OldGimletEye Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Reasons why I get very annoyed with conservative asset mispricing concern trolling. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/opinion/bitcoin-financial-markets.html Quote The spectacular increase and recent plunge in the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have raised concerns that the bursting of the Bitcoin bubble will cause financial markets to crash. They probably won’t, but the Bitcoin bubble should finally destroy our faith in the efficiency of markets. Quote Since the 1970s, economic policy has been based on the idea that financial market prices reflect all the information relevant to the value of any asset. If this is true, market prices are the best estimates of the value of any investment and financial markets should be relied on to allocate capital investment. This idea, referred to in the jargon of economics as the efficient market hypothesis (technically, the strong efficient market hypothesis), implicitly underlay the deregulation of financial markets that started in the 1970s. Although rarely stated now with as much confidence as it was during its heyday in the 1990s, the efficient market hypothesis remains a background assumption of much central-bank and economic policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 23 hours ago, Triskele said: I honestly think that a part of that belief about the market accurately pricing all information comes in part from the self-flattery about wall street people that it suggests. We are all so smart and superior and financially savvy that we can't get it wrong. It's kind of like they want to have it both ways. If the EMH is true, there is little point to financial advice for the most part. The point being is they like EMH when they don't want to be regulated, and then on the other hand want to disown it, when they charge big fees for their advice. They really can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnot OG Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-supremacists-running-for-office-2018_us_5a7da926e4b0c6726e1285c1?section=us_politics Look at all the white supremacists running for office this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 I really wish people would stop labelling people who support racists as ‘people who support racists’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said: Reasons why I get very annoyed with conservative asset mispricing concern trolling. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/opinion/bitcoin-financial-markets.html If tulip mania did not destroy people's faith in the efficiency of markets, I do not see why bitcoin would do so. It's actually kind of amazing how very nearly the same behavior is repeated across centuries even when there are written records of the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 2 hours ago, James Arryn said: I really wish people would stop labelling people who support racists as ‘people who support racists’. hahah, omg, I almost chocked on my soda. Bravo, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Good news on fundraising for Dem Senate: Quote The numbers are stark: No Republican running for a Democratic-held seat raised more than $1 million from contributors in the fourth quarter of last year, but two Democrats running for seats held by Republicans did. By contrast, of the 10 vulnerable Democrats up for reelection this year in states President Donald Trump carried in 2016, all but West Virginia’s Joe Manchin raised more than $1 million. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), the only Republican seeking reelection in a state Hillary Clinton won, raised only $821,000 —an amount that was nearly doubled by his likely Democratic challenger. Of course there's also this: Quote The Koch Brothers network, which typically spends tens of millions on Senate races through its Freedom Partners Action Fund, announced last week they would spend $400 million this cycle on policy and politics. And GOP operatives remain confident major donors will pull through to fund outside groups to provide air cover in any competitive races. But this big of an early advantage is a solid indicator of the enthusiasm gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 lmao good fuck joe manchin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Manchin is the best liberals can hope for from West Virginia. He's valuable, even if he's not reliable, because the alternative would be a rock-solid Trump vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 8 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said: Manchin is the best liberals can hope for from West Virginia. He's valuable, even if he's not reliable, because the alternative would be a rock-solid Trump vote. He's been as reliable as you can hope for from a guy elected in state that went for Trump by like the highest margin in 2016 (as I recall). He's held the line on a bunch of key issues for the Democrats this Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 54 minutes ago, Shryke said: He's been as reliable as you can hope for from a guy elected in state that went for Trump by like the highest margin in 2016 (as I recall). He's held the line on a bunch of key issues for the Democrats this Congress. We're not disagreeing here, at all. My point was only that Manchin's moderate position is the best liberals can hope for from West Virginia, so they should cherish him, not throw him under the bus for not being liberal enough (because in West virginia terms, he's already as liberal as he can possibly be and still fight for reelection). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 I was commenting on you calling him "not reliable". I mean, he's been pretty goddamn reliable in the fight against Trump and the GOP this congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Hey Cadet Bone Spurs, be careful what you wish for... Quote Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) went after President Trump on Saturday for his tweet questioning a lack of "due process" in abuse claims, saying that Congress could hold hearings about sexual misconduct allegations against him if he wanted due process. “The President has shown through words and actions that he doesn’t value women. It’s not surprising that he doesn’t believe survivors or understand the national conversation that is happening,” Gillibrand tweeted. “If he wants due process for the over dozen sexual assault allegations against him, let’s have Congressional hearings tomorrow,” she continued. “I would support that and my colleagues should too.” http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/373290-gillibrand-if-trump-wants-due-process-well-have-hearings-on-the-allegations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 the democratic party: why expect better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Quote