He's going down, down, down

[retro-man]

Retro, Could you please tell us what you believe made up the individual cards?

 

I read this:

 

 

 

I know that those are your favorite "boogie man" choices, In the extreme abstract, I sort of get it, but the same could be said about the failure of education, the decline of the two parent household, or a dozen other things.

 

For example do you think that buying $700 billion in imported oil might have been a consideration? How about requiring the GSE's to accept sub prime mortgages as if they were worth the paper they were written on? Or even tax policy that made the gains from personal real estate tax exempt? Tax revenues were growing like crazy, but government spending grew even faster, did that have anything to do with it?

 

I am not asking you to agree with the above, but you have to have concrete causes to have concrete fixes.

Look, you were sitting on the right side of the table with the house of cards on it, I was sitting on the left side. We were looking at different cards. I don't deny a single thing you're saying:

- Yes, there was a breakdown in traditional family structure, and yes that has been a huge contributing factor to the number of children in particular, living in poverty, and has also affected income statistics in ways that you have mentioned (and affected them in the opposite way in other respects).

- Yes, imported oil was a consideration. (total petroleum related imports in 2010 were $252b though, not $700b source) Evidently, "the market" in all its inanimate non-sentient "wisdom" has decided that it's cheaper to import oil from volatile regions of the planet than to accelerate development of alternate energy sources at home. Of course it can be made to appear cheaper because the cost of maintaining the (relative) reliability of these overseas sources is borne by the taxpayer - not by the shareholders of the companies that are profiting from the sale of this oil. I realize that the answer from the right to this issue is to "shutter the EPA" (Bachman's words), drill the bejeezuz out of every wilderness and shoreline area, and shave the tops off of every mountain to go after domestic sources. Perhaps that all has to be on the table for discussion.

- Yes, there were things like the Community Reinvestment Act, and various revisions to it, that aggravated the real estate bubble. There were people getting mortgages that shouldn't have. I acknowledge that. It is also true that Wall Street was on a feeding frenzy - beyond the pale of a weakened and vilified regulatory system - developing derivatives that were intrinsically and by their very nature and structure even more worthless than the most toxic of real assets. I don't consider the cancerous growth of the financial sector to be something whose effects can only be understood "in the extreme abstract": a larger and larger share of our GDP was coming from non-productive endeavor, and a larger and larger share of our material wealth was being purchased overseas - on credit. That's very concrete to me, and the effects - which we are experiencing - very predictable. In fact I was predicting it for 6 or 8 years before it happened. Let those with a memory remember.

- Yes, government expenditures were growing beyond revenues. 3 things about that: 1.) Expenditures should, in the main, reflect revenues - no dispute there. 2.) The effect of increasing debt while taxes remain relatively constant is that more and more of revenue collected goes to service the debt and less to real improvements - hence declining schools, crumbling infrastructure, etc. (few of those things being felt at the Federal level, but rather as a decline in support for the states), but that is really an incremental decline, not a catastrophic decline - an erosion, not a collapse - so I do not see a strong causal relationship between that and our current situation, and 3.) We are in the midst of something rivaling The Great Depression - which is responsible for the lion's share of the deficit due to a severe decline in revenues. If there is ever a time when it makes sense to tolerate a deficit, it is at a time like this. The demands to abruptly align spending and revenues now are politically, not practically, motivated. Either that, or they are suicidally stupid.

 

But, as a general thing - absolutely, spending must be brought in line with revenues. Political cowardice on both sides of the aisle (that and Bush's tax cuts) helped to get them this far out of whack. Remember, if the trends of the late 90s had continued, we would have eliminated the deficit entirely by 2012. Then we had 2 or 3 wars, an obviously pointless - if not outright destructive - tax cut, and shortly ensuing, "the great recession".

 

I am also puzzled about one thing you keep interjecting: The only way the middle class traveled overseas was if they were in a troop ship going to Viet Nam. Where are you coming up with this notion?

