[turtle777]

Well, we're f*cked.

Originally Posted by WSJ

Bernanke Puzzled by Gold Rally

“I don’t fully understand movements in the gold price,” Mr. Bernanke admitted.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/...by-gold-rally/

WTF ?

There is only two possibilities:

a) Ben really is that dense (unlikely)
b) The political "elite" will lie to us and twist the truth until we're down the cliff.

At any rate, the consequence is that they'll maintain the policies that will bankrupt this country.

-t

[hyteckit]

Bernanke underestimated the idiocy of the conservative right and how paranoid those conservatives are.

Fear, fear, and fear.

God, Gold, and Guns.

Gold is up the same reason why gun sales are up.

Because we have a Black Democratic President.

[ort888]

Are they scared that Obama is gonna go all "Mr. T" and use all of the countries gold to bling out?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Gold is up the same reason why gun sales are up.

Because we have a Black Democratic President.

If I wanted to go after Obama, I wouldn't do it with my gold, that's for sure.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Bernanke underestimated the idiocy of the conservative right and how paranoid those conservatives are.

Fear, fear, and fear.

God, Gold, and Guns.

Gold is up the same reason why gun sales are up.

Because we have a Black Democratic President.

Wait a second. Are you seriously attributing gold prices to Tea Party types? They're hardly the economic elite. If that's truly what you think that's hilarious.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Wait a second. Are you seriously attributing gold prices to Tea Party types? They're hardly the economic elite. If that's truly what you think that's hilarious.

What a second.

Are you saying Tea Party types are paranoid conservatives who fear Pres. Obama because he's black, might be a Muslim, and might take their guns away? However, they are too poor to buy gold and guns?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

WTF ?

There is only two possibilities:

a) Ben really is that dense (unlikely)
b) The political "elite" will lie to us and twist the truth until we're down the cliff.

Here's what really happened:

1) For some time, they've been printing more gold. Literally. It went fractional about a year back. Fact.
2) 'Copter boy thought they were printing enough to keep the price down.
3) He was wrong, possibly because too many people demanded hard delivery to make the Au-QE work.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Gold is up the same reason why gun sales are up.

Because we have a Black Democratic President.

I don't have a black Democratic president.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Here's what really happened:

1) For some time, they've been printing more gold. Literally. It went fractional about a year back. Fact.
2) 'Copter boy thought they were printing enough to keep the price down.
3) He was wrong, possibly because too many people demanded hard delivery to make the Au-QE work.

I'm in the same camp.

You ain't got it until you take physical delivery.

I don't trust most of the Gold ETFs.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What a second. Are you saying Tea Party types are paranoid conservatives who fear Pres. Obama because he's black, might be a Muslim, and might take their guns away? However, they are too poor to buy gold and guns?

If you think the international price of gold is heavily influenced by the buying activities of Americans who dislike or fear President Obama, then I'd say that's a mightily foolish outlook. I don't think any Economist or market expert, left, center or right politically speaking would agree with that "analysis."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm in the same camp.

You ain't got it until you take physical delivery.

I don't trust most of the Gold ETFs.

Yup.

So, what was their plan? I still haven't digested it all enough to figure it out.
Dilute the metals market to try to drive people to fiat and help the Keynesian ********ery to kick in?

[Big Mac]

Doof, who is 'Copter boy?

My beloved grandmother very unfortunately passed away in September 2009, so since then I've become much better acquainted with her financial advisor. He's been managing my grandmother's assets for years and seems competent. He has a firm with his name on it and he mentioned he manages $350 million in assets. The funny thing is, though, at the beginning of the year I brought up the point that gold had just passed the $1,000 mark and looked like it was breaking that resistance level to go higher. He told me in response that he thought gold was overbought and that the rally was likely over. . .

So when I brought that issue up to him again a few weeks ago and had him eat some small amount of crow, I told him that I'd like to see some exposure to gold. I don't know why he was averse to that since most money managers call for some level of gold diversification. This time he agreed with me that on any major pull backs he would start accumulating a position in gold.

I think he also missed buying into Apple back when the market was cliff diving last year and Apple was below $100.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Bernanke underestimated the idiocy of the conservative right and how paranoid those conservatives are.

Fear, fear, and fear.
God, Gold, and Guns.
Gold is up the same reason why gun sales are up.

