Financial News

[kapkomet]

No, I've already given you basics and I suggest you learn to use a search engine if you wish for a detailed plan. You can find plenty of respected economists writings on the bailout which will give you a different perspective. I have given you enough to go off of. Sorry, no bailout on this one for you.

Good lord. You're the one spouting this s*** without any real basis for your rants other then "BAILOUTS SUCKETH". How do you know? What could have been done differently? Do you even know? Other then just "something, anything"... which is a load of unbased bulls***.

 

 

 

[mr_genius]

Good lord. You're the one spouting this s*** without any real basis for your rants other then "BAILOUTS SUCKETH". How do you know? What could have been done differently? Do you even know? Other then just "something, anything"... which is a load of unbased bulls***.

 

mark-to-market?

[kapkomet]

mark-to-market?

Whatever dude. It wasn't the basis of any of my arguments, it just happens to be the profession I'm in so I understand it better then most. So I'm a lazy ass and didn't explain it, but I'm not running around throwing out baseless bulls*** and centering a debate about it.

 

You know I side with your opinions quite a bit, but you're being evasive on this one because you don't know what the hell you're talking about, or if you do, you haven't shown that you do.

 

ETA: by the way, I don't disagree with your premise, you're just not giving any depth as to why when you've been called out on it. It's definitely Ron Paul-follower-esque.

Edited September 25, 2009 by kapkomet

[southsider2k5]

No, I've already given you basics and I suggest you learn to use a search engine if you wish for a detailed plan. You can find plenty of respected economists writings on the bailout which will give you a different perspective. I have given you enough to go off of. Sorry, no bailout on this one for you.

 

You given the company line, nothing more. If you aren't even educated enough to explain another point of view, you don't deserve a bailout either. I know what other economists will say. I want to hear you get past the one liners and actually say something intelligent.

[mr_genius]

If you aren't even educated enough to explain another point of view, you don't deserve a bailout either.

 

Well I certainly can't accept any form of a bailout after all these posts, I will post the mr_genius alternative sunday or so. I need to get up early tomorrow so I'm going to sleep. and I'm going out drinking tomorrow so I will refrain from a drunken explanation of my much anticipated plan.

[Balta1701]

I want a complete FDIC situation, where everyone with over 100k in deposits (they hadn't raised that limit at the time) gets wiped out and we all start from scratch with the FDIC as our only bank. That'd rule.

[kapkomet]

Well I certainly can't accept any form of a bailout after all these posts, I will post the mr_genius alternative sunday or so. I need to get up early tomorrow so I'm going to sleep. and I'm going out drinking tomorrow so I will refrain from a drunken explanation of my much anticipated plan.

You do realize that your drunken plan will be better then what comes out of the halls of economists everywhere, right?

 

[Balta1701]

You do realize that your drunken plan will be better then what comes out of the halls of economists everywhere, right?

 

"Housing prices never go down!"

 

"AAA ratings!"

[NorthSideSox72]

Unemployment rate in Chicago actually dipped for the second straight month. And because of the extension of long-term benefits, the number isn't an artificial drop-off either. Sort of surprising to see Chicago possibly trending out faster than the rest of the country, but we'll see how sustainable this is.

 

By the way, I am in agreement with people who point out that the standard U number isn't very accurate because of all the exceptions, and that U-6 is really a more accurate picture. But I think its amusing that people point to the drop and say "that's because people have been work over a year dropped out", because that is a fallacy for two reasons. One, because of the extension of benefits, its not true anyway. Two, even if it were, we weren't dropping jobs like flies in July 2008 - so you are replacing those numbers with current ones and showing a better result, so that actually means it is MORE positive than it would otherwise be.

 

Anyway, I think its likely this number doesn't move much, but stays semi-level for a while - but even that is progress.

 

[kapkomet]

Unemployment rate in Chicago actually dipped for the second straight month. And because of the extension of long-term benefits, the number isn't an artificial drop-off either. Sort of surprising to see Chicago possibly trending out faster than the rest of the country, but we'll see how sustainable this is.

 

By the way, I am in agreement with people who point out that the standard U number isn't very accurate because of all the exceptions, and that U-6 is really a more accurate picture. But I think its amusing that people point to the drop and say "that's because people have been work over a year dropped out", because that is a fallacy for two reasons. One, because of the extension of benefits, its not true anyway. Two, even if it were, we weren't dropping jobs like flies in July 2008 - so you are replacing those numbers with current ones and showing a better result, so that actually means it is MORE positive than it would otherwise be.

 

Anyway, I think its likely this number doesn't move much, but stays semi-level for a while - but even that is progress.

Extension of benefits doesn't go past a year at this point, although Congress is working on it for states with unemployment above 8.5%

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Extension of benefits doesn't go past a year at this point, although Congress is working on it for states with unemployment above 8.5%

I believe IL already did it. But regardless, as I said, the statistical understanding is key here. On the one hand. 9.x% isn't really the number of unemployed, the number is higher. But its also true that we are replacing stronger months still (until about two months from now), so a decrease in rate is actually non-deceptive as to trend.

