rate!

inflation!  let's talk about inflation.


Inflation has been low recently.  The US inflation rate currently sits at 1.6%.  The optimal level is around 2.5%, right?  What do we need to do to increase inflation, sys?

i dunno, i just wanted to remind everyone that pike is a weirdo goldbug who's been claiming the fed was going to create runaway inflation for the last six years.
"lol, i understand military logistics quite well, thanks."

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #56 on: February 27, 2014, 12:57:23 PM »
Not very "mainstream" but we should talk about the labor participation rate!

inflation!  let's talk about inflation.


Inflation has been low recently.  The US inflation rate currently sits at 1.6%.  The optimal level is around 2.5%, right?  What do we need to do to increase inflation, sys?

Ok, thinking inflation is good is pretty mainstream. It would be nice to pay less for things, imo.

We should like try going


You seem to have a very poor understanding of economics. 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/19/news/economy/low-inflation-risks/

Quote
The Fed typically aims to keep inflation around 2% a year. Inflation at that level is considered healthy, coinciding with solid economic growth, a growing job market and gradually rising wages.

"Economic history has shown that economies perform best with slightly higher levels of inflation, such as 2% to 3%," said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist for the Economic Outlook Group. "Low and dormant inflation translates into a dormant economy."

Why is low inflation bad? There are a few key reasons.

First, when companies don't have any leeway to raise prices, they're more apt to cut costs, which could mean a cutback in hiring. Second, if inflation remains so low, consumers are not as motivated to rush out and spend, Baumohl said.

Third, when inflation is low, it doesn't offer a large buffer against deflation if an economic shock occurs. Deflation -- when prices fall -- often freezes up spending, because who wants to go out and buy an item now, if they expect it to be cheaper in six months?

lol, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). I must be message boarding with Steve Liesman and Joe Kernen.

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #57 on: February 27, 2014, 01:25:24 PM »
Not very "mainstream" but we should talk about the labor participation rate!

inflation!  let's talk about inflation.


Inflation has been low recently.  The US inflation rate currently sits at 1.6%.  The optimal level is around 2.5%, right?  What do we need to do to increase inflation, sys?

i dunno, i just wanted to remind everyone that pike is a weirdo goldbug who's been claiming the fed was going to create runaway inflation for the last six years.


 :thumbs:



Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 34678
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #58 on: February 27, 2014, 01:53:07 PM »
My point is how do you know you're in a bubble until after it's burst?

If this happened now, in many regions, it would mean there was a bubble inside a bigger bubble.   :horrorsurprise:

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #59 on: February 27, 2014, 02:05:55 PM »
Back to the general economy...the stock market index prices are super high compare to earnings.  Unsustainably high.  Either earnings have to increase dramatically or the market is going to tank.  Obviously earnings are rear-looking and the price indexes are forward looking so there might not be a disconnect there, but the potential is as high as it's ever been.

data, please.  i'd say earnings much more likely to be unsustainably high than valuations are (sp500, small caps seem like they are a little overvalued).  valuations certainly aren't cheap, but they aren't outlandishly high.  they're pretty normal.



You posted the exact chart I would have.  Clearly we are at the upper range compared to historic data.

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #60 on: February 27, 2014, 02:30:49 PM »
The Dow Jones index has been increasing by an average of 10% since the stock market first began. 

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #61 on: February 27, 2014, 03:59:32 PM »
The Dow Jones index has been increasing by an average of 10% since the stock market first began.

Good for those 30 corporations. No doubt layoffs and an increased use of part-time, no benefit workers has improved their bottom lines, justifying an increased valuation.

However, we're talking about the economy here. Mainstream economics, as a matter of fact. So perhaps you chose the wrong thread.

Regardless, per B.O. circa 2008, and our lord and savior, only rich people can afford stocks. The rest are suffering.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Winters

  • The King of Real Zeal
  • Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *********
  • Posts: 15511
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #62 on: February 27, 2014, 09:04:13 PM »
I may or may not have mushed a guy on a rent control discussion today.  :eye:
Best #heel and/or #babyface on this blogsite



If it were up to me, Wintz would be on a fan scholarship, full ride.

Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21178
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #63 on: February 27, 2014, 09:06:44 PM »
I may or may not have mushed a guy on a rent control discussion today.  :eye:

Did you yell "BODYBAG" at any point?

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 49113
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #64 on: February 27, 2014, 09:36:46 PM »
I may or may not have mushed a guy on a rent control discussion today.  :eye:

What was the context and what was your position?

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 35058
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #65 on: February 28, 2014, 06:32:18 AM »
So you think we might have put a few people out of business today. That its all for naught. You've been doing that everyday for almost forty years Sam. And if this is all for naught then so is everything out there. Its just money; its made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It's not wrong. And it's certainly no different today than its ever been. 1637, 1797, 1819, 37, 57, 84, 1901, 07, 29, 1937, 1974, 1987-Jesus, didn't that eff up me up good-92, 97, 2000 and whatever we want to call this. It's all just the same thing over and over; we can't help ourselves. And you and I can't control it, or stop it, or even slow it. Or even ever-so-slightly alter it. We just react. And we make a lot money if we get it right. And we get left by the side of the side of the road if we get it wrong. And there have always been and there always will be the same percentage of winners and losers. Happy foxes and sad sacks. Fat cats and starving dogs in this world. Yeah, there may be more of us today than there's ever been. But the percentages-they stay exactly the same.

Offline Winters

  • The King of Real Zeal
  • Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *********
  • Posts: 15511
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #66 on: February 28, 2014, 02:49:44 PM »
I may or may not have mushed a guy on a rent control discussion today.  :eye:

What was the context and what was your position?
rent control is bad
Best #heel and/or #babyface on this blogsite



If it were up to me, Wintz would be on a fan scholarship, full ride.

Online john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7136
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #67 on: February 28, 2014, 05:19:43 PM »
I may or may not have mushed a guy on a rent control discussion today.  :eye:

What was the context and what was your position?
rent control is bad

Good work Wintz. Rusty will probably tell you you're wrong, but just imagine future Winters owning a rental property and the man telling you how much you can charge for rent simply because of location.

Offline 0.42

  • Official Map Proprietor of goEMAW.com
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7713
  • pasghetti
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #68 on: February 28, 2014, 05:31:05 PM »
john dougie going all-in on his newfound "pro-homeless" campaign. very moderate :love:







































 :peek:

Online john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7136
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #69 on: February 28, 2014, 05:42:47 PM »
That's why we subsidize public transportation, 42.

Rent control breeds slums that can't be sold and eliminates housing construction in rent control areas, so prices go up everywhere else. Plus, very small percentage of rent control housing goes to the poor.

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 49113
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #70 on: February 28, 2014, 05:46:50 PM »
I may or may not have mushed a guy on a rent control discussion today.  :eye:

What was the context and what was your position?
rent control is bad

Good work Wintz. Rusty will probably tell you you're wrong, but just imagine future Winters owning a rental property and the man telling you how much you can charge for rent simply because of location.

I think rent control is neutral to bad, for the most part. It solves nothing in the long term for tenants, but it isn't as bad for landlords as you describe it. Landlords can charge whatever they want for rent-controlled apartments once they're vacated. The biggest problem I have with it is that it distracts everyone from the real issue that no one ever talks about here, which is a failure to address housing supply.

Offline 0.42

  • Official Map Proprietor of goEMAW.com
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7713
  • pasghetti
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #71 on: February 28, 2014, 05:47:30 PM »
i have no interest in getting into a reasoned, nuanced policy discussion with you on this board, john dougie. get out of here :shakesfist:

Offline 0.42

  • Official Map Proprietor of goEMAW.com
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7713
  • pasghetti
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #72 on: February 28, 2014, 06:08:10 PM »
I may or may not have mushed a guy on a rent control discussion today.  :eye:

What was the context and what was your position?
rent control is bad

Good work Wintz. Rusty will probably tell you you're wrong, but just imagine future Winters owning a rental property and the man telling you how much you can charge for rent simply because of location.

I think rent control is neutral to bad, for the most part. It solves nothing in the long term for tenants, but it isn't as bad for landlords as you describe it. Landlords can charge whatever they want for rent-controlled apartments once they're vacated. The biggest problem I have with it is that it distracts everyone from the real issue that no one ever talks about here, which is a failure to address housing supply.

Housing supply in Austin and San Marcos is pretty tight right now and it's caused massive rent inflation, especially in Austin. The biggest problem we have is that environmentalists don't want to build outward since a lot of the land we're on is sensitive aquifer recharge/endangered species/river runoff zones, which makes sense. But then many of the same hippies (a lot of the older ones) get all :shakesfist: when developers start building upwards because having a skyline "disrupts their way of life" which is code for them being pissed that Austin's plan to forsake city planning to keep people from moving here didn't work and that 1980's Austin is never coming back.

San Marcos townies are similarly pissed, but their temper tantrums at least sort of make sense because there was a really corrupt deal that went down with City Council in which ecologically sensitive land that was voted on by citizen referendum to be rezoned to parkland "somehow" ended up in the hands of a developer who built student apartments. Problem is now townies basically want to reject anything student housing related while the university grows which basically jacks the rents up.

It's all pretty stupid tbh. What's causing the lack of supply in SF iyo rusty?

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 49113
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #73 on: February 28, 2014, 06:24:21 PM »
I may or may not have mushed a guy on a rent control discussion today.  :eye:

What was the context and what was your position?
rent control is bad

Good work Wintz. Rusty will probably tell you you're wrong, but just imagine future Winters owning a rental property and the man telling you how much you can charge for rent simply because of location.

I think rent control is neutral to bad, for the most part. It solves nothing in the long term for tenants, but it isn't as bad for landlords as you describe it. Landlords can charge whatever they want for rent-controlled apartments once they're vacated. The biggest problem I have with it is that it distracts everyone from the real issue that no one ever talks about here, which is a failure to address housing supply.

Housing supply in Austin and San Marcos is pretty tight right now and it's caused massive rent inflation, especially in Austin. The biggest problem we have is that environmentalists don't want to build outward since a lot of the land we're on is sensitive aquifer recharge/endangered species/river runoff zones, which makes sense. But then many of the same hippies (a lot of the older ones) get all :shakesfist: when developers start building upwards because having a skyline "disrupts their way of life" which is code for them being pissed that Austin's plan to forsake city planning to keep people from moving here didn't work and that 1980's Austin is never coming back.

San Marcos townies are similarly pissed, but their temper tantrums at least sort of make sense because there was a really corrupt deal that went down with City Council in which ecologically sensitive land that was voted on by citizen referendum to be rezoned to parkland "somehow" ended up in the hands of a developer who built student apartments. Problem is now townies basically want to reject anything student housing related while the university grows which basically jacks the rents up.

It's all pretty stupid tbh. What's causing the lack of supply in SF iyo rusty?

pretty similar to Austin.

In November, there was a ballot measure to determine whether a developer could build a building 136 feet instead of 86 feet and it failed by a 2 to 1 margin. Now keep in mind that it was directly across the street from a 220 foot building and a block from a 568 foot building:


http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Vote-yes-on-S-F-Props-B-and-C-4888941.php

Here is a view - it is where the green fence is:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.797207,-122.397154&spn=0.002115,0.004128&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.797207,-122.397154&panoid=2U-VKDpFIUADCGcV-0LX1A&cbp=12,161.82,,0,-17.78

So really this was a pretty small development and it got rough ridin' obliterated. No one talks about supply when discussing housing prices, ever. People think that if they just stop Ellis Act evictions, everything will be all hunky dory, but those are just a really small part of the problem.

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 34678
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Mainstream Economics Thread
« Reply #74 on: February 28, 2014, 09:01:55 PM »
That is stupid.  Height usually means increased density,  and increased density is what places like san fean need if supply is tight.