Thanks for being a poster child example for this:

Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

The Left has no clue, but tons of opinion about the economy and economic issues.

Daniel Klein: Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? - WSJ.com

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Doof, who is 'Copter boy?

Bernanke. His nickname is "Helicopter Ben".

For precious metals investors, there is no one better to have as Chairman of the Federal Reserve than Ben Bernanke. His solutions for economic calamity are all straight from the Keynesian textbook: higher government spending and credit infusion via artificially low interest rates. In fact, Bernanke even earned the title “Helicopter Ben” from critics who latched onto his quote regarding the printing press to reverse recessions. He famously said, “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost.”

As in "drop money out of a helicopter"

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

My beloved grandmother very unfortunately passed away in September 2009, so since then I've become much better acquainted with her financial advisor. He's been managing my grandmother's assets for years and seems competent. He has a firm with is name on it and he mentioned he manages $350 million in assets. The funny thing is, though, at the beginning of the year I brought up the point that gold had just passed the $1,000 mark and looked like it was breaking that resistance level to go higher. He told me in response that he thought gold was overbought and that the rally was likely over. . .

So when I brought that issue up to him again a few weeks ago and had him eat some small amount of crow, I told him that I'd like to see some exposure to gold. I don't know why he was averse to that since most money managers call for some level of gold diversification. This time he agreed with me that on any major pull backs he would start accumulating a position in gold.

I think he also missed buying into Apple back when the market was cliff diving last year and Apple was below $100.

BP, the day after they've settled up.

[Big Mac]

Great article, turtle. Sometimes I think hyteckit is a leftist parody account, but that article proves that the left is truly that stupid.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What a second.

Are you saying Tea Party types are paranoid conservatives who fear Pres. Obama because he's black, might be a Muslim, and might take their guns away? However, they are too poor to buy gold and guns?

WHAT?? Again with the stereotypes mis-characterized by your favorite leftist propaganda talking heads? Are you so stupid and dull witted that you haven't connected the spend-spend-spend of the Liberal statists(formerly known as Democrats) and the deficits they are creating to the increase in gold prices?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Are you so stupid and dull witted that you haven't connected the spend-spend-spend of the Liberal statists(formerly known as Democrats) and the deficits they are creating to the increase in gold prices?

The short answer is: yes

Even Ivy-League educated members of the Administration seem to have issues connecting those dots.
I don't know what they are smocking, but it'll surely cost us dearly.

-t

[BadKosh]

Some of the other 'elite' are not as the leftist press stated either. Wasn't Obama supposed to be the smartest man ever to be president? How is it he is wringing his hands over many issues, appears wishy-washy (even more than that dolt Carter) and is afraid to talk to the head of BP? I think he realizes he's over his head and doesn't want to be seen as such when dealing with someone who is actually intelligent, and not just falling for his own propaganda. Hell, they spouted off about how bad the AZ immigration bill was without even reading it. His VP is an even bigger embarrassment.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

His VP is an even bigger embarrassment.

Yes, but unlike Obama, Biden owns up to it.

-t

[BadKosh]

The Mainstream Media talking heads have been blathering all over this administration, and to a large extent spinning for the White House and liberals in congress, so I think they should be included when talking about the 'Political Elite'.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Thanks for being a poster child example for this:





The Left has no clue, but tons of opinion about the economy and economic issues.

Daniel Klein: Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? - WSJ.com

Haha... according to the study, high school dropouts know more about Econ 101 than College graduates.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Haha... according to the study, high school dropouts know more about Econ 101 than College graduates.

And you are surprised why ?

It's long known that college education is influenced by a leftist agenda.

Just look at what they turned made Keynesian economics into - a liberals wet dream in terms of big government and spending.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Haha... according to the study, high school dropouts know more about Econ 101 than College graduates.

That settles it - it's an information input/processing problem.
As I suspected.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's long known that college education is influenced by a leftist agenda.

Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.

Hmmm. So, education in educational establishments (as opposed to "on the job") is mostly* given by those who've failed at their subject in the real world. Is it any wonder that most college educators are lefties?

(* exceptions apply in certain cases, obviously)

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And you are surprised why ?

It's long known that college education is influenced by a leftist agenda.

Just look at what they turned made Keynesian economics into - a liberals wet dream in terms of big government and spending.

-t

An opinion piece written by Daniel B. Klein about his own right-wing nutjob study is proof?

