Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: Krugman's Rightful Victory Lap - Mone Too...
Source:
The NY Times
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1
Published: Jun 3, 2011
Author: Paul Krugman
Post Date: 2011-06-03 12:10:35 by war
Keywords: None
Views: 140928
Comments: 159
Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a blog post about the “mistake of 1937,” the premature fiscal and monetary pullback that aborted an ongoing economic recovery and prolonged the Great Depression. As Gauti Eggertsson, the post’s author (with whom I have done research) points out, economic conditions today — with output growing, some prices rising, but unemployment still very high — bear a strong resemblance to those in 1936-37. So are modern policy makers going to make the same mistake? Mr. Eggertsson says no, that economists now know better. But I disagree. In fact, in important ways we have already repeated the mistake of 1937. Call it the mistake of 2010: a “pivot” away from jobs to other concerns, whose wrongheadedness has been highlighted by recent economic data. To be sure, things could be worse — and there’s a strong chance that they will, indeed, get worse. Back when the original 2009 Obama stimulus was enacted, some of us warned that it was both too small and too short-lived. In particular, the effects of the stimulus would start fading out in 2010 — and given the fact that financial crises are usually followed by prolonged slumps, it was unlikely that the economy would have a vigorous self-sustaining recovery under way by then. By the beginning of 2010, it was already obvious that these concerns had been justified. Yet somehow an overwhelming consensus emerged among policy makers and pundits that nothing more should be done to create jobs, that, on the contrary, there should be a turn toward fiscal austerity. This consensus was fed by scare stories about an imminent loss of market confidence in U.S. debt. Every uptick in interest rates was interpreted as a sign that the “bond vigilantes” were on the attack, and this interpretation was often reported as a fact, not as a dubious hypothesis. For example, in March 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Debt Fears Send Rates Up,” reporting that long-term U.S. interest rates had risen and asserting — without offering any evidence — that this rise, to about 3.9 percent, reflected concerns about the budget deficit. In reality, it probably reflected several months of decent jobs numbers, which temporarily raised optimism about recovery. But never mind. Somehow it became conventional wisdom that the deficit, not unemployment, was Public Enemy No. 1 — a conventional wisdom both reflected in and reinforced by a dramatic shift in news coverage away from unemployment and toward deficit concerns. Job creation effectively dropped off the agenda. So, here we are, in the middle of 2011. How are things going? Well, the bond vigilantes continue to exist only in the deficit hawks’ imagination. Long-term interest rates have fluctuated with optimism or pessimism about the economy; a recent spate of bad news has sent them down to about 3 percent, not far from historic lows. And the news has, indeed, been bad. As the stimulus has faded out, so have hopes of strong economic recovery. Yes, there has been some job creation — but at a pace barely keeping up with population growth. The percentage of American adults with jobs, which plunged between 2007 and 2009, has barely budged since then. And the latest numbers suggest that even this modest, inadequate job growth is sputtering out. So, as I said, we have already repeated a version of the mistake of 1937, withdrawing fiscal support much too early and perpetuating high unemployment. Yet worse things may soon happen. On the fiscal side, Republicans are demanding immediate spending cuts as the price of raising the debt limit and avoiding a U.S. default. If this blackmail succeeds, it will put a further drag on an already weak economy. Meanwhile, a loud chorus is demanding that the Fed and its counterparts abroad raise interest rates to head off an alleged inflationary threat. As the New York Fed article points out, the rise in consumer price inflation over the past few months — which is already showing signs of tailing off — reflected temporary factors, and underlying inflation remains low. And smart economists like Mr. Eggerstsson understand this. But the European Central Bank is already raising rates, and the Fed is under pressure to do the same. Further attempts to help the economy expand seem out of the question. So the mistake of 2010 may yet be followed by an even bigger mistake. Even if that doesn’t happen, however, the fact is that the policy response to the crisis was and remains vastly inadequate. Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it; we did, and we are. What we’re experiencing may not be a full replay of the Great Depression, but that’s little consolation for the millions of American families suffering from a slump that just goes on and on.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-118) not displayed.
.
.
.
