Tab Content
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:04 PM
    Do you want inline citations for every single claim? Uber's issues have been a big part of the news. Are any of the stories I talked about false? Numerous times, but I think most recently in the thread in the main Ron Paul sub-forum. For the record, no. But why would it matter, anyways? Can only Americans non-Jews be a part of this forum? Ugly identity politics.
    26 replies | 376 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:15 PM
    Keep telling yourself that. I didn't say total freedom, I said economic and regulatory freedom. Is Illinois a flyover state? Facts on what?
    26 replies | 376 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:13 PM
    Yes, because California's agriculture sector is the main reason for its prosperity. Silicon Valley popped up and continues to thrive under the super-regulated California system. Look at that Cato study; the states that rank the best in terms of regulatory and economic freedoms are the flyover states (save for like, Florida). Really? Progressives treat government like God, even when constantly criticizing and questioning government. I don't like some aspects of progressivism due to the naivete, focus on outcomes, and some other things. But the idea that progressives treat government like God is a silly attack. That's like saying you treat government like it is literally Satan.
    26 replies | 376 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:56 AM
    "Right-wing capitalism?" What is that? Have you looked at what is going on in SF and the Bay Area? It is the shining beacon of how capitalism creates wealth. SF people actually like capitalism, but just want to fetter it a little bit. They don't treat it like a religion like some do...and look at that, the economy of California is one of the strongest in the world. From what I know, Lyft isn't being "punished" or blamed all that much. Once in a while, people will complain about shoddy background checks and causing traffic congestion (like in this case), but they haven't received the vitriol that Uber has because they haven't had the issues Uber has had. Uber's had the issues with sexual harassment/assault, the questionable labor practices, the issues with how they treat whistle-blowers, Greyball, the issues with tracking people without their knowledge, Kalanick joining Trump's council, the whole thing in New York, the allegations of stealing technology, etc. etc.
    26 replies | 376 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-20-2017, 10:54 PM
    That may be true. It would be interesting to look at the data and the case being made, which will purportedly happen during this hearing. Isn't NYC one of the richer cities in America?
    26 replies | 376 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-20-2017, 09:11 PM
    1) Glenn Greenwald has changed a lot. He was very pro-Iraq war, pro-Afghanistan war, and a staunch supporter of the security state 2) Paul Krugman has amended his views as the immigration imbalance has disappeared. 3) Obama was, in context, condemning the bigotry we have towards illegal immigrants.
    1 replies | 87 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-20-2017, 09:08 PM
    That's a key part of the article. When businesses, firms, and individuals engage in actions that have high social costs, people usually turn to the law to set things straight.
    26 replies | 376 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-20-2017, 01:50 AM
    The thing that boggles my mind...the test results are in. The embargo did not work. In the aftermath of normalizing relations, you had so many people saying how if we had just waited a few more years, the old policy would have worked. It hadn't worked for 50 years! When are they going to look at reality and realize that their view of the world, their idea that force and strength can bend people to your will, just doesn't work? No, this drama is created by people who have utter faith in the crystal clear ideas of neoconservatism, anti-Cubanism, and a foreign policy based off of strength and intimidation. So no matter what the reality is, no matter what the consequences of their policies are (or the consequences of the opposing policies), they will never change their mind, and will always sing the same tune.
    8 replies | 273 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-19-2017, 10:14 PM
    As long as the US continues to only immigrate highly-educated, highly-skilled Muslims, the integration problem the Europeans have isn't going to be a problem. European nations have issues with integrating not just those from the ME, but Asians, Eastern Europeans, etc. It is because they have lax immigration standards. They're getting the rednecks and village idiots of the original countries. The US gets the best of the best; they can typically speak English, are at least college educated (and hence more open to other cultures/ideas), have a valuable job set, and come here willing to sacrifice some culture to improve their lives in real ways.
    157 replies | 3314 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-19-2017, 10:08 PM
    You are never going to get men and woman to be completely equal in all ways. The best you can hope for is inequalities that balance out. Maybe women face judgment and discrimination if they work, but they also get the benefit when it comes to child custody. Maybe men have higher rates of suicide and depression but have to deal with less harassment and stalking. Etc, etc. I would generally agree with you. The problem is the history of this whole issue. "Anti-feminists" have been attacking feminism since the dawn of time. The line of argument that "equality has been achieved today" has been used for more than fifty years. It's very true now, but the problem is it wasn't true back then, and people aren't going to listen to you now since you've been lying about it before. For example, look at Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. Friedman argued from the 50s that sex-based discrimination had largely disappeared. Sowell made that same point since the 70s, pointing to some very ***** studies that this was the case. The thing is, back then, not only did you have a cornucopia of studies showing a wage gap, but you had literal stories of companies having policies of not hiring women, glass ceilings, etc. It was a ridiculous argument to say that equality had been even close to reality. And, the feminists remember. By being so erroneously used, the arguments can't even be used when accurate.