Questions like:

Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.

Progressive 83.0% wrong
Very Conservative 25.9% wrong

or

Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.

Progressive 51.3% wrong
Very Conservative 19.1% wrong


Anyone who doesn't agree with the libertarian or very conservative ideology is wrong.

Haha... WTF!

[turtle777]

*swoosh*

It's obvious that this went over your head.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.

Progressive 51.3% wrong
Very Conservative 19.1% wrong

So tell me, hyteckit... Where do you think the money comes from to pay the salaries of those who enforce mandatory licencing?

How many licences have you applied for which cost you nothing?

Or do you just think that a company doesn't include overhead costs such as licensing payments in their business model and the CEO just does without champagne for a week to cover it?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So tell me, hyteckit... Where do you think the money comes from to pay the salaries of those who enforce mandatory licencing?

How many licences have you applied for which cost you nothing?

Or do you just think that a company doesn't include overhead costs such as licensing payments in their business model and the CEO just does without champagne for a week to cover it?

You are asking all the wrong questions.

It just a simple supply and demand question.

If I want to be a licensed doctor, I paid for it. Who's paying for me to get my medical license? Me.

Who pays the salaries of those who enforce mandatory license? The government, tax payers, and the person obtaining the license. No direct effect on the price of the services.

What affect the price of medical services? Many other factors other than mandatory licensing. Such as the cost of medication, medical equipment, malpractice insurance, and health care insurance companies.

How much does mandatory licensing have on medical cost? Almost none. It's a sunk cost and it's not considered when pricing medical services.


A better question is what effect does mandatory licensing have on the supply side of the labor market.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

How much does mandatory licensing have on medical cost? Almost none.

So, some then.

[Kerrigan]

I've always found liberals to be frustrating during economics discussions. Economics was part of my joint degree (I hated that major so much) so I can vaguely recall the basics of macro and micro.

What irritates me the most, though, is the well established assumption (and this is textbook economics, folks) that the State has an infinite capacity to borrow, because it supposedly will exist into the infinite future. Now I think we're beginning to witness the first real challenge to this ridiculous assumption.

[TheoCryst]

All I remember from econ in high school and college: microeconomics consists primarily of common sense, and macroeconomics consists exclusively of blind guesses that are wrong exactly as often as they are right.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That settles it - it's an information input/processing problem.
As I suspected.

Bingo! Garbage in - garbage out.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You are asking all the wrong questions.

It just a simple supply and demand question.

What kind of service do you provide? Good or lousy? How does your performance affect your costs?
Obviously you don't remember what you've read, unless you just plain missed it:

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Or do you just think that a company doesn't include overhead costs such as licensing payments in their business model and the CEO just does without champagne for a week to cover it?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If I want to be a licensed doctor, I paid for it. Who's paying for me to get my medical license? Me.

Out of pocket ,or through gov't loans?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Who pays the salaries of those who enforce mandatory license? The government, tax payers, and the person obtaining the license. No direct effect on the price of the services.

Whos tax money are you talking about? YOURS!

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What affect the price of medical services? Many other factors other than mandatory licensing. Such as the cost of medication, medical equipment, malpractice insurance, and health care insurance companies.

And they don't pass their costs on to you?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

How much does mandatory licensing have on medical cost? Almost none. It's a sunk cost and it's not considered when pricing medical services.


A better question is what effect does mandatory licensing have on the supply side of the labor market.

So if your a crappy doctor, you'll pay more for insurances and have fewer patients. At what point do you go under?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, some then.

Because there are many cases where mandatory licensing doesn't increase cost of services at all.

So a generalize statement such as:

Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.


I would disagree.

A generalize statement like that means all cases are true, which it is not.


Never taken a SAT exam?

It's like basic math questions.

Multiplying a number results in a larger number.

Conservatives: agree
Liberals: disagree

Who's right? Liberals.

Not if you multiply by a negative number or fraction. But there are cases where it is true.

Now I know why conservatives can't get into college. Haha...

SAT == liberal bias

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

It just a simple supply and demand question.

Which is funny because everything's funny when you're all like... wasted and stuff?

If I want to be a licensed doctor, I paid for it. Who's paying for me to get my medical license? Me.

Who administers the licensing? You? No. A bureaucracy 5 times larger than necessary administers the licensing.

