Obama the Marxist disarming the United States according to schedule.
Proposing to get rid of 80% of their nuclear missiles. Now that would be questionable. But on top of that he wants to eliminate missile defense.
So a literal traitor, criminal fraudster, usurper, is now going full bore to make Americans defenseless.
Build basements is all I can say.
What deep delusion settled upon you all just a couple of months back. He is during wartime, not pulling back and consolidating, financially and security-wise. Rather he’s going full tit ruining Americas financing and eliminating the improvement of the missile defense shield, if not the entirety of the shield itself. On the basis that its unproven. Which is to say on the basis that people have not yet lobbed a nuclear missile at America so on that basis missile defense is unproven.
Actually missile defense works pretty well and would work better if they built the gear they know for sure is going to work and not build it on the basis of not upsetting Chinese and Russians.
He’s a traitor. Really you all know that don’t you?
“ARE YOU READING THIS GRAEME BIRD? ROBERT FRICKIN’ BARRO.
THE MULTIPLIER IS REAL AND IT IS LESS THAN ONE.”
You idiot Mark Hill. Robert Barro doesn’t know shit. You say that there is a multiplier. Prove it. Barro is an economist of poor judgment and here he is wrong. And if he was right Mark Hill could show it or he could get some other dummy to help him show it.
All this means is that if you rob 10 billion dollars from business-to-business spending directly, you are also robbing a further 8 billion from this spending category indirectly. Which if true would be a further disaster.
Or it could be that Barro has confused himself getting nominal and “real” (cpi-deflated) spending mixed up.
OK so Mark Hill. I cannot so much as find a link for this fable about the multiplier. Right. Well thats evidence right there. Thats evidence alright.
So Mark gets all excited and then its crickets. And I’ll bet whatever Barro has to say is just not relevant since he is unlikely to mention Gross Domestic Revenue and therefore will be unable to show that the spending was not simply robbed from this category.
“Sheer luck? Tooze is not a military historian, he is a economic historian; if he actually said this, and to be fair to him the fact you say he did suggests to me the opposite, he is wrong. The Germans beat the French because of the strategic genius of Manstein and because of the operational and tactical genius of Guderian and a number of others commanding officers in the field.”
HUH!!!! Caught him. So dover is an historian. A calling which we showed he had no aptitude for.
“The criticisms of counter-cyclical fiscal policy can be summarised as follows:
• The timing of the policy action is often wrong. The lags are such that by the time a stimulus
package has its effect, the need may have passed. Even if that does not turn out to be the case
this time, history suggests that policy makers will keep stimulating for too long.
• Although meant to be temporary, stimulatory measures typically become entrenched and
enlarge the role of government. When the stimulus is eventually withdrawn, higher government
spending remains and taxes are increased. To some this is benign, but to others bigger
government is harmful to economic efficiency and growth. Historically, wars, depressions and
other cataclysmic events have set the scene for a permanent enlargement of government.
• Stimulatory measures are often of a kind that distort resource allocation and impose lasting
economic efficiency costs. Governments that are in a mood to increase spending in a hurry
attract sectional interests and fail to subject proposals to proper scrutiny in the public
• Stimulus measures do not have the ‘multiplier’ benefits often attributed to them. Temporary
and one-off handouts fail to stimulate consumer spending because households are guided
more by notions of their permanent income and wealth. In the current climate, temporary
windfalls are especially likely to be saved, not spent.
• More broadly, increased government spending ‘crowds out’ the private sector in various ways,
resulting in multipliers of less than unity and perhaps close to zero, even when there is spare
productive capacity. The mechanisms of crowding out include Ricardian equivalence, interest
rate and exchange rate effects of increased government borrowing, supply side responses, and
damage to private sector confidence.”
But your man Carling doesn’t understand economics Jason!!!
Because he assumes there is such a thing as fiscal stimulus. But there is no such thing. You assume so too. But its a fairy tale.
“The gossip I heard from a friend who is reasonably well plugged in is that the Obama administration walked away from the bad bank scenario because it is simply too big. They, like the Bush administration have looked down saw the abyss and ran away.
The quiet strategy is to essentially dig a fire cordon around the five biggest banks + Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, indicate that they are going to protect them and the shareholder at a reasonable cost and tell the rest of the 8,000 banks they’re on they own. Meanwhile they will direct depositors to the 5 big banks.
The strategy is to greatly reduce the number of banks in the US so that only 5 mega deposit taking highly regulated institutions remain while the others are on their own.
The effect is that there will be massive consolidation in the US banking industry.
Now I dunno if this is true, but this is what I heard from someone plugged into one of the Federal reserve banks.”
Great financial system you true believers got going there JC.