Hehe. I guess so. My grandparents never even went on an airplane. My dad didn't fly until he took us to Hawaii when I was 19 (my first time on a jet too). My mom says he was planning on making it to Europe - then he got sick and eventually died, so he never made it. We did have family friends though that were "jet setters". Let's call that "upper middle class" instead of "middle class".

Edited August 26, 2011 by retro-man

[RangerM]

For services and goods. It keeps the economy going and increases demand for trades when the demand otherwise doesn't exist. The hops is that real demand will return shortly. I sure as hell hope so, because Canada, which barely suffered the last recession (in comparison to the US) appears poised to slip into recession as a result of US weakness.

 

It grows an economy when the government is running deficits, because money that otherwise wouldn't be in the economy is being introduced. I suppose that's it's a kind of artificial demand.

 

Consider it another way....

 

Let's say instead of giving a person money (taken from someone else) the government simply ordered the shopkeeper to give the recipient some of his wares. To me, there is no meaningful difference, except the shopkeeper is forced to give up some of his goods without the need for a medium of exchange (money).

 

Whether it's money taken from the taxpayer or goods from the shopkeeper, the recipient is not trading anything (of value) in exchange. Without a mutually-beneficial trade, the net could only be a loss. (ie. no growth)

 

You could argue that the taxpayer is encouraged to make more to replace the money taken by the government, thereby growing the economy, however this is a dubious assumption, because many people simply can't choose to make more; unless they are entrepreneur, but in that case moneys taken is (effectively) lost investment opportunity.

 

Regarding "artificial demand", I'll agree that deficit spending can make up for lost demand, however it's also a drag on future demand. I borrowed money to purchase my house, but that monthly payment prevents me from using the money for something else, and the interest I pay reduces my overall purchasing power.

[Ron W.]

 

Regarding "artificial demand", I'll agree that deficit spending can make up for lost demand, however it's also a drag on future demand. I borrowed money to purchase my house, but that monthly payment prevents me from using the money for something else, and the interest I pay reduces my overall purchasing power.

 

 

Well put.

 

My house is paid in full, if it wasn't I wouldn't be able to exist on the lower income I have now.

Took 16 months to get a job and the employers are not offering much.

[suv_guy_19]

Consider it another way....

 

Let's say instead of giving a person money (taken from someone else) the government simply ordered the shopkeeper to give the recipient some of his wares. To me, there is no meaningful difference, except the shopkeeper is forced to give up some of his goods without the need for a medium of exchange (money)

 

I agree, and that's why I'm talking only about deficit financing, something that should be done only during a weak economy.

 

Regarding "artificial demand", I'll agree that deficit spending can make up for lost demand, however it's also a drag on future demand. I borrowed money to purchase my house, but that monthly payment prevents me from using the money for something else, and the interest I pay reduces my overall purchasing power.

 

I thought so to, but Richard Jensen changed my mind. The deficit spending can create a larger foundation if you will, that more economic activity can build on, making the economy better overall than it would have been without the recession deficit financing. Either way, the idea is really this: the government spends during bad times, and pulls back during good times, and people and businesses do the opposite. It should work as a balance.

Edited August 26, 2011 by suv_guy_19

[suv_guy_19]

My house is paid in full, if it wasn't I wouldn't be able to exist on the lower income I have now.

Took 16 months to get a job and the employers are not offering much.

 

I'm glad you managed to find a job. Canada and Australia, previously strong economies, appear to be teetering on the verge of recession, something that worries me about the rest of the world right now.

[Roadtrip]

Unfortunately there are people more concerned about looks (read: intangibles) than substance. That was why I enjoyed the hearings for John Roberts. It was obvious he was the smartest guy with a microphone.

 

So true. Symbolism (or style) is much more important to some people than substance. I remember listening to the leftist talk-show host Randi Rhodes commenting on the Senate confirmation hearings of John Bolton when GWB nominated him to be the ambassador to the U.N. Ms. Rhodes actually said this: "Bolton should be disqualified on his moustache alone." When if one were to listen to the substance of what he said then, as well as what he has to say now, Bolton's knowledge of global affairs is without peer.