#119. To: jwpegler (#117)
(Edited)
This is what you wrote: In a recession, people won't voluntarily take wage cuts to clear the market price for labor so that businesses will start hiring again. So, people have to be fooled into taking a pay cut through inflation. Prices go up, wages stay the same -- a pay cut has occurred. The market price clears and businesses start hiring again. You are claiming that in an ongoing recession, people won't take a direct pay cut so they are forced into taking one through inflation, i.e. RISING PRICES. I can read fine even though your mind is an absolute mess. A) Rising prices are not necessarily inflation. America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." Many things. There isn't any 1 to 1 correspondence. China has already dumped 97% of their short term U.S. government debt. As their long term U.S. debt come due, they will be dumping that too. Other countries will follow. The BRIC countries have already been proposing alternatives to the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Once that happens, the U.S. will have no choice but to create massive inflation to pay it's bills. It's coming soon because the politicians are too addicted to spending to stop.
Bullshit. TBilll issuance decreased so they rolled it out the curve. I'm a fixed income broker. Go peddle your nonsense somewhere else.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." More bullshit. Good luck getting industrialized nations accepting a currency created by the third world's banker that, wait for it, is funded mostly by the US.* *Poor word choice...the US provides the highest amount of funding.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." I stated that I don't believe that there is a "Magic Bullet" number. Economies suffer dislocation for any number of reasons. Thus, a "recession" in Year A and recovered from in year A+Z may have the characteristics of both its cause and recovery differ markedly from the next recession. Most certainly the recession of 2001 was caused by the decline in business activity and consumer spending associative to the Y2K switch. Most certainly the recession of 2007-2009 was caused by a lack of credit which caused a severe dislocation in real estate.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." The goal of QE2 is to make sure that an adequate pool of capital is available to fund business lending. The last recession was caused, in part, by a virtually unregulated market "creating" money because the Fed had refused to. When the "market" itself took on the role of "banker" and began assessing counter party risk, the game was over. Of course, this devalues the money. Of course, that's absolute nonsense. What actually "devalues" money is when the relative level of production is unable to meet the demand for what is produced. IN other words, a currency is devalued when, systemically, it requires ever increasing amounts of dollars to purchase the same amount of goods.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." We "printed" more money during your hero's era. My "hero"? Assumably Bush? So now your argument is that the Kenyan needs to be more like Bush?
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble `Criticism of mandated loans as the cause of the crisis However, government-mandated loans did not cause the boom in subprime mortgages. [10] More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages came from private lending institutions in 2006[10] and share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also decreased as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48 percent to insuring 24 percent of all subprime loans in 2006).[10] The Community Reinvestment Act also only affected one out of the top 25 subprime lenders.[10] Despite conservative criticism for government lending programs as the main cause of the crisis,[11][12][13][14] much of the crisis was independent of government home loan programs. In 2008, Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, said the CRA wasn’t to blame for the subprime mess, "First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together… we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis,". Only 6% of subprime loans were handed out by CRA-covered lenders to lower income people (the people the CRA is responsible for, CRA-covered banks can technically lend subprime loans to anyone).[15] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair,[16] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[17] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[18] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect, [19] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[20] Daniel Gross of Slate,[21] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[22]
My argument in your case is that you should be quiet more and thus stupid less.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." The loose CRA requirements for home ownership drove the issue. And, on top of that, both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (GSEs) competed in the markets for these same loans FURTHER exacerbating the issues. US government intervention created the entire mess, particularly after FED lowered interest rates in response to the 2000 Stock collapse.
And here is an article written by Edward Pinto, a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s. The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled . And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures. To begin with, the CRA defenders’ claim that CRA lending mostly wasn’t subprime is highly misleading. It would be more accurate to say that 90 percent of CRA lending wasn’t classified as subprime. CRA lenders, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—the two government-sponsored entities that bought loans from lenders, enabling them to make more loans—commonly classified CRA loans as “subprime†only if they contained such features as high fees, high rates, or low initial payments with adjustable interest rates. But approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,†in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so. Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today†loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses. Whatever the precise magnitude of the CRA’s role, there is no question that as the government pursued affordable-housing goals—with the CRA providing approximately half of Fannie’s and Freddie’s affordable-housing purchases—trillions of dollars in high-risk lending flooded the real-estate market, with disastrous consequences. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of conventional home-purchase mortgages made with the borrower putting 5 percent or less down more than tripled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2007. Adding to the default risk: of these loans with 5 percent or less down, the average down payment declined from 5 percent to 3 percent of the loan’s value. As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loans—and these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities’ traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation’s homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble. The pain and hardship that CRA has likely spawned are immeasurable. What is measurable, though, is exactly how the trillions in past CRA loans are performing and what we can learn from this debacle. http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_snd-cra.html
It wasn't the CRA that forced banks to make all of those sub-prime loans. It was the sub-prime loans that lead to the meltdown.
And you want me to believe something you said, that you can't/don't want to provide proof of ????? ROTFLMAO........
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
In a sense I agree with you. Again, both the CRA (increasing the banks percentage of overall loans for homes, small businesses and small farms for those with credit scores of 620 or below) AND the GSEs created the issue. The article I posted for your review demonstrates what happened beginning in 1992 under Bill Clinton. Here is what Clinton did in concert with CRA requirements: He basically fueled markets based on high risk with government mandates.
I wouldn't think a whole lot unless it was a large amount..... and that wouldn't make sense.... but then again doing a stimulus didn't make any sense either....
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
I've debated this to death, Freddie and Fannie had very little to do with the financial crisis, they controlled a very small percentage of junk loans, most were controlled by private institutions including countrywide. Less than 20% of subprime mortgages issued in the 2000's were subject to CRA. read this when you get a chance: "Thats because your basically and idiot." Thanks for taking the bait..."I'm not your file clerk" had a link on it...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." CRA had nothing to do with the financial crisis. CRA was a designation of a particular piece of geography rather than a particular type of person.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." Weren't you bitching the other day about the federal gas tax?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness. That democrats and poor people by way of the CRA are responsible for the mortgage melt-down is a matter of faith, not fact or reason.
It is our responsibility to protect that child once that child’s born too. When we start debating a budget, let’s make sure we don’t cut 100,000 vaccines. Let’s make sure we’ve got health insurance. We seem to worship what we cannot see, but as soon as that baby’s born, oh no, we don’t want to be intrusive. Texas is going to shrink government until it fits inside a women’s uterus. Senator Leticia Van de Putte
Wasn't me.....
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
NO!!! I was paraphrasing Keynes. This is what Keynesian economists believe. This is Keynes' basic program. I don't believe this at all.
China Has Divested 97 Percent of its Holdings in U.S. Treasury Bills There are many articles on the internet that demonstrate this. Don't F with me on the numbers. I am a numbers guy and I will beat you every time.
You are living in the past. America and Europe are in retreat. Why? Because they lost their way with their social welfare systems. The final straw will be a BRIC inspired dumping of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. They can't do it emotionally because they own too many dollars. It will take time, but it will happen because America has become fat and lazy. The world is starting to understand this.
No. $60 billion on infrastructure out of nearly $800 billion. The rest went to prop up state government bureaucrats, who are now inevitably losing their jobs. In other words, Obama's "stimulus" postponed the recession for one year.
Actually not yet, but they're considering doubling it from 5% to 10% in the wake of the earthquake/tsunami.
Men, have got to be the most inhumane creatures upon the face of this earth. I suppose it would never have crossed anyones mind at a time like this to, freeze prices, and taxes, help alleviate some of the suffering and worry till things got back to some kind of normalacy? I'm one who does believe there is a HELL, and anyone reaping profits and rewards from the misery and suffering of others, they will have a very special place in it waiting for them, they cannot live forever. jmho!
No you weren't. Keynes and Keynesians believe that "inflation" is an end of business cycle phenomenom where the production cannot keep up with demand. IN point of fact, RISING unemployment to a Keynesian is DE-flationary.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." GO back and read what I wrote. Bill issuance decreased so China was forced to roll purchases out the curve. The actual drop was a couple hundred billion. On the other hand, they increased their purchases of GSE discount notes and short callables.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." In other words, Obama's "stimulus" postponed the recession for one year. Good luck getting some people to believe their government is lying to them....
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
Well now, I guess I would have to agree with you.
If you want to see direct capital investment flee the third world there is no easier way than to attack the currency in which those investments are made. Do you really believe that the US will readily cede contolling the value of its currency, fluctuative as it may be, to the IMF or other global body? Do you really believe that Great Britan or Japan would agree to such a scheme? Please...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." I just noticed that yesterday when I got the new computer running, the old one was acting weird and not showing certain things....... maybe a virus????? For the last 3 days is said I had no new e-mail, as soon as I got the new one up it downloaded almost 100...... go figure...... I looked at that list and some of the places it listed work was done, but others weren't.... It even shows one place that doesn't even exist??? LOL... (Looks like Columbus has it's act together)... The one I remember the best (on SR380) the list shows it should have been done by Sept 09, but the status it gave as "Awarded"??????? The last time I went through there about 2 months ago on the way to the lake it still hadn't been done (and the signs were long gone)....
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
It was raised in 1997.
