Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Jazzman
ParticipantImplications? Not much. I’ve never understood how you can force a bank to lend if it doesn’t want to. They always seem to find a way to do what they want. They’ll probably pass on the cost of parking cash at the central banks onto customers. After it’s realized it is having little effect, the ECB will embark on a bond buying spree. The Euro might lose ground a little.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
economics as a science improved so much so why has the profession been so wrong? And the economists who were right were not successful in pushing for policy action.[/quote]
That is the trillion dollar question. There is seems to be an infinite number of unexpected variables.
ParticipantExcellent article. Good find FG. Firstly, I’m not absolutely certain what the author means by “[It] doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a bubble”. If he means that local conditions aren’t the cause of the high home prices, then he is probably right to an extent. If, on the other hand, he means prices aren’t in a bubble because foreign buyers are aware of the risks or losing capital, and for them as a group prices are not out of reach, I’m not sure the statement stands up. There are so many definitions of bubbles, but I like the one that apparently gave rise to the term. Air! That sums it up really. It certainly sounds like prices are being highly inflated in Vancouver, over and above what you’d normally expect given incomes, rents etc, so I’m going for bubble, or bubbly/frothy.
Asians do seem to favor RE over stocks, probably because their own stock market is not as developed, and they mistrust it. I’m married to an Asian so I have some insight. But this is true for many countries, and I expect that what we are seeing in not just capital flight from developing countries in search of bricks and mortar in developed economies, but rather a lack of understanding of financial products and few investment opportunities in their own countries. You can argue that since many foreign-buyer purchases are with cash, there is less chance of a spiraling crash, but nobody likes to lose money so there may be a pull back if prices reach a tipping point. Presumably the other 50% of buyers have been local and likely have used mortgages, which could be enough to put downward pressure prices.
The more interesting question is what can be done, or should anything be done? If lenders get nervous then it’s probably time to run for cover. If is threatens to derail fragile economic recovery then it poses a threat, and you might expect taxes become the weapon of choice. I hope fingers get burnt, because it is pricing out people who work for essential services in cities, and FTBs. The central bank of England, the Prime Minister, and one of the biggest UK lenders recently made public statements about their concerns over high prices in London. That must be the first time that our ‘leaders’ are calling it what it is before it has happened. Perhaps they are trying to preempt a pop by creating a self-fulfilling fizz.
May 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM in reply to: Moving money to another country for better interest rates #774581ParticipantIt is getting harder and harder to open and maintain foreign currency accounts abroad due to IRS filing requirements. Those few banks that were willing are now no longer wanting the hassle. One bank said they did not see why the local tax payer should be on the hook for US tax filing requirements, and will be closing my account. Just like that. Another, huge US bank, will not let me have access their best eurodollar savings rates in spite of being a long standing client. Yet, another US bank based abroad just turned me down, even though I have a US account with them. Fixed incomers are getting more and more screwed. Not only are you getting negative nothing, you’ve got to be denominated in USDs, AND have your accounts in the US. Although this affects few people, to those that is does, it is very irksome.
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=EconProf]For five years economists, and politicians, have said real growth would return, and thus inflation, and thus higher interest rates. We are now giving up on that scenario.[/quote]
What about the fed? Do you see signs that they are giving up on this too? From what I’m hearing the fed is still very much on track with their belief that growth will pick up, QE will be stopped and after a while interest rates will be raised. Are you saying you think the fed is also giving up on this scenario? If so, can you cite some evidence to confirm this?[/quote]
The real question is are drugs and prostitution being added to growth figures?Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=Jazzman]
Democracy came alive with Obamacare. I’m not clear what you mean by “purely a democracy”, but if left to my interpretation I take it to mean powerful lobbyist are fundamental to American democracy. Indeed they are!
[/quote]Pure democracy is often refereed to as a system where 2 wolves and a sheep vote on which one is for dinner. Pure democracy doesn’t protect minority rights. It lets the majority decide without any checks or balances. I.e. The ban on same sex marriage in CA wouldn’t have been able to be constitutionally challenged.
