TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Traders can't even drive ....
Pages (6): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »


Posted by atbell on Sep-15-2009 03:15:

Traders can't even drive ....

... unless you want someone that reckless behind the wheel.

Thoughts from this fellow here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X7pNFbGjz0


Some quotes:

"Banks have done very little for society but generate bonuses for themselves."

"I don't know what you could do with these wall street, derivatives people other than use them as drivers, but even then you want someone less reckless."

"I was on wall street for 21 years and there are a lot of people I wouldn't use for anything."

"And calling that tallent is a very strange use of language. People who lost 4.3 trillion world wide."

... I know what you could do with the traders... isn't the army looking for recruits?


Posted by Capitalizt on Sep-15-2009 04:29:

That's my nigga!

Here are two related videos I found while browsing the links from it..These people have it right too, especially the guy in the first clip.




Posted by jerZ07002 on Sep-15-2009 20:07:

Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by atbell

"Banks have done very little for society but generate bonuses for themselves."


arguably, modern banking is one the most important factors in the speed at which technology and the world economy has expanded. banks are the primary intermediary that bring together those with excess capital and those with capital requirements. anyone who denies that vital role is a fucking retard.

investment banks provide the same capital alignment roles and also important hedging roles. almost every major corporation seeks to hedge their exposures to unwanted risks. they couldn't do it without investment banks. that provides certainty and job security. without hedging, certain businesses would be affected by unwarranted risks and jobs would be less stable (probably not on a huge scale, but even that it is relevant).


Posted by DOOMBOT on Sep-15-2009 21:27:

Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
arguably, modern banking is one the most important factors in the speed at which technology and the world economy has expanded.

Speaking for the USA, we saw our greatest economic growth in the 19th century. Looking into your comment a little more, maybe that is not what you are trying to say. But real economic growth comes from actually producing things for a nations own citizens, as well as the world economy. This is something that the USA has been seriously lacking as of late.


Posted by Brahman on Sep-16-2009 02:41:

Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
Speaking for the USA, we saw our greatest economic growth in the 19th century.


Where did you get that stat?


Posted by Fir3start3r on Sep-16-2009 06:43:

Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
Speaking for the USA, we saw our greatest economic growth in the 19th century



Posted by Kinezi on Sep-16-2009 11:52:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r



Posted by jerZ07002 on Sep-16-2009 15:38:

Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
Speaking for the USA, we saw our greatest economic growth in the 19th century.


The US saw its greatest growth after WWI.

quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
But real economic growth comes from actually producing things for a nations own citizens, as well as the world economy. This is something that the USA has been seriously lacking as of late.


that's not true. under that definition most asian countries wouldn't have growth because they don't produce things for their own citizens. Instead, they produce to export. Economic production is simply producing something someone else is willing to buy. The US produces tons of shit the world is willing to buy (food, natural resources, education, pop-culture, legal services, technological services, airplanes, heavy machinary, etc...)


Posted by DOOMBOT on Sep-16-2009 16:48:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r

See United States Industrial Revolution.


Posted by DOOMBOT on Sep-16-2009 16:51:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
that's not true. under that definition most asian countries wouldn't have growth because they don't produce things for their own citizens. Instead, they produce to export. Economic production is simply producing something someone else is willing to buy. The US produces tons of shit the world is willing to buy (food, natural resources, education, pop-culture, legal services, technological services, airplanes, heavy machinary, etc...)

Right, I understand that China exports more then it gives to its own citizens, which is why I included you must produce for either other nations or your own citizens. Because like you said, to put it simply, you need to produce something that someone else is willing to buy. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

The US produces a lot of things, I understand. But we consume way more then we produce, which is why we are currently in a world of shit. And our consumption has only been possible due to the massive amounts of inflation we've created. That, to me, is not economic growth. That is called digging yourself a major economic hole.


Posted by Brahman on Sep-16-2009 17:04:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
See United States Industrial Revolution.


See compounding interest. The more you have the more you make.


Posted by DOOMBOT on Sep-16-2009 17:14:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by Brahman
See compounding interest. The more you have the more you make.

I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with the industrial revolution in the US. Explain?


Posted by jerZ07002 on Sep-16-2009 18:04:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
And our consumption has only been possible due to the massive amounts of inflation we've created.



Inflation is the by-product of those activities not the cause.


Posted by DOOMBOT on Sep-16-2009 18:30:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
Inflation is the by-product of those activities not the cause.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying that inflation is the byproduct of consumption?


Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Sep-16-2009 19:34:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying that inflation is the byproduct of consumption?


Consumption is definitely linked to inflation.

quote:

Cost-push inflation and demand-pull inflation can be explained using our four inflation factors. Cost-push inflation is inflation caused by rising prices of inputs that causes factor 2 (The supply of goods goes down) inflation. Demand-pull inflation is factor 4 inflation (The demand for goods goes up) which can have many causes.

The text "Economics" (2nd Edition) by Parkin and Bade gives the following explanation for cost-push inflation:

"Inflation can result from a decrease in aggregate supply. The two main sources of decrease in aggregate supply are

�An increase in wage rates
�An increase in the prices of raw materials

These sources of a decrease in aggregate supply operate by increasing costs, and the resulting inflation is called cost-push inflation.

The inflation resulting from an increase in aggregate demand is called demand-pull inflation. Such an inflation may arise from any individual factor that increases aggregate demand, but the main ones that generate ongoing increases in aggregate demand are

1.Increases in the money supply
2.Increases in government purchases
3.Increases in the price level in the rest of the world
"(pg. 862)

Inflation caused by an increase in aggregate demand, is inflation caused by factor 4 (An increase in the demand for goods).



http://economics.about.com/cs/money...ation_terms.htm


Posted by DOOMBOT on Sep-16-2009 20:27:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Consumption is definitely linked to inflation.



http://economics.about.com/cs/money...ation_terms.htm

In response to your link, I agree that if over consumption happens and there is not enough supply, that prices most likely will go up, if the service or good is in high demand. That's price inflation, where as I was talking about monetary inflation.

So to go back to my main point, our over consumption came from the increase in the money supply. Without fractional reserve banking, we simply wouldn't have had the ability to consume as much as we do or did, as a nation. People wouldn't have bought houses they couldn't afford without the loans that they received. They wouldn't have had the ability to buy 3 cars, without the ability of a loan as well. And what does a loan, in our current banking system, do? Increases the supply of money, also known as, inflation.


Posted by jerZ07002 on Sep-16-2009 20:47:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying that inflation is the byproduct of consumption?


that's not exactly what I was saying, but I agree that inflation is a by-product of consumption. I was trying to be more general, i.e., inflation is a consequence of behaviors and not a direct means of accomplishing something.

regardless, your understanding of inflation is not correct. inflation is an increase in consumer prices; that's a text-book definition. If we cause an increase in consumer prices then, necessarily, we can consume less. Thus, if all else is equal, if we create inflation we decrease our capacity to consume.


Posted by DOOMBOT on Sep-16-2009 20:56:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
that's not exactly what I was saying, but I agree that inflation is a by-product of consumption. I was trying to be more general, i.e., inflation is a consequence of behaviors and not a direct means of accomplishing something.

regardless, your understanding of inflation is not correct. inflation is an increase in consumer prices; that's a text-book definition. If we cause an increase in consumer prices then, necessarily, we can consume less. Thus, if all else is equal, if we create inflation we decrease our capacity to consume.

What do you believe causes the increase in consumer prices?


Posted by Kinezi on Sep-16-2009 20:58:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by Brahman
See compounding interest. The more you have the more you make.


This is a not a place for religious fanatics, Yo, Ima let you finish.. but before that why dont you go and be terrorist somewhere else?


Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Sep-16-2009 21:17:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
What do you believe causes the increase in consumer prices?


Demand, for starters.


Posted by DOOMBOT on Sep-16-2009 21:18:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Demand, for starters.

What does the consumer need in order to create the demand?


Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Sep-16-2009 21:29:

Desire for a product. Your causality is all wrong here. Money doesn't create demand.


Posted by DOOMBOT on Sep-16-2009 21:31:

quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Desire for a product. Your causality is all wrong here. Money doesn't create demand.

You need the money to buy the product, which allows you to act on the demand. A homeless person doesn't have any influence on the price of a Ferrari just because he wants one.


Posted by Brahman on Sep-16-2009 22:07:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with the industrial revolution in the US. Explain?


Post-World War II, the American economy had exponentially more than it did in the 1800's. Compounding interest is an exponential effect of investment, therefore, the American economy saw exponentially more growth post-World War II than it did in the 1800's. Refer to chart below...

http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=%5EDJI&t=my&q=l&l=off&z=m&a=v&p=s

Your facts are wrong.


Posted by Brahman on Sep-16-2009 22:14:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traders can't even drive ....

quote:
Originally posted by Kinezi
This is a not a place for religious fanatics, Yo, Ima let you finish.. but before that why dont you go and be terrorist somewhere else?


You'll be the first one I blow up.


Pages (6): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.