Who pays the salaries of those who enforce mandatory license? The government, tax payers, and the person obtaining the license. No direct effect on the price of the services.

First of all "the government" and "tax payers" are the same source of funding unless of course we're talking about busy printing presses at the treasury and the subsequent inflationary burden to all of us. Second of all, mandatory licensing is a residual expense to practitioners. It's not an exam you take out of med school and practice from the remainder of your career. Econ 101: pennies add up to dollars. A cost to me will result in a cost to you.

What affect the price of medical services? Many other factors other than mandatory licensing. Such as the cost of medication, medical equipment, malpractice insurance, and health care insurance companies.

Health care insurance companies like Medicare and Medicaid that practitioners and their administrators absolutely dread and the malpractice insurance necessary to cover bloated claims from lacking tort legislation. I agree.

How much does mandatory licensing have on medical cost? Almost none. It's a sunk cost and it's not considered when pricing medical services.

As Doofy says; "so... some then." It's considered because all payables are considered. You'd be amazed what's not itemized on your hospital bill.

A better question is what effect does mandatory licensing have on the supply side of the labor market.

I think a better question is what effect does the new healthcare reform legislation have on the labor market. (medical and general)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Because there are many cases where mandatory licensing doesn't increase cost of services at all.

Name one.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Never taken a SAT exam?

Of course I haven't. We don't have them in England.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

It's like basic math questions.

Multiplying a number results in a larger number.

Conservatives: agree
Liberals: disagree

Who's right? Liberals.

Not if you multiply by a negative number or fraction. But there are cases where it is true.

You'll note that this was taken into account in the testing.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Now I know why conservatives can't get into college. Haha...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

For real. It's either complete self-indulgence or the new method of winning conservative converts. I can't decide whether to ignore it or quote it.

[besson3c]

So, who is winning this little football game? Can somebody update me with a score?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, who is winning this little football game? Can somebody update me with a score?

The Liberals scored 10 goals.

Unfortunately, they were all own goals.

-t

[besson3c]

Why do you guys care about what the majority of Liberals or Conservatives do or think? The majority of people are morons, why not just worry about yourself? The same goes for fussing over whether the majority of people are using a Windows or Mac computer, who cares about them?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Why do you care about others caring about what the majority of liberals of conservatives do or think?

Sheesh.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do you guys care about what the majority of Liberals or Conservatives do or think?

We elect the people that spend (and this case, waste) our money.

The majority of people are morons, why not just worry about yourself?

Actually, the majority of people are average, with a slight skew up or down depending upon what segment of the bell curve constitutes your majority.

The same goes for fussing over whether the majority of people are using a Windows or Mac computer, who cares about them?

Whether or not someone else uses a Mac has no relationship to the fact that, now, half of the US pays no income tax, private pay is at its lowest level in the country's history, and benefits are being dolled out at record levels.

Misinformed public --> bad governance --> bad economic policy --> no jobs --> unrest

[lpkmckenna]

Sorry to interrupt the rightwing circle jerk, but I happened across this yesterday: 6-companies-that-make-money-solving-problems-they-made-up. It's not exactly rocket surgery, that some companies are making money by selling gold for money to people with a "gold fetish."

As for the "liberals are economically illiterate" stuff, I have to challenge the basis of that link. For instance:

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

So, on this basis, should we remove the housing restrictions that separate industrial districts from housing zones? Yes, that would indeed lead to cheaper homes, but it would also cheapen the quality of the areas we live in. Anyone wanna have their backyard butt up against a smelting plant?

And there can be no real "right or wrong" answer to the question, because "more affordable" is undefined: does he mean the cost of buying a home, or the overall affordability of having a home? It certainly makes the house cheaper if I can buy one next to a plastics plant, but what about the lifetime expenses of increased health care costs, higher home insurance costs by living next to a dangerous fire hazard, damage to the property by fumes, and so on. Liberals may be thinking of "affordability" more long term than mere purchase price. (Kinda like the PC vs Mac and total costs of ownership issues.)

All regulations create costs, but are those costs worth it? Regulations for employee safety or cleaner air or reduced landfill are usually worth every penny. Don't swallow the "deregulation=good" mantra that focuses on cost without regard for externalities. Just look at the difference between Canada's properly regulated banks and the deregulation clusterfnuk that America hung itself with.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

We elect the people that spend (and this case, waste) our money.



