Obama is Bush part 3

Oil Company Economics

Do any of these socialists -- sorry unbiased journalists -- stop to think who owns Exxon and Chevron? Whose "windfall profits" are they wanting to tax?

Someone at the NYTimes ought to look at all the pension funds, insurance funds and mutual funds where Americans (and NY Times readers and "journalists") have our money.

The largest cap company in the S&P is Exxon Mobil.

So how many NY Times journalists will it take to figure out the largest holding in every S&P500 and quasi S&P fund in the country? No cheating now...

The NY Times isn't losing readers just because of the internet. They are losing readership because their reporting is nothing short of moronic; their "journalists" have less ability to connect the dots than does the CIA.

Of course, a truly investigative journalist (or anyone who is literate) could easily look up what happened in the 1970s, the last time we imposed windfall profits tax on oil companies. US oil companies lost market share, while foreign state run oil companies gained market share. Some of these windfall profit winners diverted some of their profits into funding extremist schools and indirectly terrorism.

So you have to infer the NY Times would rather support terrorism against Americans, than a fiscally prudent retirement for Americans.

A Fed Rate Hike Won't Solve the Current Crisis

You are overlooking that many of the problems we face today are the direct result of interest rates being lowered too much for too long...

The argument for lowering rates is to stimulate the economy-- but you can't fix overleverage with more leverage

Meanwhile, interest rates that are markedly below the rise in the cost of living (not necessarily the textbook definition of inflation) means that you are taking money away from savers (aka the elderly and others on fixed incomes) and diverting that money to stupid bankers who shot themselves in the foot.

Punishing the prudent to reward the foolish is no way to fix anything

The Credit Bubble: Deregulation Gone Wild

Deregulation is the big lie here. Government is MUCH bigger now than when Reagan took office. The Fed knew perfectly well what was happening, and on several occasions issued warnings. They had, and still have, the authority to regulate lending practices at the money center banks (and the little banks tend to follow). The other lending is done by FNMA and FHLMC, which are completely government controlled.

Before you start expanding regulatory power, you need to ask why the regulators made almost no use of their existing powers. You need to establish that existing powers are insufficient -- as opposed to just unused.

Even if you make the Fed into an absolute dictator, what good would it do if they don't use their powers (for good)?

The problem isn't deregulation (which never happened except on paper). The problem is the regulations we already have were not enforced.

The government had to choose between collecting higher taxes on bubble homes, or enforcing the existing rules. The government repeatedly chose higher taxes by turning a blind eye to a problem they knew about all to well.

The Fed Should Loosen 25bp Next Wednesday

According to the Fed's own website: M1 is up 2%. M2 is up 6% and MZM is up 10%. Your statements about monetary growth are incorrect.

The Fed Should Loosen 25bp Next Wednesday

According to the Fed's own website: M1 is up 2%. M2 is up 6% and MZM is up 10%. Your statements about monetary growth are incorrect.

The Fed Should Loosen 25bp Next Wednesday

According to the Fed's own website: M1 is up 2%. M2 is up 6% and MZM is up 10%. Your statements about monetary growth are incorrect.

The Fed Should Loosen 25bp Next Wednesday

According to the Fed's own website: M1 is up 2%. M2 is up 6% and MZM is up 10%. Your statements about monetary growth are incorrect.