I don’t see what bearing this has on what the vast majority of Americans, who is their infinite wisdom seem to want, or how either constitutional democracy or animals eating each other is helpful in this debate. Issues regarding same sex marriage and mass murder exist in completely different realms, and a comparison is therefore inappropriate. There is no allowance for constitutional pontificating.
Suppose for a moment the the majority opinion on gun control is to put a massive tax on guns. Make them too expensive for the common man and basically have the effect of banning them. That type of law would be challenged to the supreme court on the basis that it violates the second amendment. In this case the minority who believes in the ability to own guns might win because that right is protected by the 2nd amendment of the constitution.
Yes, we know that and it is part of the problem. Merely stating it doesn’t somehow magically forgive it.
You say this isn’t about the 2nd amendment yet make proposals about laws that attempt to further restrict gun ownership through various means. Hoping to find a clever way of greatly restricting gun ownership without violating the principals of the 2nd amendment.
Tell me what is there to violate? An anachronistic right that is irrelevant to contemporary society, or the sanctity of life? It would be a Knave of Hearts Trial. If the founding fathers were alive to ask, there is little room for doubt as to how they would reply. You either speak for humanity, or your speak for the pro-gun industry. Choose at your peril.
[/quote]
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=ocrenter]
American rate of death by gun (homocide and suicide) is at 10/100k, most of the OECD countries are below 1/100k.You do the math on that one.[/quote]
Here’s a recent study with graphs. If do some cherry picking you can arrive at a conclusion that more guns = more deaths. Of course we can always cherry pick data to suit our agenda.
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/guns-neither-increase-nor-decrease-crime-rate.html%5B/quote%5D
Cherry picking is one thing, but when supported by reason it is another.Participant[quote=CA renter]And there’s this:
“Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.
The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals. The rate dipped in the mid-1930s, staying relatively low before surging again in the 1970s through 1990s. Some criminologists attribute the late-century spike to the potential for instant notoriety: Beginning with Charles Whitman’s 1966 shooting spree from atop a University of Texas tower, mass murderers became household names. Others point out that the mass murder rate fairly closely tracks the overall homicide rate. In the 2000s, for example, both the mass murder and the homicide rates dropped to their lowest levels since the 1960s.”
Oh, come one CAR. You can’t be serious. I love all your other posts because they are balanced and well reasoned, but you’re clutching at straws over this one. The US has, by a long stretch, the highest rate of per capita gun ownership in the world. Second place goes to war-torn Yemen. Excluding Mexico, the US has the highest murder rate using firearms. Japan, which has the strictest gun laws has a minuscule amount of gun related deaths. Yes, there are other factors involved so it’s not that straight forward, but to deny this very fundamental truth is damaging to everyone.
In the past, you’ve explained that personal experiences have shaped your views. I respect that and would probably feel the same way, but sometimes you need to step back and accept that others, who may have suffered worse experiences, arrive at a very different conclusion. I saw the only real outpouring of emotions from the father of one of the Isla Vista victims. It wan’t the usual staged, weepy, emotionally restrained, official press-type announcement. It was raw, highly charged, and very condemnatory of the fact that nothing is being done to prevent these incidences. The man had all but fallen to pieces. Watching this poor man in utter despair was gut wrenching.
Whatever your beliefs about gun-ownership and mass slayings, don’t we owe it to him to do something. Nothing is being done, and I find it despairing that people aren’t on the street demanding change. From the outside it appears as bordering on extreme selfishness.
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=Jazzman]
Democracy died the day gun control legislation failed. You can turn the other way, and accept that we live in democracy in ‘name only’, and tolerate the pervasive influence special interest groups enjoys over the democratic process.[/quote]Did democracy die when Obamacare was passed? Our government is a constitution republic. If our government was purely a democracy same sex marriage would still be banned in California. Sometimes laws are passed or not passed even if the majority opinion is contrary to that.