    49 replies | 923 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-18-2017, 06:41 PM
    Of course not. Asians in this country are almost entirely first-generation or second-generation immigrants. They imigrate via sponsership programs where they can find someone who will be willing to employ them in the USA. They tend to be overly educated compared to the average population of their home country; in fact, they tend to be over-educated with respect to the American population. They have the tools and ability to fight past any barriers that are put in place...on top of that, they tend to immigrate to places where those barriers will be the least. Blacks and Hispanics don't have those advantages, and Blacks at least have stayed in areas (the South) where the highest barriers have been present.
    310 replies | 7103 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-18-2017, 05:04 PM
    Well, I don't have the counter-factual. I'm sure that both "sides" have politicized issues in the past. Scalise championed and vote for state support and recognition of straight marriage but not gay marriage. He denied equal protection under the law. What specifically in there makes you angry? What in there makes him worse than David Duke, who's called for Black genocide and repatriation?
    310 replies | 7103 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-18-2017, 11:05 AM
    That's because of the whole "consenting adults" thing. Let's not obfuscate. Do you mean "indentured servants" or do you mean slaves?
    310 replies | 7103 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-18-2017, 11:03 AM
    Net worth increase: No hyperinflation . Even if what you are saying is true (I'd love to see data on that), you can't look at currency in a vacuum. You have to look at wages as well. If there was less currency inflation, there would be less wage inflation.
    46 replies | 1131 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-18-2017, 01:02 AM
    The Irish weren't slaves, man. Cenk Uygur is a prominent leftist who criticized Obama's homophobia. Rachel Maddow is another one. Marriage isn't a right....interesting. So government can take away someone's right to marry?
    310 replies | 7103 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-17-2017, 11:22 PM
    I think the instability of the "monetary foundation" has been greatly overblown. There is a reason why the doomsayers, both from the Left and the Right, Communists, Libertarians, and anarchists, who hate the Federal Reserve, haven't gotten a single economic prediction right in the last eight years (and their record prior to that is your typical stopped-clock). Even doing financial crises, there was no hyperinflation and no currency crises. Everyone talks about the issues with booms and busts, but the US economy was more stable in the 20th century than any before it. We've seen the horrendous issues with gold standards, Euro-like currency, and pegged currencies. I'm not sure how Amazon suffers by growing. By growing, innovating, and reducing costs, we are all benefiting. That's the way the tide has always swung...usually, new industries arise and there is still a need for human capital. But if there isn't, all that it means is prosperity is so cheap everyone can have it. Basically, I'm not sure how we could have stopped the inevitable end of certain kinds of jobs. Government policies, or the "money manipulators" didn't invent the technology that has eliminated so many jobs. It is the same thing I say when idiots claim that government regulations are the main reason why jobs go overseas as if government regulations explain the wage gap between an American and Chinese worker.
    46 replies | 1131 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-17-2017, 11:08 PM
    Ah, so because "leftists" are inconsistent, you must be inconsistent? I suppose one difference would be that Obama changed his viewpoint and endorsed gay marriage (and it was pretty much figured he took the position he did because of political reasons). Scalise has yet to do that. Also, by my recollection, there were many left-wing groups and personalities calling out Obama's homophobia. Glenn Greenwald, Dave Rubin, etc. Are we equating Jeremiah Wright to David Duke? You must believe that Ron Paul is a racist, then, considering his newsletters.
    310 replies | 7103 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-17-2017, 09:04 PM
    How so? No harm is being wished on Scalise. I don't know if Scalise is bigoted, but he is certainly homophobic. He wants to take away the rights of gays and lesbians, while being saved by them.
    310 replies | 7103 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-17-2017, 04:41 PM
    Seems like Cernovich is just virtue signaling...
    22 replies | 643 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-17-2017, 03:38 PM
    I don't think you are familiar with how Amazon prime works. They can increase the rate on you at any time (for continuing years). In certain areas, I think it has. New York, California, Washington, the East Coast...you've seen a lot of wealth creation. Moreover, you've seen real household net worth nearly double in the last 16 years. Not to mention the growth in business net worth... Sure, but many won't be able to control their impulses and that is a benefit to Amazon. They'd be subsidizing me, in a sense, but I'm sure brick-and-mortar grocery stores have similar schemes. Amazon gets my prime fees, my monthly rate, and probably a tiny amount of the groceries I buy. It will be about low margins and high volumes, plus the aforementioned impulse buys from less savvy customers.