 

I'm no fan, but for the most part, I think Hillary has done a decent job (maybe I base that on my low expectations, though). The other two have been wastes of space.

 

Considering John Bolton's vast reservoir of knowledge and experience in the areas of diplomacy and foreign affairs and government service, Hillary Clinton was, by comparison, a kindergartner when she was appointed secretary of state. She had no chops, no experience whatsoever in the field of U.S. foreign policy, much less when it comes to heading one of the largest bureaucracies in the U.S. government (the State Department), which is why I question Obama's judgment in appointing her to this role in the first place. I know, it was a political favor meant to heal the wounds caused during the primary campaign -- which I think is a terribly bad reason for appointing anyone to such a critical position. The State Department is just as much a mess of a bureaucracy as it ever was (ask any Latin American citizen what it takes to get a visa of any kind . . .), and the U.S. is no more popular in the eyes of the rest of the world than when George W. Bush left office.

 

In any case, I should have included Janet "The system worked" Napolitano on my original list. She would be an even better example of a waste of space, let alone Obama's poor judgment.

 

The charge of racism is made against the Tea Party so much, that I think people are realizing there isn't a cogent argument against them.

 

I heard Dennis Prager ask the other day, "If there were suddenly no black people in America, would the Tea Party then be o.k. with government spending?"

 

So far, I haven't heard anyone make that case.

 

Let's not forget that historic moment when Nancy Pelosi led the Congressional Black Caucus up the Capitol steps to sign the Obamacare bill. They were forced to pass through a gauntlet of concerned Tea Party citizens who were there to protest the bill. There were a lot of people in attendance, and it was covered by the national media. Ms. Pelosi and some members of the Caucus claimed later that the Tea Party people shouted racial epithets and spat upon them on their way up the steps. None of the national media could support this claim (and you know they would have loved to have been able to do so). I think it was Andrew Breitbart who offered a six-figure reward for footage of such a claim. After all, in an age when smartphones are all the rage, one would think that someone out of all those people in attendance could have cashed in on Breitbart's offer, if the claim were true. And one would think that a video of some wild-eyed Tea Party protestor spitting on and cussing at a member of the Congressional Black Caucus would get about 50 million hits on YouTube, if the claim were true.

 

It never happened, and yet the liberals have upped the ante by calling Tea Party people "Terrorists" (by no less than Vice President Joe Biden) and "Hostage Takers."

 

Ahh, but the Tea Party people are the irrational ones. . . .

[retro-man]

...... the government spends during bad times, and pulls back during good times, and people and businesses do the opposite. It should work as a balance.

Very elegantly put.

[xr7g428]

Retro, I should have been more specific on the period where we brought in $700 billion in oil. I was talking the period leading up to the collapse, '06, and '07. Not that it really matters as we are now way above 2010, which was actually a down year.

 

More current news: last month we spent $42 billion on imported oil about 60% of our needs and 359 million barrels. So, if things hold for this year we will see about $500 billion out the door.

 

Electricity does not fit in your gas tank. There are no alternatives.

[jpd80]

I'm glad you managed to find a job. Canada and Australia, previously strong economies, appear to be teetering on the verge of recession, something that worries me about the rest of the world right now.

Australia has a real two-speed economy happening at the moment and while mineral and gas exports are going gang busters,

the rest of the country in day to day commerce and retail are very flat with the reserve bank keeping interest rates on hold.

 

Our government says they are on track to be in surplus by 2013, eliminating that $30 billion deficit stimulus package....

 

Jees, $30 billion looks like chicken feed compared to US $14 trillion or UK's £1 Billion.....

[suv_guy_19]

Australia has a real two-speed economy happening at the moment and while mineral and gas exports are going gang busters,

the rest of the country in day to day commerce and retail are very flat with the reserve bank keeping interest rates on hold.