Altman echoes this in a statement for AlterNet: "Proposing to cut an individual's Social Security in exchange for other benefits is a new tactic in the ongoing Republican war on Social Security. Since the program is too popular for them to directly cut or privatize, they apparently are now testing a strategy of forcing people to choose between important economic needs. This involves treating Social Security like a piggy bank rather than the insurance that it is. The reality is that Americans should be able to educate themselves without incurring debt, take paid leave to care for children, and have a secure, adequate source of retirement income after a lifetime of contributing." Conservatives have openly admitted this change of tactic in their war against Social Security. Carrie Lukas, who works for the Independent Women's Forum, the Koch brothers-funded think tank that published the Ivanka-Rubio parental leave plan, recently wrote in an article for the Federalist that the plan is a first step toward privatizing Social Security. In her defense of the Ivanka-Rubio plan, she writes: “Encouraging people to think about Social Security’s assets as if those benefits are their property for use now or at retirement could even encourage people to want to move more in that direction and transform the current pay-as-you-go system into one that pre-funds future benefits and with assets that belong to individuals.” Republicans Have a Sinister New Way of Cutting Social Security It’s a classic Trojan horse scenario—one they've been using a lot lately. https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ivanka-and-marco-rubio-parental-leave-plan-just-cut-social-security Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 “Fake history” has powered the rise of the right — time for the left to fight back When Bill O’Reilly is the best-selling “historian,” you’ve got a problem. https://www.salon.com/2018/02/11/fake-history-has-powered-the-rise-of-the-right-time-for-the-left-to-fight-back/ Quote And the second part, about neoliberalism leading to Trump? I think it's absolutely true, and I’ve written about this extensively: The failures of neoliberalism, and the failures to even confront the fact that neoliberalism has catastrophically failed large segments of the population, is a precondition for the rise of Trumpism. I have a line on this: “If the left doesn't come up with decent solutions, the right will come up with indecent solutions.” We had neoliberalism as a historical phenomenon, with the origins in the transformation of the 1970s. You get floating exchange rates, the anti-labor union movements, the rising financialization of the economy, the decoupling of growth from wages, the capturing of all productivity gains by small fractions of the top of the income bracket, and so on. Those trends begin really in the 1970s, coming out of the oil crisis and the economic restructuring that took place at that time, and there was all sorts of ideological work done to justify that. I'll just cite one example: Eugene Fama’s "efficient market" hypothesis said that bubbles can't exist. He wins the Nobel Prize for that -- after 2008, the financial crash and the dot-com meltdown -- because it does useful ideological work to say that there are no such things as bubbles, that all information is captured in the market. There can’t be any such thing as irrational exuberance. And I think there's been a lot of work among academic economists to come to Jesus on the fact that a lot of boats were missed that led up to this. But no credible alternative model of political economy has actually emerged since 2008. Ten years out from the crash, and none of the institutions have been radically reformed, and none of the trends that led to the crash have been addressed. We had a famously weak recovery. There's a lot of people who are employed, but wages have stagnated, a lot of people have dropped out of the workforce, a lot of people are underemployed, a lot of people are employed in jobs that don't fit their skill set. There's a lot of problems in our economy, and none of those things have been dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck norris 42 Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Is there any chance that there will be a surge of independents that are fiscally conservative? Based on by rough observations of the US and my own country Australia, political parties don't want to commit to paying down the budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 28 minutes ago, chuck norris 42 said: Is there any chance that there will be a surge of independents that are fiscally conservative? Based on by rough observations of the US and my own country Australia, political parties don't want to commit to paying down the budget. There are no conservatives. There is Trump and there is the people he hasn't cowed. Rand Paul grew a thick, girthy, boner for austerity only after adding trillions to the national debt in a shameless cash grab written literally at the 12th hour. Mitch McConnell doesn't even pretend to care. Paul Ryan only wants poor people to be ground into the dirt where they and their taker hands belong. No sir, there will be no swell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukle Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 51 minutes ago, chuck norris 42 said: Is there any chance that there will be a surge of independents that are fiscally conservative? Based on by rough observations of the US and my own country Australia, political parties don't want to commit to paying down the budget. I think there are, but they're not especially electable. So they don't get elected. Tax cuts are nothing to do with economics and everything to do with re-election. Each tax cut is always sold as, "This will put us on firm financial footing," and within a few years, apparently we need yet more. Tax cuts don't boost anything but your re-election chances. There's also the fact that taxes are now so low that deficits are permanent. I am completely honest when I say that almost no one, including me, doesn't pay enough tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 9 minutes ago, Yukle said: I think there are, but they're not especially electable. So they don't get elected. Tax cuts are nothing to do with economics and everything to do with re-election. Each tax cut is always sold as, "This will put us on firm financial footing," and within a few years, apparently we need yet more. Tax cuts don't boost anything but your re-election chances. There's also the fact that taxes are now so low that deficits are permanent. I am completely honest when I say that almost no one, including me, doesn't pay enough tax. The problem is that we are not given services in exchange for our taxes. Wal-Mart gets our tax money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.