Originally posted by Omega Vision
Saying she won't make it to the primary and won't be the nominee are different. Ron Paul certainly wasn't the nominee in 2012, but he made it to the primary and his supporters almost staged an electoral coup.At this point it's too early to make a bet about who the nominee will be.
She's more of a joke then Trump. We know trump is an *******. Hilary just pretends to be your friend while stabs you in the back.
According to multiple independent economics analysts including the CBO.3.3 million is the number they give.
Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics and an advisor to John McCain's presidential campaign, working with former Federal Reserve vice chairman Alan Blinder, pegged it at 2.7 million.
USAtoday article mentions economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product.
Additionally, the US auto industry was certainly saved by Obama's first term bailout of them. Now they're healthy, but back then they were in great danger of collapsing and taking hundreds of thousands to millions of jobs with them- separate from the stimulus.
Actually, the CBO estimated it between 1.4 and 3.3 mill. with 3.3 being the absolute highest. And they're unsure how many of those were permanent jobs. Furthermore, the auto industry isn't "healthy", it's just not dying.
As a result of the stimulus however, we got out of control inflation, a useless dollar, god awful purchasing power, further increase in debt (epic proportions under Obama administration), etc. It's almost like a ponzi scheme and I hesitate to fully blame Obama because Bush signed it into law first.
In terms of reviving the economy, it slowed the epic fail. And this isn't even bringing QE2 and QE3 into question, which did even less. The fact that interest rates weren't raised just pissed me the hell off.
We got lucky because as we suffered, the rest of the industrialized world suffered as well, so the damage was minimal.
Interesting review of the studies done.
That's because the premise is incorrect. The dollar isn't weak, it's actually quite strong right now. It has been getting stronger against the Euro and the Yen for the past five years. And it also recently stands strong against the Yuan and the pound. Apple has just recently stated that their sales (while still very high) have been somewhat worse because of the strong dollar. Excessive devaluation of the US Dollar is really a myth, partly perpetrated by the conservative media and people who want to sell gold.
Originally posted by psmith81992
It's a myth? Really? So when i tell you the dollar has 99% of its value since 1950, you are going to claim it's a myth? It may have gotten stronger since 2012 but since 2001, it has been steadily declining.
Yes, we talked about this before. You are overstating the loss of value from the 1950s by an order of magnitude. You completely disregard that people also have considerably more dollars now than they had in the 1950s. It's not just a myth, it's actively (and in the case of some proponents maliciously) misleading.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, we talked about this before. You are overstating the loss of value from the 1950s by an order of magnitude. You completely disregard that people also have considerably more dollars now than they had in the 1950s. It's not just a myth, it's actively (and in the case of some proponents maliciously) misleading.
Yes we've had this discussion before but the outcome was that while the dollar was devalued at 99%, we have a much higher magnitude of money that makes the devaluation largely irrelevant, so it's not a myth, it's very accurate.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Yes we've had this discussion before but the outcome was that while the dollar was devalued at 99%, we have a much higher magnitude of money that makes the devaluation largely irrelevant, so it's not a myth, it's very accurate.
The dollar has not been devalued at 99%, you keep saying that, it's completely incorrect. While a single dollar has lost about 90% (not 99%) of its value, (i.e. 1 dollar back then would now be worth 10 dollars), people have so much more dollars now that the purchasing power of the median family actually increased quite a bit.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Seems the people that don't live here don't know the power of the dollar and its value. While the Euro falls, the dollar remains strong.
Dude, that was literally what I said...
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bentley said it was weak, chill out.
But you made it seem as if it was a not living in the US vs. living in the US thing...by saying that people not living here (i.e. the US) don't know, you include me. When we look at it in this thread though there's two people who think the US Dollar is weak, psmith (an American) and Bentley (a European), and two people that think it is strong, you (an American) and me (a European).
The dollar has not been devalued at 99%, you keep saying that, it's completely incorrect. While a single dollar has lost about 90% (not 99%) of its value, (i.e. 1 dollar back then would now be worth 10 dollars), people have so much more dollars now that the purchasing power of the median family actually increased quite a bit.
A simple Purchasing Power Calculator would say the relative value is $9.83. This answer is obtained by multiplying $1 by the percentage increase in the CPI from 1950 to 2014
Originally posted by psmith81992
Sorry 98%, and it's more accurate than your 90%. Furthermore, the purchasing power increased not due to dollar strength but the qty of dollars a family has. You're being intentionally misleading. Purchasing power increasing due to qty of dollars is irrelevant to dollar strength.
Your maths is off. For the dollar to have lost 99% of its value the relative value would have to be 100$, since it is only 10$ it only lost around 90% of its value.
Perhaps it would help you to consider it the other way around, what would 1 dollar today have been worth in 1950, the answer is 10 cents. Therefore the dollar has lost 90% of its value, considerably less than the 99% you claim, because that would mean that 1 dollar today would have been worth only 1 cent.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Your maths is off. For the dollar to have lost 99% of its value the relative value would have to be 100$, since it is only 10$ it only lost around 90% of its value.Perhaps it would help you to consider it the other way around, what would 1 dollar today have been worth in 1950, the answer is 10 cents. Therefore the dollar has lost 90% of its value, considerably less than the 99% you claim, because that would mean that 1 dollar today would have been worth only 1 cent.
How is 90% considerably less than 99%?
Originally posted by psmith81992
How is 90% considerably less than 99%?
Because it's an order of magnitude less...
For example, if I say I pay you a 1000$ for a job, but once you worked and finished the job I only give you 100$....that'd be considerably less. That's the same as the difference between 90% and 99%