 

The same thing is happening here. Most cities, as well as oil and gas production and mining are going like crazy...but manufacturing and old economy jobs are really still slowing down.

 

Our government says they are on track to be in surplus by 2013, eliminating that $30 billion deficit stimulus package....

 

Our deficit for 2010 - 2011 was $34.4B, down from the 2008 - 2009 high of $56B. It is supposed to be gone by 2014 - 2015. All of the provinces except for one will return to surplus by 2015 - 2016. Ontario (the province that said they won't as they were most affected by the US downturn) may also return to surplus though, as their deficit this year was much smaller than projected.

 

Jees, $30 billion looks like chicken feed compared to US $14 trillion or UK's £1 Billion.....

 

No kidding...now if the US could just start growing again....of course, the recession has been good for places like Toronto, where there are more skyscrapers under construction than pretty much any time in history.

[RangerM]

I thought so to, but Richard Jensen changed my mind. The deficit spending can create a larger foundation if you will, that more economic activity can build on, making the economy better overall than it would have been without the recession deficit financing. Either way, the idea is really this: the government spends during bad times, and pulls back during good times, and people and businesses do the opposite. It should work as a balance.

If the government spends on infrastructure (roads and bridges to somewhere or expands domestic energy for example) in anticipation of (or to spur) future demand, I'll agree that it can act as a conduit for future economic activity.

 

But our government is doing very little of that. (relative to the amount of deficit spending)

 

I don't deny the government needs the flexibility to spend in excess of revenues at times (which is why I'm against a balanced budget amendment), but nowadays our government (the stimulus bill is Exhibit A) spends for the benefit of certain constituencies, and portrays it otherwise (like the ridiculous assertion that food stamps or wellfare grows an economy; in that case, what is the foundation being built?).

Edited August 27, 2011 by RangerM

[jpd80]

The same thing is happening here. Most cities, as well as oil and gas production and mining are going like crazy...but manufacturing and old economy jobs are really still slowing down.

Yeah, Australia and Canada are probably similarly positioned in terms of economics and government deficit goals

 

Our deficit for 2010 - 2011 was $34.4B, down from the 2008 - 2009 high of $56B. It is supposed to be gone by 2014 - 2015. All of the provinces except for one will return to surplus by 2015 - 2016. Ontario (the province that said they won't as they were most affected by the US downturn) may also return to surplus though, as their deficit this year was much smaller than projected.

Some natural disasters here are impeding progress and it's taking longer for some sectors to feel flow on from resources boom..

 

No kidding...now if the US could just start growing again....of course, the recession has been good for places like Toronto, where there are more skyscrapers under construction than pretty much any time in history.

Inflation could be their best friend, a prices and wages blow out would create employment and

production while steadily eroding the true the value of that $14.5 billion already racked up........

[retro-man]

Inflation could be their best friend, a prices and wages blow out would create employment and

production while steadily eroding the true the value of that $14.5 billion already racked up........

Hadn't thought of that - but that might be a more graceful way to "deleverage" - have everybody take a little in the rump rather than 20 or 30% simply have their futures wiped out. I've seen inflation before. In fact, I've seen decades on end of it. It doesn't scare me. I haven't seen hyper-inflation before though. And I don't think I want to.

[Roadtrip]

Inflation could be their best friend, a prices and wages blow out would create employment and

production while steadily eroding the true the value of that $14.5 billion already racked up........

 

Robert Samuelson, economics writer for the Washington Post, through historical data, makes a good case for the dangers of this assertion, specifically:

 

- that inflation cannot be controlled -- it risks compounding existing uncertainty and fear

 

- that retail prices would rise faster than wages -- a very real scenario given the high unemployment rate

 

- that consumers might react to the increased uncertainty caused by suddenly rising prices by saving more and therefore reducing their consumption -- which is the exact opposite of the intended consequences

 

- and that if the Fed suddenly reverses course and decides that inflation is a good idea, then investors would flee the U.S. dollar via the foreign exchange markets, thus weakening the dollar even more.

