The CFPC charged people with basically that a couple months back, keeping oil off the market just to push the price up.

 

And for the record, I hate speculators of commodities as much as you seem too. I think speculation should be much harder and more rules imposed. If it were up to me, if you cannot accept delivery of said commodity, you speculate with it.

 

And I know, speculation fans, why you can't do this...leave me alone.

Yeah, why would you take CEO's and banks at their word for why they aren't hiring and investing. It has to be a vast right wing conspiracy, not the words of the Democrat in office.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1063763332.html

Here is the biggest problem with the stimulus plan, and the main reason it failed. You can't go on television and be anti-bank, anti-wealth, and anti-business and expect banks, the rich, and business to lead a recovery no matter how much money you throw at the problem. When you are publicly talking in punitive terms, yet bemoaning the lack of creation in this country, you are either clueless or blinded to your agenda. That's why the stimulus failed at a trillion, and would have failed at two, three, or however many hindsight trillion dollars you want to make it. The talk about it needing to be bigger is a complete smokescreen for the real failure of the plan, and that is Obama's complete failure at installing any confidence into this economy.

 

I know this is your ideology, but you keep ignoring that the criticism came in January 2009. It's hard for Obama to have failed at instilling confidence that quickly, for the claims that the stimulus was too small to be a smokescreen for that, or especially to be "hindsight." It's not like there wasn't quantitative analyses behind the claims that it was too small and predicted that it would have a weak effect on unemployment. You keep ignoring that, over and over, to shoe-horn this into your narrative. But it just does not fit.

 

I know this is your ideology, but you keep ignoring that the criticism came in January 2009. It's hard for Obama to have failed at instilling confidence that quickly, for the claims that the stimulus was too small to be a smokescreen for that, or especially to be "hindsight." It's not like there wasn't quantitative analyses behind the claims that it was too small and predicted that it would have a weak effect on unemployment. You keep ignoring that, over and over, to shoe-horn this into your narrative. But it just does not fit.

 

 

And you keep conveniently not counting QE I and II, which were trillions added to this so called stimulus, that never touched the votes of Congress.

 

The goalposts keep moving.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1063763332.html

 

In the survey, conducted July 8-13 and released Monday, 53 economists—not all of whom answer every question—...

I know this is your ideology, but you keep ignoring that the criticism came in January 2009. It's hard for Obama to have failed at instilling confidence that quickly, for the claims that the stimulus was too small to be a smokescreen for that, or especially to be "hindsight." It's not like there wasn't quantitative analyses behind the claims that it was too small and predicted that it would have a weak effect on unemployment. You keep ignoring that, over and over, to shoe-horn this into your narrative. But it just does not fit.

 

And you are ignoring Obama, over and over, to shoehorn this into your ideology.

And you keep conveniently not counting QE I and II, which were trillions added to this so called stimulus, that never touched the votes of Congress.

 

The goalposts keep moving.

 

Yep, but that doesn't count.

And you keep conveniently not counting QE I and II, which were trillions added to this so called stimulus, that never touched the votes of Congress.

 

The goalposts keep moving.

 

Except they explicitly differentiate between fiscal and monetary stimulus and their effects. It's not goalpost moving to say you guys keep deliberately obscuring exactly what the Keynesian minded economists call for (and when they did it, unless they went back in time to write editorials in early 2009).

In the survey, conducted July 8-13 and released Monday, 53 economists—not all of whom answer every question—...

 

Oh I'm sorry, please feel free to provide data for your claims any time. You have a very distinct pattern of never doing that.

Except they explicitly differentiate between fiscal and monetary stimulus and their effects. It's not goalpost moving to say you guys keep deliberately obscuring exactly what the Keynesian minded economists call for (and when they did it, unless they went back in time to write editorials in early 2009).

 

Yeah, putting of trillions of dollars into the economy directly doesn't have any Keynesian effect...

Oh I'm sorry, please feel free to provide data for your claims any time. You have a very distinct pattern of never doing that.

 

Like when everyone blew off an actual CEO's statements?

And you are ignoring Obama, over and over, to shoehorn this into your ideology.

 

Yeah, business is just so askeerd of big, bad Obama. It's not because there's a total lack of demand. If a good Republican were in office, they'd be hiring like crazy to fill demand that doesn't exist!

Like when everyone blew off an actual CEO's statements?

 

One CEO b****ing about Obama does not a data set make.