    46 replies | 1131 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-17-2017, 02:44 PM
    If you don't like it, don't shop with Amazon :). I think that businesses see fewer opportunities for good investments, and so are turning over their cash to dividends, buybacks, and acquisitions. I also think that bigger companies realize that smaller, nimbler companies tend to be better at forging new ground; instead of throwing away money trying to be innovative in-house, acquire a smaller company at a premium. Plus, there is a lot of issues with corporate managements structures, if not outright control fraud messing with the system. Managers feel like they have to do something...the markets really punish lack of action. A manager who recognizes his company can't grow too much or just needs to stay the course is going to be replaced with a manager with a plan, no matter how fraught. And, when M&A and taking on debt become the in thing to do, that's what everyone does. Even if it fails, you can point to "that's what everyone else did". If you buck the trend and fail, you're out of a job. Managers will prioritize their interests over what is best for the company. Lastly, one can't ignore that markets are increasingly short-sighted. Everyone is looking for short-term price increases, trying to let others hold the bag for long-term failures.
    46 replies | 1131 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-17-2017, 04:48 AM
    You're a special little snowflake, aren't you? Overall, I like Amazon's push to automate. The ability to get Whole Foods delivered is a good idea (unimpressed with Amazon fresh) The concern for me...a year ago Amazon said that each prime member costs $384/year... that's nearly $300 more than they charge. I worry about the day where local shops are gutted and my prime bill for $1000 comes in the mail.
    46 replies | 1131 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-17-2017, 03:45 AM
    The thing is, isn't the requirement that banks pay specie payments itself a regulation? That's a part of Rothbard's argument that doesn't make sense to me. He had this concept of contractual rights of depositors that banks were allowed to violate because the federal government didn't enforce those rights. But wouldn't the government forcing banks to maintain some arbitrary rights of depositors itself a manipulation of the market? Moreover, the effective money supply is controlled by the banks. Government's can, of course, put policies into place that encourage certain activity, but it is the banks that expand the money supply through offering credit; if anything, governments cap expansion. Indeed, from 1929 to 2007, other than for two brief periods in the 70s and 90s, banks had expanded credit to the maximum amount that regulations would allow. Again, no one was forcing the banks to expand credit this much; they were just being prevented from expanding it even more. Lets say all of that is not true and government banking and fiscal policy caused the expansions and inevitable contractions. Wouldn't a rational market have seen it coming? Wouldn't they have anticipated how the War of 1812 would have affected monetary policy, and hence the markets? Wouldn't rational markets factor in "artificial" expansions and contractions? Terminology is important.
    63 replies | 1444 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-15-2017, 01:19 AM
    I have always said it can have a marginal effect, and not in the direct "freeing up cash way" others seem to be saying. Lower rates make the risk-free rate lower, which makes stocks more attractive. It also lowers borrowing costs for the economy and makes stocks more attractive. Plus, QE hasn't been that effective in lowering long-term rates (ie, the risk-free rate), so I'm not sure how much it is pumping up the stock market. I was actually asking for an example of an unfettered market. In the 19th century, you had many booms and busts, with minimal government interference and flat, low, government spending. What is the explanation of that? Also, in this specific example of government cuts in spending fueling a recovery, the system was different back then. The US was on a gold standard; the US government couldn't print money on demand. In that case, they did have to go to the private market and find funds before spending; they taxed and then spent. So, when the government cut spending, it meant funds were freed up for the private sector to use elsewhere as loanable funds.
    63 replies | 1444 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-14-2017, 10:53 PM
    As bonds get stronger, banks and individuals will have more capacity to leverage, yes. But this would also pertain to increases in the stock market or simply gains in the economy...as the balance sheets of banks become healthier, and as the private sector does better, you will see more investment into the stock market as ter of course. Examples of this? What do you define as an unfettered market? We've had this discussion before. This seems a little like circular logic to me. The private sector having any idle resources, no matter how great, is always attributed to some rationality, or, to some government interference, no matter how small. It can never be blamed on the irrationality of people that compose markets. The corporate objectivist function has been disproven half a million times. Stockholders clash with bondholders, investors are irrational, manager prioritize their interest over the interests of shareholders with chicanery, companies decide that manipulation and the withholding of information is the best thing to do, firms creates high social costs which everyone else has to pay...
    63 replies | 1444 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-14-2017, 08:44 PM
    The treatment of reserves and treasuries as equivalent in terms of filling capital ratios is a practice that has been around for forty + years. It isn't a result of QE. Years of US treasuries being reliable and risk-free has resulted in this equivalency, as even with short-term swings, over time, you are guaranteed your principal and coupon payments. Presumptive in the idea is that the private sector doesn't always use all available resources. That is why you have fallow factories and unemployed people; that is why you have periods of deflation. To the extent that government spending cuts into currently used resources, you will have less-productive utilization and inflation. To the extent that the private sector taps into new resources to meet the government spending, you get overall increased production and no inflation.