Democracy came alive with Obamacare. I’m not clear what you mean by “purely a democracy”, but if left to my interpretation I take it to mean powerful lobbyist are fundamental to American democracy. Indeed they are!
If you want to change the second amendment there’s a mechanism to do that but we all know there’s not enough support on your side of the argument to make that happen.
There is no “my side” to the argument my friend. I remain a detached, but compassionate observer. This is not about the 2nd Amendment.
The question that nobody knows the answer to, but would immediately end this debate is the following. Would those new gun control laws that didn’t pass have prevented this incident? My gut feeling says probably not, but I don’t know.
Well I’m glad you have conceded that “[you] don’t know”. I would hold that thought, and resist the temptation to allow your gut feeling to surface.
[/quote]
Participant[quote=CA renter]
So, how in the world can anybody say, with a straight face, that if you got rid of guns, you’d stop murderous rampages?[/quote]Is anyone saying that? How can anyone say with a straight face that there is no relationship between high rates of gun ownership and high rates of homicides? I don’t think these mass slayers would get very far by trying to strangle all their victims. The debate has moved on from there, despite attempts by the non-gun control advocates to drag it back.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
Access to guns, the glorification of shooting and killing, the general culture of violence, the celebrity status given to mass shooters enabled and incentivized Elliot Rodgers.[/quote]
All very true. How do you deal with it?
Democracy died the day gun control legislation failed. You can turn the other way, and accept that we live in democracy in ‘name only’, and tolerate the pervasive influence special interest groups enjoys over the democratic process. But that seems so counter to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, the interpretation of which is contentious, and which creates this contradictory conundrum. Armed uprising against dysfunctional government, which endorses its own overthrow by allowing itself to be dysfunctional. :/ Something like that???
Going after Hollywood and censoring violence would probably be a bigger waste of time than going after the NRA. Trying to understand the psychological causes of these mass killings in order to create early warning detections is going to be complicated, because not enough is understood about the problem. It’s also probably going to infringe upon civil liberties, and be very prone to error. There needs to be a more immediate and practical solution, that is free from the normal legislative processes. Something like a national referendum, with clear choices. Maybe we should invite Putin to conduct it.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Gun ownership is also driven by fear. Fear that you might be burgled by an axe murderer (or whatever). Look at the stats. States with loose gun laws and little crime (northern New England for example) have lower rates of ownership than higher-crime states.
If I lived in an area where I felt I needed to carry a gun on my hip to protect myself whenever I went out, I’m pretty sure that I’d move. Not worth the stress.[/quote]
Not worth the stress of everything that follows: manslaughter charges, death threats, and your own coming to terms with taking a life either. Why don’t people who really need to carry a gun, carry a taser?Participant[quote=flyer] it’s unfortunate that the “miserable” can’t seem to keep their misery to themselves and leave everyone else alone.[/quote]
Yes, I agree but that is so hard to do when you need to interact with people everyday. But regardless, I didn’t get the sense this kid was miserable. He came across as confidently revelling in mimicking Hollywood and console game violence. They obviously leave an impression and affect behavior. That aside, the focus should be on an immediate solution. Someone referred to will power as being a useful mental construct to counter balance mental instability. It seems a pity that that same “will” is not being applied to an immediate and practical solution. I don’t think now is the time to be looking too deeply into the psychological underpinnings.
ParticipantI don’t think “will” or lack of it has anything to do with mass slayings. If anything, the reserve could be argued. Hitler an Stalin spring to mind. Many simple cultures don’t exercise “will” in the cultural sense referred to, and yet don’t suffer the same cultural ills. I also don’t believe making guns too expensive would be a practical solution. You may as well just ban guns, if you are going to do that. The focus should be on an immediate solution to prevent callous killings. Gun control is as clear cut as any solution to address that problem. Apparently, 90% of Americans believe that to be the case. Yet, the legislation that was to bring about greater gun control failed. So whatever you think is the problem or likely solution, you are possibly going to be denied the means do deal with it, if your detractors are more powerful than you. I think that is a concern and needs to be addressed before philosophizing.
-
AuthorPosts