Yeah, business is just so askeerd of big, bad Obama. It's not because there's a total lack of demand. If a good Republican were in office, they'd be hiring like crazy to fill demand that doesn't exist!

 

Lack of demand caused by what exactly? Lack of hiring maybe? Why is there a lack of hiring again?

One CEO b****ing about Obama does not a data set make.

 

But economists who aren't hiring anyone absolutely do!

Yeah, putting of trillions of dollars into the economy directly doesn't have any Keynesian effect...

 

yeah, it's not like they explicitly critique monetary stimulus during a liquidity trap...

 

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/trioshrt.html

Lack of demand caused by what exactly? Lack of hiring maybe? Why is there a lack of hiring again?

mean obama and empty threats of REGULATION! and TAXES! of course

http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcri...id_cote_110112/

 

COTE: I don`t think there are many CEOs out there who would say, geez, things are booming, but I`m uncertain on regulation, so I`m not going to hire people. While I`d be the first to admit that uncertainty on regulation doesn`t help, at the end of the day, I think the bigger driver is uncertainty of demand.

http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcri...id_cote_110112/

 

COTE: I don`t think there are many CEOs out there who would say, geez, things are booming, but I`m uncertain on regulation, so I`m not going to hire people. While I`d be the first to admit that uncertainty on regulation doesn`t help, at the end of the day, I think the bigger driver is uncertainty of demand.

 

What's awesome is before I clicked your profile, I said, "I bet this guy is in his mid 20's". You and I aren't all that different, as it turns out. This might really scare you: When I was 25, I was basically exactly like you, nearly point for point. Fast forward 10 years, and look at how much the world has changed.

 

Oh, and I voted you as a 5 star poster...because I hate when people down vote peoples ratings just because they don't agree with them.

Edited July 26, 201114 yr by Y2HH

What's awesome is before I clicked your profile, I said, "I bet this guy is in his mid 20's". You and I aren't all that different, as it turns out. This might really scare you: When I was 25, I was basically exactly like you, nearly point for point. Fast forward 10 years, and look at how much the world has changed.

 

Oh, and I voted you as a 5 star poster...because I hate when people down vote peoples ratings just because they don't agree with them.

 

You mean I can grow up to be a terrible poster who sold his soul, too?

In the survey, conducted July 8-13 and released Monday, 53 economists—not all of whom answer every question—...

 

to finish up this quote...

 

Some executives echoed the survey’s central finding.

 

“We’re hiring a little here and there—but it’s not what it should be,” said Daniel Cunningham, chief executive of Long-Stanton Manufacturing Co., of Hamilton, Ohio. “And it’s because of the lack of demand.” Long-Stanton, which makes metal parts for the aerospace, medical and other industries, has snapped back from the recession, “but volume is still not up to where it was, or where it should be,” Mr. Cunningham said. Long-Stanton is privately held and has 75 employees.

 

 

and this is the WSJ, not exactly a left-leaning paper.

"The irony of the situation at the moment, with markets opening tomorrow morning, is that the biggest threat to the world financial system comes from a few right-wing nutters in the American congress rather than the euro zone," - Vince Cable, Minister for Business in the Coalition government in Britain.

You mean I can grow up to be a terrible poster who sold his soul, too?

 

If you are lucky.

You mean I can grow up to be a terrible poster who sold his soul, too?

 

No, you will grow up and realize that while a lot of what you say is ideal, it's not feasibly possible in the reality in which we live. You will learn to accept that reality (you haven't yet), regardless of it sometimes sucking, something young people refuse to do out of sheer idealism. That never say die attitude and all...

 

As you age, you will realize things don't change because system as it's become doesn't allow it. It [the system] will ruin you after you accept it for what it is during your age of understanding, which is your mid 20's.

 

There is a saying, "The older we get, the smarter our fathers become."

 

You will also realize that all of this is better than it seems to be...and life is awesome. That having a drink on a cool evening with friends or family watching the sun set is a far greater rush than going out clubbing to pick up chicks or discussing politics with a bunch of like minded individuals on a forum if that's your cup of tea. It's an appreciation of life you don't have yet -- you think you do -- but you don't. And when you are in your mid thirties and think back to when I said this, you will understand. I know...I was once 25, too.

 

I can now understand how much I didn't know when I was in my twenties...and accept how much I don't know now.

 

I'll get off my cynical soap box now...because this will fall on deaf young ears anyway.

Edited July 26, 201114 yr by Y2HH