 

[southsider2k5]

Extension of benefits doesn't go past a year at this point, although Congress is working on it for states with unemployment above 8.5%

 

Hooray for working in IL.

[kapkomet]

Illinois and Indiana are both covered. This is an extension to the extension... you get 26 weeks, then 20 more, then yet another 13 weeks.

 

[StrangeSox]

Same benefits the whole time?

[kapkomet]

Same benefits the whole time?

Yes.

 

The first 26 weeks is paid for by the company via the unemployment insurance (tax), the next 20 is covered by a bill passed in 2008 even before the worst of this hit, and the last 13 weeks is currently on the table - I think the House has voted it through and the Senate is taking it up this week.

 

[StrangeSox]

Thanks.

[southsider2k5]

Illinois and Indiana are both covered. This is an extension to the extension... you get 26 weeks, then 20 more, then yet another 13 weeks.

 

What did you have to do to get the extentions? I am almost there.

[kapkomet]

What did you have to do to get the extentions? I am almost there.

The state is supposed to mail you something - it's a simple form. But here, I called the Texas Workforce Commission, she asked the questions over the phone and I didn't even miss any payments. You have to wait until you've exhausted the original claim, though. Call the day after.

[lostfan]

Question for someone more economically literate than me that I just thought of. If right now China is keeping their currency artificially low to keep their exports up, and they are loaning us billions and complaining about the amount of debt we have, let's say the dollar gets replaced by something else today. Granted there is nothing to replace it as the global reserve currency but let's just say for the sake of argument there is. Wouldn't this cause the yuan to go up, and make labor in the United States cheaper? Kind of the opposite of what China wants? So why would they want to change it?

[Disco72]

Question for someone more economically literate than me that I just thought of. If right now China is keeping their currency artificially low to keep their exports up, and they are loaning us billions and complaining about the amount of debt we have, let's say the dollar gets replaced by something else today. Granted there is nothing to replace it as the global reserve currency but let's just say for the sake of argument there is. Wouldn't this cause the yuan to go up, and make labor in the United States cheaper? Kind of the opposite of what China wants? So why would they want to change it?

 

Two quick points, and I may come back to this later if I have time:

 

1 - the Euro is a potential global reserve currency (or a "basket" of currencies could be used)

2- since China already manipulates the $US / yuan exchange rate, they could just as easily manipulate the rate with the new reserve currency

 

I'm not completely following your logic in terms of a (replacing the $US as reserve currency) causes b (yuan increases in value vs $US).

[lostfan]

I'm not articulate enough in economics to explain what I meant any better than I just tried to. I suppose, though, that since China can control their labor/wages etc. that they could do that under other circumstances too.

 

Wouldn't a "basket" of currencies need a significant amount of USD?

Edited September 29, 2009 by lostfan

[Disco72]

I'm not articulate enough in economics to explain what I meant any better than I just tried to. I suppose, though, that since China can control their labor/wages etc. that they could do that under other circumstances too.

 

Wouldn't a "basket" of currencies need a significant amount of USD?

 

You would probably want to include a significant amount of USD, but you wouldn't have to do it that way. I think where I'm not following you is exactly the point you just made - it's not a free market activity right now anyway. So, if they manipulate the USD-Yuan rate, they'll keep doing it to their benefit no matter which reserve currency they use.

 

I'm not really a finance guy, so I'm sure some of those guys on here can do a better analysis of this than me.

[southsider2k5]

Question for someone more economically literate than me that I just thought of. If right now China is keeping their currency artificially low to keep their exports up, and they are loaning us billions and complaining about the amount of debt we have, let's say the dollar gets replaced by something else today. Granted there is nothing to replace it as the global reserve currency but let's just say for the sake of argument there is. Wouldn't this cause the yuan to go up, and make labor in the United States cheaper? Kind of the opposite of what China wants? So why would they want to change it?

 

The thing that is hard to calculate is each currency is its own entity. Just because the dollar/yuan relationship could do one thing, that doesn't mean it would do the same thing with their other trade partners. The yuan is pretty much fixed to a certian number of dollars now. What they are most worried about is that they are so heavily invested in the dollar (by both trade surplus and government debt owned), that they are essentially on the dollar as a currency by default. If you devalue the dollar, you devalue China. The Yuan could go up versus say the Euro, but the net result would probably still be a disaster in domestic China because it would give them less money overall to support the bloated government structure over there.

[southsider2k5]

I'm not articulate enough in economics to explain what I meant any better than I just tried to. I suppose, though, that since China can control their labor/wages etc. that they could do that under other circumstances too.

 

Wouldn't a "basket" of currencies need a significant amount of USD?

 

It all depends on what you want your "basket" to achieve. That term is so complete generic, it really means nothing without specifications for its purpose. Most baskets center around trading partners, or a predominant currency that mirrors the trading pattern of a certian commodity. Yes, most "baskets" would require a large amount of dollars, because that is what the trading tied to those things is done in. Some places are trying to change that for various reasons, such as Iran wanting to move oil trading out of the dollar.

[lostfan]

So yeah that's what I think I was getting at, why would they want to yank the rug out from under the dollar? They would lose a ton of money. Is that just them trying to get our government to spend responsibly?