Into the Night
Contributor
No, they aren't.
No, it isn't. Inventory is storage.
You are describing what happens to importers of certain items. The U.S. economy isn't just importers.
Federal deficit grows by 32% to $900B
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
Into the Night
Contributor
No, the importer pays the tariff. They might pass it on to you. No one is forcing any consumer to buy from the importer.
Wrong.
Everything in our economy happens for a reason. Nothing happens "just because". Recessions don't just happen, they're caused by something. The last three major recessions we had were all caused by terrible Conservative policy.
The S&L's were the result of Conservative laissez-faire capitalism.
The Dotcom crisis was the result of the Conservative Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997.
The mortgage crisis was the result of Conservative deregulation of lending standards.
Every major economic downturn was caused by something.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Try creating a new persona and maybe you can score a cheap point on these boards.
Otherwise, weak sauce, bruh.
On to whom do you think those costs are passed by importers!?
Consumers, dumbass.
I mean...Christ...this is just peak stupidity.
The central bank sets the interest rate to combat inflation, and it rescues banks that fail.
That's what it does.
Yes, they are needed because they're the only entities that can combat inflation. A bank cannot do that.
FFS, stop. This is really fucking sad.
Yes, they are. Inventories are the result of output. Otherwise, what is the output of production!?!?! Inventory, jackass.
You might want to delete this account of yours and create another new one.
No, you store inventory in storage.
A lot of it is, unfortunately, and you can't just magically wave a tariff on something and expect the production to be moved here. It's not affordable for major production to pick up from overseas and move here because of the cost involved with that. A business would rather just charge its customers more because relocating production is a costly endeavor with very little reward. It takes time, money, and resources to do that. The costs are far too high. So when someone sells you a lie about how they can bring production back here, they're pulling your leg. Once production goes, it's never coming back. The costs to do so are too high.
Into the Night
Contributor
Some did, some didn't. Most predicted inflation though.
They were right. Inflation is taking place right now.
QE is inflation, dude. The Fed has also kept interest rates artificially low since the Clinton administration. That causes the boom/bust cycle that we've been seeing. This is not about Republicans or Democrats or any particular president. It's about the Fed.
Trump isn't causing a collapse. Neither did Bush. Neither did Obama, although he certainly deepened the crash with his policies.
No, most predicted hyperinflation and an economic collapse.
Inflation is one of the only economic indicators that grows organically. So to say "I predict inflation" is to say "I predict the sun will rise in the East tomorrow".
With the exception of massive economic contraction, inflation naturally occurs anyway.
What they predicted was hyperinflation.
That prediction never came to pass.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Firstly, as I showed crapwacko earlier, the Fed was raising interest rates beginning in 2003, a full year before the subprime bubble started. So "easy money" wasn't the reason the Bush administration dramatically weakened lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending through 2007. Bush did that because he wanted to create a housing bubble because a strong housing market is probably the best thing for an economy. Each home start creates about 3 jobs. So it was entirely in Bush's interest to push a housing bubble because home construction creates jobs for people. That's why they did it. The economy was in the toilet for the entirety of Bush's first term. Since elections usually come down to the economy, Bush needed to give the impression the economy was growing as a result of his tax cuts when it was really growing as a result of debt. He even campaigned on that very idea in 2004:
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/03/26/bush-ties-policy-to-record-home-ownership.html
For the Dotcom Bubble, that was created not by the Fed, but by the 1997 Capital Gains Tax Cut that caused volatility in the market. Like I also linked to earlier with crapwacko:
We infer from the findings in this study that the volatility left, after controlling for every known determinant, reflects the influence of the 1997 capital gains tax rate cut. Stock return volatility was substantially greater after 1997. Furthermore, firms most affected by the rate reduction showed the greatest change in volatility. Specifically, non-dividend paying firms had a greater increase in volatility than dividend-paying firms and firms with large unrealized capital losses experienced a greater increase in volatility than firms with small unrealized losses.
http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/emplibrary/CapitalGainsTaxes.pdf
Into the Night
Contributor
Nope. They were all caused by the Fed.
WRONG. It was the result of the Fed lowering interest rates too far, producing massive speculation in the junk bond market.
WRONG. It was the result of the Fed lowering interest rates too far, resulting in massive speculation in the .COM markets.
WRONG. It was the result of the Fed lowering interest rates too far, resulting in massive speculation in housing loans.
It was. The Fed.
Easy money causes speculation. During the times the speculation begins is the boom time. Everything is looking up. People are making a lot of money. More and more join the party.
Then comes the bust. The pyramid scheme built by such investing collapses (as all pyramid schemes do), and it all has to unwind. During that time the economy is poor. The Fed, too late, often triggers this by increasing interest rates after the damage has been done. Once the bust starts, the Fed goes right back to lowering interest rates, after the bust is in progress. They are constantly chasing themselves doing the wrong thing. The inevitable result of price controls is shortages. Shortages of money is what the boom/bust cycle is all about.
Keneysian economics is a poor economic model. It injects money into the system at the wrong time, and pulls back at the wrong time. It is price controls that result in shortages of money itself.
Yes he absolutely is.
And Bush absolutely caused the mortgage collapse because it was his regulators who dramatically weakened lending standards for subprime loans from 2004-7. Regulators work for the Executive Branch. Who runs the Executive Branch? Think hard.
Into the Night
Contributor
Nope. Not always. They may simply decide to absorb the extra cost. Price discovery works both ways, you know.
Into the Night
Contributor
If you prefer to change history as your dogmatic belief there is nothing more to say. Your statement is bigotry.
All the Fed does is set interest rates and rescue banks. It has no other power than that. All the economic disasters were the result of capitalism and Conservative dumbfuckery.
The speculation was already there. It had been for years before the Fed lowered interest rates.
Nope. As the study I linked to earlier said, the volatility in the market was caused by the reduction of the Capital Gains rate.
Nope. It was because Bush weakened lending standards for subprimes, which caused subprime market share to skyrocket. Fed had nothing to do with that and was actually raising interest rates.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.