 

Samuelson makes a convincing argument in his column, Inflation is Not the Answer.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Roadtrip

[jpd80]

Robert Samuelson, economics writer for the Washington Post, through historical data, makes a good case for the dangers of this assertion, specifically:

 

- that inflation cannot be controlled -- it risks compounding existing uncertainty and fear ( Rubbish, of course it can with strong fiscal policy)

 

- that retail prices would rise faster than wages -- a very real scenario given the high unemployment rate (It depends on the rate of inflation)

 

- that consumers might react to the increased uncertainty caused by suddenly rising prices by saving more and therefore reducing their consumption -- which is the exact opposite of the intended consequences ( Fear driven assumption on what might happen, not a fact)

 

- and that if the Fed suddenly reverses course and decides that inflation is a good idea, then investors would flee the U.S. dollar via the foreign exchange markets, thus weakening the dollar even more.( They have to do something, the direction they are going in is dead wrong)

 

Samuelson makes a convincing argument in his column, Inflation is Not the Answer.

Total crap, no one is suggesting high uncontrollable inflation.

 

Inflation., as in strong growth of around 7 to 8% is totally controllable with sound stable fiscal policy.

I don't know why anyone bothers reading this guy's pessimistic mumbo jumbo......

[Roadtrip]

Total crap, no one is suggesting high uncontrollable inflation.

 

Inflation., as in strong growth of around 7 to 8% is totally controllable with sound stable fiscal policy.

I don't know why anyone bothers reading this guy's pessimistic mumbo jumbo......

 

Calm down. The author merely suggested that high inflation cannot be controlled. And history supports his argument.

 

In any case, you stated the following:

Inflation could be their best friend, a prices and wages blow out would create employment and

production while steadily eroding the true the value of that $14.5 billion already racked up........

 

You never stated how you propose to introduce inflation to the economy. You suggest "strong growth of around 7 to 8%" as a metric, and something that could be "totally controllable with sound stable fiscal policy." Please enlighten us American readers as to how to achieve growth of 7 to 8 percent, and what constitutes "sound stable fiscal policy." We will forward your answer to Congress.

 

I can't think of any economic justification as to why inflation as a goal is a good idea. There are several causes of inflation, the two main causes being (1) demand-pull inflation, the traditional type, in which higher wages create a higher demand for a (temporarily) fixed amount of goods, thus driving prices higher; and (2) cost-push inflation, in which the cost of inputs drives prices higher.

 

The U.S. experienced the latter in the late 1970s, in which there was slow economic growth and wage growth, coupled with high inflation, which resulted in a phenomenon called stagflation, which, if not caused by, it was exacerbated by the energy shortages of that time. Stagflation is a result of cost-push inflation: stagnant growth and inflating prices. Inflation rates during that time were over 10 percent, and no one benefited.

 

During the Great Depression, FDR's brain trust decided that it would be a good idea to order farmers to burn their crops and kill piglets as a way to inflate the price of agricultural products -- and thus inflate the economy. It didn't work.

 

Inflation not only degrades the purchasing power of the fruits of one's labor in the present, it also devalues their savings and future retirement benefits.

 

And inflation degrades the value of investment capital -- a key to growth and future jobs.

 

In the meantime, please provide a detailed explanation as to why inflation is a good idea and how to implement it. Otherwise, blow it up your ass.

[jpd80]

In the meantime, please provide a detailed explanation as to why inflation is a good idea and how to implement it. Otherwise, blow it up your ass.

Jeez, that's pretty tough, you expect me to give you a detailed explanation of one idea floated when the government has 4/5s of no idea...

 

Is Inflation bad for the economy?

It depends whether you're talking about High inflation or low-moderate inflation.

 

Moderate Inflation isn't really bad for the economy. What it is bad for is the people owning financial instruments like loans.

High inflation is like a tax on cash holdings and destroys the real value of interest charges. Inflation can actually stimulate

an economy because it makes starting businesses and acquiring assets more affordable.

 

Remembering where we are on the economic clock, coming out of a recession requires a restarting of economic confidence

and increased production, increased flow of money through the economy which in turn increases business activity.

 

Edited August 28, 2011 by jpd80

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Robert Samuelson, economics writer for the Washington Post, through historical data, makes a good case for the dangers of this assertion, specifically:

 

- that inflation cannot be controlled -- it risks compounding existing uncertainty and fear

 

- that retail prices would rise faster than wages -- a very real scenario given the high unemployment rate

 

- that consumers might react to the increased uncertainty caused by suddenly rising prices by saving more and therefore reducing their consumption -- which is the exact opposite of the intended consequences

 

- and that if the Fed suddenly reverses course and decides that inflation is a good idea, then investors would flee the U.S. dollar via the foreign exchange markets, thus weakening the dollar even more.

 

Samuelson makes a convincing argument in his column, Inflation is Not the Answer.

 

When l first got married in 1978 brought my first house inflation was sky high interest rates were at 16% but nothing stopped me wanting to buy the latest new Ford, other than the new to market Fiesta that was totally ultra dull made for Grandads, l would have brought any new UK Ford in its line-up the time, my consumption buying confidence never wained because Fords were ultra kool at the time. Why did l have no LACK OF CONFIDENCE back then with buying new cars taking out huge loans?

 

Fast foreword to 2011 l have no mortgage, a house worth $900,500 enough in the bank to buy 2 brand new Mondeo's, my only LACK OF CONFIDENCE is that l don't like buying & will never buy boring dull aerodynamic blobs that all look exactly the same as whats selling at your local Skoda, Kia & Hyundai dealerships. I would not waste 1 buck on one, so whose fault is it? Mmmm l would rather buy a new bike, at least they are more exciting, more fun & have not been ruined and are much better for the environment than soulless characterless computer produced generic all the same shaped boring blobs on 4 wheels that are an eyesore & a blot on the landscape that you would want to hide in the garage put through the car wash one a year rather than have something thats special to wash on your drive, that lifts the spirit make you feel great, those days are long gone.

 

Surely its all about "Product" like the Apples of this world have today, or lack of it in the market place that is causing people to pay down their debt and not buy new products take out big loans.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Edstock]

Regardless of whether you are "liberal" or "conservative", you should ponder that

 

we have never lived in an electronic economy before.

 

So? Well, gang, because we have never lived in an electronic economy before, nobody knows what the "rules" are, for how it really works. There are a lot of people who think they know, but they are probably delusional.

 

For example, inflation: 50 years ago, banks could pay interest 2 x a year on savings accounts, and with the primitive computer systems, it was a ball-buster. Today, cyber systems make setting up a bookkeeping system cheap and easy. Be they on the debit or credit side, interest gets charged. What is the cumulative effect of this explosive growth, a myriad of interest-charged accounts?

 

Add the rise of GIGANTIC investment funds and positive/negative "hedge" funds and world-wide currency trading, commodities futures and market short-selling and you have a monetary "system" that may be truly incomprehensible, as an entirety.

 

My 2¢.

 

 

[jpd80]

Regardless of whether you are "liberal" or "conservative", you should ponder that

 

we have never lived in an electronic economy before.

 

So? Well, gang, because we have never lived in an electronic economy before, nobody knows what the "rules" are, for how it really works. There are a lot of people who think they know, but they are probably delusional.

 

For example, inflation: 50 years ago, banks could pay interest 2 x a year on savings accounts, and with the primitive computer systems, it was a ball-buster. Today, cyber systems make setting up a bookkeeping system cheap and easy. Be they on the debit or credit side, interest gets charged. What is the cumulative effect of this explosive growth, a myriad of interest-charged accounts?

 

Add the rise of GIGANTIC investment funds and positive/negative "hedge" funds and world-wide currency trading, commodities futures and market short-selling and you have a monetary "system" that may be truly incomprehensible, as an entirety.

 

My 2¢.

 

Well said Ed,

 

While some may pull up examples of why inflationary policy didn't work at certain periods of time in history, there's no

way that those circumstances align in any meaningful way with what has transpired in the last 5 years or so.

 

 

We are not in a depression, the banking and financial lending institutions are now trading and gaining strength,

no one is asking producers to reduce stocks of supplies to raise prices, what we're asking for is stimulus to

get the country back to work.

 

Today's electronic banking allows money to transfer form from one country to another in a flash and in that respect

money flows in completely different paths to what was possible decades ago. The US has a real problem with trade

imbalance hurting GDP, the amount of money flowing out of the country is just one area that IMO should be looked at.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

The US has a real problem with trade

imbalance hurting GDP, the amount of money flowing out of the country is just one area that IMO should be looked at.

 

Close down all the Walmarts would be a good start, trillions would be saved on Chinese imports.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Roadtrip]

Regardless of whether you are "liberal" or "conservative", you should ponder that

 

we have never lived in an electronic economy before.

 

So? Well, gang, because we have never lived in an electronic economy before, nobody knows what the "rules" are, for how it really works. There are a lot of people who think they know, but they are probably delusional.

 

For example, inflation: 50 years ago, banks could pay interest 2 x a year on savings accounts, and with the primitive computer systems, it was a ball-buster. Today, cyber systems make setting up a bookkeeping system cheap and easy. Be they on the debit or credit side, interest gets charged. What is the cumulative effect of this explosive growth, a myriad of interest-charged accounts?

 

Add the rise of GIGANTIC investment funds and positive/negative "hedge" funds and world-wide currency trading, commodities futures and market short-selling and you have a monetary "system" that may be truly incomprehensible, as an entirety.

 

My 2¢.

 

I don't lie awake at night worrying about it. A recent study concluded that the "flash trading" that occurs in the big investment houses has yielded negligible advantages over long-held positions (like those of typical mutual funds or retirement accounts).

 

As for this interest charged in electronic accounts, the APY and APR must be disclosed to the consumer (by law), and the entities charging this interest are monitored by and accounted for and audited by a whole host of federal agencies. And the regulations just got a lot steeper, with implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act.

 

Personally, I like the ability to make electronic transactions. My paycheck is deposited via the ACH (automated clearing house), which saves me time and gas. And I don't have to wait for my paycheck to arrive via the mail -- it is automatically deposited into my account the very second it is issued, which saves me the inconvenience of having to fill out a depost slip and driving to my local bank to make the deposit. I download my pay stub from my company's intranet, and I get online to my bank's Web site to confirm the veracity of the transaction, and all is good. Similarly, I pay all my bills online, which saves me the time it would take to write out checks, and I save by not having to pay postage, too. The recipients of the the bills I pay receive their money at the speed of light, which I'm sure they appreciate.

 

The "electronic economy" you speak of is very much a good thing, in that it makes trade more efficient.

[retro-man]

(CNN) -- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will visit South Korea next month to speak at a global gathering of business leaders, organizers said.

Palin will speak at the World Knowledge Forum in Seoul, which runs October 11 through 13.

According to organizers, the former governor will discuss "U.S. leadership perspective on how to lead the world out of the latest crisis."

[sprinter]

Close down all the Walmarts would be a good start, trillions would be saved on Chinese imports.

 

 

And where would these people go????

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos

[Ron W.]

(CNN) -- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will visit South Korea next month to speak at a global gathering of business leaders, organizers said.

Palin will speak at the World Knowledge Forum in Seoul, which runs October 11 through 13.

According to organizers, the former governor will discuss "U.S. leadership perspective on how to lead the world out of the latest crisis."

 

Good God, not her, Clinton I could see at least she has a grasp on what's going on. Palin's an IJIT.