    63 replies | 1444 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-14-2017, 02:08 AM
    But that's not really how modern banks work. They don't need "money" to buy an asset or make a loan. They create it out of thin air, and acquire the asset while simultaneously creating a liability. They use money and bonds to fulfill their regulatory and internal liquidity and capital requirements. Dollars and bonds are equivalent for the latter, and liquidity requirements are so paltry that the banks aren't exactly in need of dollars in order to make investments/purchases/loans/etc. Well, the issue with that example is that the Fed would be exchanging cash for a strange, physical, depreciating asset. In that way, they actually would give the private sector more buying power since the private sector has a more valuable asset. You'd also have a chasing effect where the private sector starts making bikes in order to sell them to the central bank. Think about it this way: when the Federal Government spends more than it takes in in taxes, it is net adding money to the system. It is crediting bank accounts more than it is debiting them; that is a net increase in prices for the system (provided they are not ameliorated by increased production, but I digress). Let us say the Feds run a deficit of 500 billion (and that for simplicity's sake, the trade deficit is zero). So now, the wealth of the private sector has gone up by 500 billion. They have more money to spend on goods. But, the treasury/central bank will, in normal times, issues government bonds to soak up that money. Those bond sales work like taxes...the feds are debiting bank accounts. Fundamentally, though, when the bonds are issued, the net worth of the private sector hasn't changed. It used to have 500 billion in "cash", and now it has 500 billion in bonds. It can use those bonds to borrow and leverage. That's the reason why net worth is nearly 100 trillion and the effective money supply is nearly 70 trillion even though net real cash+bonds in the domestic private sector is like 3.5 trillion.
    63 replies | 1444 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-13-2017, 11:23 PM
    Why would the bank have to come up with the cash? The Fed is giving cash to the banks in exchange for bonds. What you are saying makes no sense. The Fed creates money, and then gives it to the private sector in exchange for bonds. The net change is that the private sector has cash instead of bonds. Instead of having an IOU that was fairly liquid and paid interest, they get cash that is completely liquid and pays no interest. The Federal Reserve holds the bond, gets interest from the US government, and pays it back to the taxpayer minus their paltry operating costs. When bonds are "paid off", nay, when the government spends money, they don't really take it out of the economy in the sense you are saying. The Treasury will create money out of thin air and credit necessary bank accounts, and the in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, will issue treasury bills to remove that money from the system in order to keep interest rates at their target. The reserve happens when net taxes are collected. In fact, the current bond-buying program is just a reversal of the above. The private sector accumulated all the bonds thanks to federal government deficits, and the central bank is now swapping those bonds out for cash in order to maintain an interest rate target/affect the yield curve.
    63 replies | 1444 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-13-2017, 06:38 PM
    Aren't these mutually exclusive? Yes, the Federal Reserve creates the money out of thin air. But, they don't just give to the banks; they swap it out for bonds. The net result is that the private sector loses an interest-bearing, slightly-illiquid asset and gains a non-interest-bearing, very liquid one. I suppose that greater liquidity could help with purchasing stocks, but leverage will have a much greater effect. As others have pointed out, P/E ratios aren't that absurd. The equity risk premium given current market levels (granted, only checked a few weeks ago) is higher than its historical average. Higher earnings, a lower riskfree rate (ie, lower interest rates), and increased dividends/buyback are the primary causes of the stock market highs.
    63 replies | 1444 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    06-13-2017, 10:30 AM
    If you agree with what I said, what is the mechanism by which this happens? Again, how? This isn't how banks operate. A way to think about it, in a not-so-perfect example, is if you are a homeowner who wants to start a business. To acquire the funds to start your business, you can sell your house, or take out a loan against the value of your house. Your buying power does not fundamentally change when you sell the house...and by selling the house, you avoid paying interest, but now pay rent. Bonds vs. reserves (what the Fed gives in exchange for bonds) is a similar concept, except bonds are much, much more liquid than a house, you are going to have little disparity between bond value and dollars returned (vs selling a house with tax penalties and the amount a bank will lend against it) and bonds only represent a portion of a bank's assets while typically a house would represent a large majority of person's net worth.
    63 replies | 1444 view(s)
More Activity
About Dr.No.

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
392
Posts Per Day
1.47
General Information
Last Activity
Today 03:52 PM
Join Date
09-29-2016
Referrals
0
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast

06-21-2017


06-20-2017


06-19-2017


06-18-2017



Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast