Paying Attention?

[sdduuuude]

Interesting article from gregor.us, who seems like one of the brighter bloggers. Always has an interesting perspective:

http://gregor.us/policy/obsolete-expertise-and-the-us-economys-energy-problem/

The Great Recession has offered the perfect occasion to witness the phenomenon, a financial crisis which specifically kicked off amidst 150 dollar oil in 2008. Instead of advising the President that the country faced debt-deflation, with a nasty overlay of high commodity costs, the White House economic team has drawn from the post-war playbook which holds that if you stimulate the economy generally then the system will magically reorganize itself. Well, that hasn’t happened and it’s not going to happen.

[briansd1]

How about health care as share of GDP?

Health care and energy are really non-negotiable items. The more we spend in those areas, the less money there is for growth elsewhere.

[briansd1]

How about health care as share of GDP?

Health care and energy are really non-negotiable items. The more we spend in those areas, the less money there is for growth elsewhere.

[briansd1]

How about health care as share of GDP?

Health care and energy are really non-negotiable items. The more we spend in those areas, the less money there is for growth elsewhere.

[briansd1]

How about health care as share of GDP?

Health care and energy are really non-negotiable items. The more we spend in those areas, the less money there is for growth elsewhere.

[briansd1]

How about health care as share of GDP?

Health care and energy are really non-negotiable items. The more we spend in those areas, the less money there is for growth elsewhere.

[scaredyclassic]

Shorting gold is scary. People thought it looked tippy at 1,000. It is a bad idea to basically call a top on a 10 y bull market ESP where there’s been no explosive blowoff. I’m not giving investment advice just be cautious about getting in the way of any longterm bull market…

[scaredyclassic]

Shorting gold is scary. People thought it looked tippy at 1,000. It is a bad idea to basically call a top on a 10 y bull market ESP where there’s been no explosive blowoff. I’m not giving investment advice just be cautious about getting in the way of any longterm bull market…

[scaredyclassic]

Shorting gold is scary. People thought it looked tippy at 1,000. It is a bad idea to basically call a top on a 10 y bull market ESP where there’s been no explosive blowoff. I’m not giving investment advice just be cautious about getting in the way of any longterm bull market…

[scaredyclassic]

Shorting gold is scary. People thought it looked tippy at 1,000. It is a bad idea to basically call a top on a 10 y bull market ESP where there’s been no explosive blowoff. I’m not giving investment advice just be cautious about getting in the way of any longterm bull market…

[scaredyclassic]

Shorting gold is scary. People thought it looked tippy at 1,000. It is a bad idea to basically call a top on a 10 y bull market ESP where there’s been no explosive blowoff. I’m not giving investment advice just be cautious about getting in the way of any longterm bull market…

[briansd1]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
No I think they really want to stall growth, otherwise they would have forced the banks to write down principles or some other drastic action like inflation (you cannot replace 20% of the economy with solar energy job’s) that’s so funny it’s not even trying.
(Like I said, that’s just my speculation)[/quote]

I’m with Arraya. It’s always been growth at all cost.

Forcing principal reductions would hit the banks’ balance sheets and we would need to bail them out again.

I’m curious why you think that it’s necessary to get homeowners above water for an employment recovery to happen.

Theoretically, homeowners bought houses they could afford to make monthly payments on. Underwater or not, they could just carry on. Theoretically, the banks did their job with underwriting.

But we now all know the problem is that the banking system broke-down and allowed massive numbers of homeowners to buy houses they could not afford. The whole system was predicated on refinancing and forever increasing prices.

If we were to force the banks to reduce principal, who should bear the cost of such a massive program to benefit underwater homeowners?

[briansd1]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
No I think they really want to stall growth, otherwise they would have forced the banks to write down principles or some other drastic action like inflation (you cannot replace 20% of the economy with solar energy job’s) that’s so funny it’s not even trying.
(Like I said, that’s just my speculation)[/quote]

I’m with Arraya. It’s always been growth at all cost.

Forcing principal reductions would hit the banks’ balance sheets and we would need to bail them out again.

I’m curious why you think that it’s necessary to get homeowners above water for an employment recovery to happen.

Theoretically, homeowners bought houses they could afford to make monthly payments on. Underwater or not, they could just carry on. Theoretically, the banks did their job with underwriting.

But we now all know the problem is that the banking system broke-down and allowed massive numbers of homeowners to buy houses they could not afford. The whole system was predicated on refinancing and forever increasing prices.

If we were to force the banks to reduce principal, who should bear the cost of such a massive program to benefit underwater homeowners?

[briansd1]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
No I think they really want to stall growth, otherwise they would have forced the banks to write down principles or some other drastic action like inflation (you cannot replace 20% of the economy with solar energy job’s) that’s so funny it’s not even trying.
(Like I said, that’s just my speculation)[/quote]

I’m with Arraya. It’s always been growth at all cost.

Forcing principal reductions would hit the banks’ balance sheets and we would need to bail them out again.

I’m curious why you think that it’s necessary to get homeowners above water for an employment recovery to happen.

Theoretically, homeowners bought houses they could afford to make monthly payments on. Underwater or not, they could just carry on. Theoretically, the banks did their job with underwriting.

But we now all know the problem is that the banking system broke-down and allowed massive numbers of homeowners to buy houses they could not afford. The whole system was predicated on refinancing and forever increasing prices.

If we were to force the banks to reduce principal, who should bear the cost of such a massive program to benefit underwater homeowners?

[briansd1]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
No I think they really want to stall growth, otherwise they would have forced the banks to write down principles or some other drastic action like inflation (you cannot replace 20% of the economy with solar energy job’s) that’s so funny it’s not even trying.
(Like I said, that’s just my speculation)[/quote]

I’m with Arraya. It’s always been growth at all cost.

Forcing principal reductions would hit the banks’ balance sheets and we would need to bail them out again.

I’m curious why you think that it’s necessary to get homeowners above water for an employment recovery to happen.

Theoretically, homeowners bought houses they could afford to make monthly payments on. Underwater or not, they could just carry on. Theoretically, the banks did their job with underwriting.

But we now all know the problem is that the banking system broke-down and allowed massive numbers of homeowners to buy houses they could not afford. The whole system was predicated on refinancing and forever increasing prices.

If we were to force the banks to reduce principal, who should bear the cost of such a massive program to benefit underwater homeowners?

[Author]

Posts