It is our responsibility to protect that child once that child’s born too. When we start debating a budget, let’s make sure we don’t cut 100,000 vaccines. Let’s make sure we’ve got health insurance. We seem to worship what we cannot see, but as soon as that baby’s born, oh no, we don’t want to be intrusive. Texas is going to shrink government until it fits inside a women’s uterus. Senator Leticia Van de Putte
Where has the stimulus money been spent, how much is left: http://projects.propublica.org/tables/stimulus-spending-progress Bush's tax cuts resulted is a decrease of federal money to state and local governments; they have been struggling since befor the recession.
It is our responsibility to protect that child once that child’s born too. When we start debating a budget, let’s make sure we don’t cut 100,000 vaccines. Let’s make sure we’ve got health insurance. We seem to worship what we cannot see, but as soon as that baby’s born, oh no, we don’t want to be intrusive. Texas is going to shrink government until it fits inside a women’s uterus. Senator Leticia Van de Putte
That explains a lot. Economics has numbers in it and you may be good at that part, however it is a social science.
It is our responsibility to protect that child once that child’s born too. When we start debating a budget, let’s make sure we don’t cut 100,000 vaccines. Let’s make sure we’ve got health insurance. We seem to worship what we cannot see, but as soon as that baby’s born, oh no, we don’t want to be intrusive. Texas is going to shrink government until it fits inside a women’s uterus. Senator Leticia Van de Putte
America and Europe are in retreat. Why? Because they lost their way with their social welfare systems. China doesn't have social welfare programs? Or maybe that company town that a friend was forced to build in China for his workers complete with doctors and a small hospital clinic was just a figment of his imagination.
that's not accurate. See: http://www.propublica.org/special/the-stimulus-plan-a-detailed-list-of-spending nearly $100 billion went to transportation and infrastructure. Another $13 billion went to various government iT projects. $20 billion went to healthcare infrastructure, research, and grants. $41 billion went to energy infrastructure. $58 billion went to state/local, and some of that went into infrastructure.
"Thats because your basically and idiot." I'm one who does believe there is a HELL, and anyone reaping profits and rewards from the misery and suffering of others, they will have a very special place in it waiting for them, they cannot live forever. jmho! Huh? The idea is that the government is trying to raise money to help those that have been effected by the earthquake/tsunami. Between the tsunami damage and the nuclear crisis, do you have any idea of the costs involved? It's staggering... billions of dollars, maybe trillions.
Raise the money from where meguro? Who pays?
Do you understand what consumption tax is? It's a sales tax. So anyone who purchases anything pays.
B) Prices don't rise during a recession. A recession is characterized by RECEDING business activity. You just re-wrote the whole theory of pricing by stating that businesses have POSITIVE PRICING POWER during a recession, i.e. a period of receding demand and activity.
--GW Bush
#120. To: war (#118)
And the asset reallocation will be into what
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#121. To: jwpegler (#120)
(Edited)
China has already dumped 97% of their short term U.S. government debt.
--GW Bush
#122. To: jwpegler (#120)
(Edited)
The BRIC countries have already been proposing alternatives to the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
--GW Bush
#123. To: buckeroo (#107)
--GW Bush
#124. To: Capitalist Eric (#113)
(Edited)
The goal of QE is not to devalue money, but to print as much as we need to spend.
--GW Bush
#125. To: war (#105)
Yeah, and just how much fucking money do you think we can print?
#126. To: buckeroo (#101)
#127. To: no gnu taxes (#125)
--GW Bush
#128. To: NewsJunky (#126)
#129. To: NewsJunky, war, all (#126)
Yes, the CRA Is Toxic So why is Congress thinking about expanding it? Did the Community Reinvestment Act—the 1977 federal law pressing banks to lend to low- and moderate-income borrowers—fuel toxic lending and thus play a significant role in causing the financial meltdown? “CRA was not the cause of the crisis,†Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan maintained this past August. Though he had little quantitative detail about the performance of CRA-related loans, Dugan claimed that they had performed better than loans made by lenders not subject to the CRA. Further, he contended, borrowers of CRA loans had defaulted at much lower rates than borrowers of subprime mortgages. Other defenders of the act assert that almost all CRA loans originated at “prime†interest rates, rather than the higher rates that lenders offered risky “subprime†borrowers. And they add that the mortgages made under CRA were almost entirely fixed-rate, not the notorious adjustable-rate mortgages with quick rate resets and high payment shock that led so many borrowers to default.
Taxpayers deserve to know why not one regulator had the common sense to track the performance of CRA loans. They also deserve to know why the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and other regulators appear to have no idea how trillions of dollars in CRA loans are performing now. But above all, they deserve to know that the damage done by the CRA won’t happen again. Incredibly, the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would broaden the scope of the CRA. Before it takes any action on HR 1479—which would expand the CRA’s mandates from banks to bank subsidiaries, mortgage bankers, credit unions, insurance companies, and other nonbank financial institutions—the committee should demand that regulators request detailed CRA performance data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as from the four banks that have announced 94 percent of the nation’s $6 trillion in CRA commitments: Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. These six institutions should be able to provide performance information for an estimated 70 percent of outstanding CRA loans.
#130. To: buckeroo (#129)
#131. To: war (#68)
Ask Boofer...I'm not your file clerk.
#132. To: NewsJunky (#130)
It wasn't the CRA that forced banks to make all of those sub-prime loans. It was the sub-prime loans that lead to the meltdown.
That one move by Clinton - inspired by the CRA - shifted to the tax payers ALL moral hazard associated with originating ANY bad subprime loan - whether directly covered by the CRA or not. From that day forward, ANYBODY could originate an excessively risky subprime loan, book the origination profits and then sell that risky loan to Fannie Mae or have Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or any other “too big to fail†entity insure that risky loan.
#133. To: lucysmom (#69)
Japan raised the consumption tax, what effect do you think that would have on domestic buying?
#134. To: buckeroo (#92)
(Edited)
It was CRA that created the requirement of lowering first-time homeowner's qualifications as those same requirements were strictly enforced by both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Badeye posted on 2011-04-29 10:30:22 ET
#135. To: CZ82 (#131)
--GW Bush
#136. To: buckeroo (#129)
--GW Bush
#137. To: CZ82 (#133)
I wouldn't think a whole lot unless it was a large amount.....
--GW Bush
#138. To: go65 (#134)
read this when you get a chance:
#139. To: war (#137)
Weren't you bitching the other day about the federal gas tax?
#140. To: war (#119)
(Edited)
You are claiming
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#141. To: war (#121)
(Edited)
Bullshit.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#142. To: war (#122)
third world's
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#143. To: go65 (#23)
(Edited)
The stimulus only spent about $300 billion on infrastructure
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#144. To: lucysmom (#69)
Japan raised the consumption tax, what effect do you think that would have on domestic buying?
#145. To: meguro (#144)
.."but they're considering doubling it from 5% to 10% in the wake of the earthquake/tsunami".
#146. To: jwpegler (#140)
NO!!! I was paraphrasing Keynes.
--GW Bush
#147. To: jwpegler (#141)
(Edited)
--GW Bush
#148. To: jwpegler (#143)
No. $60 billion on infrastructure out of nearly $800 billion. The rest went to prop up state government bureaucrats, who are now inevitably losing their jobs.
#149. To: Murron (#145)
"...anyone reaping profits and rewards from the misery and suffering of others, they will have a very special place in it waiting for them, they cannot live forever."
#150. To: jwpegler (#142)
--GW Bush
#151. To: war (#135)
Thanks for taking the bait..."I'm not your file clerk" had a link on it...
#152. To: meguro (#144)
Actually not yet, but they're considering doubling it from 5% to 10% in the wake of the earthquake/tsunami.
#153. To: CZ82, jwpegler (#148)
No. $60 billion on infrastructure out of nearly $800 billion. The rest went to prop up state government bureaucrats, who are now inevitably losing their jobs.
#154. To: jwpegler (#141)
Don't F with me on the numbers. I am a numbers guy and I will beat you every time.
#155. To: jwpegler (#142)
You are living in the past.
#156. To: jwpegler (#143)
No. $60 billion on infrastructure out of nearly $800 billion. The rest went to prop up state government bureaucrats, who are now inevitably losing their jobs.
Badeye posted on 2011-04-29 10:30:22 ET
#157. To: Murron (#145)
Men, have got to be the most inhumane creatures upon the face of this earth. I suppose it would never have crossed anyones mind at a time like this to, freeze prices, and taxes, help alleviate some of the suffering and worry till things got back to some kind of normalacy?
#158. To: meguro (#157)
Huh? The idea is that the government is trying to raise money to help those that have been effected by the earthquake/tsunami. Between the tsunami damage and the nuclear crisis, do you have any idea of the costs involved? It's staggering... billions of dollars, maybe trillions.
#159. To: Murron (#158)
Raise the money from where meguro? Who pays?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]