Roubini: No Poom

[metalman]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

[quote=phirang;56990]

Here's what EJ needs to do:

Go through Roubini's argument and repudiate what he disagrees with.

Then, email it to RGE Monitor.

Nature will do the rest...

btw, if EJ doesn't battle Roubini, then he loses all credibility.

nah. it just means he's got other stuff to do. roubini is economist/permabear. ej is an odd duck... part tech entrepreneur, part vc, part economist, part writer. bearish when the bullshit is flying, disappears when the sky clears. wonder if that'll happen again.

here's my prediction... if the 'poom' comes to pass roubini et al will say... 'oh, yes. we knew that... we said that. all along...'

[phirang]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

[quote=metalman;57003]

nah. it just means he's got other stuff to do. roubini is economist/permabear. ej is an odd duck... part tech entrepreneur, part vc, part economist, part writer. bearish when the bullshit is flying, disappears when the sky clears. wonder if that'll happen again.

here's my prediction... if the 'poom' comes to pass roubini et al will say... 'oh, yes. we knew that... we said that. all along...'

so are these theories the product of a dilettante? Then my subscription really was a waste...

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

[quote=phirang;57012]

so are these theories the product of a dilettante? Then my subscription really was a waste...

Then go somewhere else, because I for one am tired of clicking on your one-liners to see some cryptoidomas bovinofecesum, which I assume you know what means, but from which I doubt many of us mere mortals catch any worthwhile meaning or signficance.

If $95 is all you lose this year, you will have nothing about which to complain. I won't miss you.

[metalman]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

[quote=Jim Nickerson;57017]

Then go somewhere else, because I for one am tired of clicking on your one-liners to see some cryptoidomas bovinofecesum, which I assume you know what means, but from which I doubt many of us mere mortals catch any worthwhile meaning or signficance.

If $95 is all you lose this year, you will have nothing about which to complain. I won't miss you.

second that.

[Judas]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

My apologies for not being clear.

In the 2 years after the Reagan tax cut, revenues didn't grow at all.
In 1982 Reagan signed the "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act" which reversed about 1/3 of the previous tax cut, then came the Social Security reform act of 1983 (another tax increase). So after 1 big tax cut and flat to falling revenues, 2 tax increases were able to squeeze out a 51% growth for the 8 year period (1981-1988).

Ah, now I see what you're saying. Thanks for the clarification.

EDIT: Hold on. But the later increases were less than the previous cuts, no? So there was still a net cut in taxes? So then tax cuts were good for revenues, but originally overlarge?

[Judas]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

I'm not 100% sure on the inflation/deflation debate either. I don't fully understand the mechanism for inflation when a country is bankrupt (I assume the US is bankrupt - Enron accounting and all that). I can picture it but not understand the logical steps to it, if you know what I mean.

That's funny, because I've been in the exact opposite state.

I've been struggling with the idea that the US can go into the crapper and keep a strong currency (with the death of exports, literal blood in the streets, etc.) when it can just choose to inflate... especially when the keeper of the currency has specifically stated that he will print like Mugabe if need be and drop bundles of cash from the sky.

EDIT: Oh, and Zimbabwe is bankrupt, no?

[Jay]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

If you guys don't like what phirang has to say don't read his posts. He has been willing to disagree with EJ, and that is healthy. EJ isn't perfect, and neither is phirang, but educated dialogue is what makes itulip strong. And to say phirang hasn't backed up his views just isn't true. He has had plenty of indepth posts and also plenty of throw aways too. His willingness to engage with others has certainly has contributed to my knowledge. This place is more energetic with him here.

I for one would love to have a front row seat at a Roubini/EJ tete a tete.

[metalman]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

That's funny, because I've been in the exact opposite state.

I've been struggling with the idea that the US can go into the crapper and keep a strong currency (with the death of exports, literal blood in the streets, etc.) when it can just choose to inflate... especially when the keeper of the currency has specifically stated that he will print like Mugabe if need be and drop bundles of cash from the sky.

exactly! the whole idea that a nation can be broke and issue the world's reserve currency. it can work for a long time... until it doesn't!

[marvenger]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

Judas, seeing as Fred or anyone else isn't answering my question, maybe you can help me out. You mention literally dropping money from the sky, I think this will have to happen, but I'm unsure what iTulip's official position on this is, I guess iTulip thinks they'll try to not monetise for as long as possible but I think monetisation is getting close. Hudson says treasury printing treasuries in will prop up banks in the short run but the economy cannot supprt the debt burden, I guess when the powers that be finally realise this the helicopter will be let loose. Then I guess there is a massive issue of what happens to reserve currencies and current hedgemoney. I dunno, maybe I'm missing some important threads or haven't been paying enough attention.

[ASH]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

What do those numbers look like as a percentage of GDP?

You can find a breakdown by percentage of GDP in the Historical Tables published with the budget by OMB. In the document linked, the data in question starts on page 24.

1970 –0.3%
1971 –2.1%
1972 –2.0%
1973 –1.1%
1974 –0.4%
1975 –3.4%
1976 –4.2%
1977 –2.7%
1978 –2.7%
1979 –1.6%
1980 –2.7%
1981 –2.6%
1982 –4.0%
1983 –6.0%
1984 –4.8%
1985 –5.1%
1986 –5.0%
1987 –3.2%
1988 –3.1%
1989 –2.8%
1990 –3.9%
1991 –4.5%
1992 –4.7%
1993 –3.9%
1994 –2.9%
1995 –2.2%
1996 –1.4%
1997 –0.3%
1998 +0.8%
1999 +1.4%
2000 +2.4%
2001 +1.3%
2002 –1.5%
2003 –3.5%
2004 –3.6%
2005 –2.6%
2006 –1.9%
2007 –1.2%

[Judas]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

Judas, seeing as Fred or anyone else isn't answering my question, maybe you can help me out. You mention literally dropping money from the sky, I think this will have to happen, but I'm unsure what iTulip's official position on this is, I guess iTulip thinks they'll try to not monetise for as long as possible but I think monetisation is getting close. Hudson says treasury printing treasuries in will prop up banks in the short run but the economy cannot supprt the debt burden, I guess when the powers that be finally realise this the helicopter will be let loose. Then I guess there is a massive issue of what happens to reserve currencies and current hedgemoney. I dunno, maybe I'm missing some important threads or haven't been paying enough attention.

Sorry Marvenger, but I'm grasping for answers myself.

How long can the Fed avoid monetizing? I get all discombobulated, especially with the alphabet soup "Facilties" springing up like mushrooms. They are technically non-inflationary, no? But how long can they keep running all these things? They extend them, roll them, add more... can the Fed keep these swaps going long enough to reprice the underlying nonperforming assets with voodoo accounting or just plain wait out the unwinding? Are we talking years, decades?

GAH! I'm confused.

[ST]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

Why is physical gold so hard to come by even as spot prices fall? Because people who have money who have not forgotten their Econ 101 know what the charts above mean: Net capital outflows presage a weakening currency. The dollar spike is due to panic.

I agree Fred, but why then do you advocate so much in treasuries?

Are you trying to time the sudden dollar depreciation?

[Judas]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

exactly! the whole idea that a nation can be broke and issue the world's reserve currency. it can work for a long time... until it doesn't!

But for how much longer will the US be the issuer of the world's reserve currency?

[phirang]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

But for how much longer will the US be the issuer of the world's reserve currency?

...longer than you can stay solvent shorting it.

i couldn't resist.

[Judas]

Re: Roubini: No Poom

...longer than you can stay solvent shorting it.

Who says I'm solvent now? :p