Actually, the majority of people are average, with a slight skew up or down depending upon what segment of the bell curve constitutes your majority.



Whether or not someone else uses a Mac has no relationship to the fact that, now, half of the US pays no income tax, private pay is at its lowest level in the country's history, and benefits are being dolled out at record levels.

Misinformed public --> bad governance --> bad economic policy --> no jobs --> unrest

So why do people feel the need to defend the embarrassing polls that are used to come to generalizations with? So some Democrats or Republicans say or think misinformed things, who cares? Sure generalizations matter so far as voting patterns and stuff like that, but to us personally? What visible Democrats or Republicans other than myself do does not change the way I think, and debating whether some broad sweeping generalization is fair or not has never been a particularly fulfilling exercise.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So why do people feel the need to defend the embarrassing polls that are used to come to generalizations with? So some Democrats or Republicans say or think misinformed things, who cares? Sure generalizations matter so far as voting patterns and stuff like that, but to us personally? What visible Democrats or Republicans other than myself do does not change the way I think, and debating whether some broad sweeping generalization is fair or not has never been a particularly fulfilling exercise.

What the heck are you talking about ?

Embarrassing polls ? Are you referring to the article I posted ?
What sweeping generalization ?

-t

[Kerrigan]

I actually have no idea what besson's post is in response to.

The good thing, though, is that we are talking about money. When it comes to money, talk is cheap, and whatever obfuscatory garbage liberals try to come up with to justify further taxing and spending will be soundly rejected at the polls this year.

[lpkmckenna]

I was looking at the survey again. Ludicrous stuff:
1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree).
The correct answer is: who gives a damn? Anyone want to live in a world where doctors and lawyers don't require a license? Like I said above, some additional costs are worth every penny.

2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Of course our standard of living is higher, if measured with only dollars. Heck, even crime is much, much lower now than 30 years ago. But is "standard of living" affected by abstract things like media concentration? or crappy education? or terrorism? or near-constant warfare? or ever longer commuting to work? or increased school shootings, bullying, teachers fcuking students, etc? I think we can all agree that liberals and conservatives disagree on what makes for "standard of living." Hence, the question is kinda loaded.

4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree).
Microsoft. (This is a snarky answer, in case you missed it.)

5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
If they are being treated like crap, they are being exploited, even if they make lots of money. Once again, wages is not the only issue.

6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).
Too vague. In general, both nations trading freely will benefit overall. However, some industries in each country will suffer, to the benefit of the whole economy. So, strictly speaking, free trade creates both employment and unemployment. For instance, increased trade with China decimated electronics manufacturing jobs here, but I'd rather have cheaper computers and just work somewhere else.

7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Raising the minimum wage will create unemployment in industries that can replace workers. For instance, the comparative price of robots might improve over workers following a minimum wage increase. This will cause layoffs for workers at some plants, while creating jobs for robotics makers.

However, some industries cannot replace workers like that; you can't replace a waitress with a robot. No minimum wage increase has ever raised the unemployment rates of the services industries, which are far more affected by overall economic conditions and consumer spending.

Perhaps the real problem is that we only have one minimum wage, instead of different minimums for different industries depending on the elasticity of labour costs. But that would certainly create a political and lobbying nightmare.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I actually have no idea what besson's post is in response to.

The good thing, though, is that we are talking about money. When it comes to money, talk is cheap, and whatever obfuscatory garbage liberals try to come up with to justify further taxing and spending will be soundly rejected at the polls this year.

It's just to the general overtones in this thread about how the left is less savvy about economics and therefore this somehow represents the left-wing among us, the whole WSJ article/survey thing...

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So why do people feel the need to defend the embarrassing polls that are used to come to generalizations with? So some Democrats or Republicans say or think misinformed things, who cares? Sure generalizations matter so far as voting patterns and stuff like that, but to us personally? What visible Democrats or Republicans other than myself do does not change the way I think, and debating whether some broad sweeping generalization is fair or not has never been a particularly fulfilling exercise.

turtle's article fit hyteckit to a capital T. It was an interesting formal study corroborated by anecdotal experience in this forum, so I'd say it's a very valid thing to discuss. It's now a demonstrated fact that leftists are by in large moronic when it comes to economics, and that being the case it's not good having them in positions of power.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

b) The political "elite" will lie to us and twist the truth until we're down the cliff.

This is a revelation?