>I smell bubble.
Canada is one of the last-men-standing as far as housing bubbles. Toronto is also bad. Calgary is heading for trouble now that oil has crashed. It could get interesting.
1,254 karma · joined February 5, 2014
Canada is one of the last-men-standing as far as housing bubbles. Toronto is also bad. Calgary is heading for trouble now that oil has crashed. It could get interesting.
I've never visited smithsonianmag.com in my life. Yet, there are four articles from that site on the front page right now.
Something isn't working...
PBS Frontline (which consistently produces awesome journalism) recently did a documentary based on this book:
It will. But "the market" doesn't care about who the winners and losers are. Some of these services are essentially transferring wealth from low-skilled workers with few alternatives to "App middlemen" and VCs.
I'll bet you 90% of these companies working ridiculous hours are run by programmers.
Which one of those things doesn't belong? 5 of those are responsible for the health and/or lives of other people. They aren't sitting at a desk.
Unless you're working on some critical infrastructure, which is probably a very small percentage of people, in what circumstances should computer programmers be working "extreme" hours? Very, very few.
Only in the Silicon Valley bubble, where everyone is all about "other people's money", would someone actually believe this. Back in the real world, entrepreneurship involves personal credit risk. You don't get anything for free.
Your unverifiable anecdote doesn't hold much weight, I'm afraid. But do you really believe random-guy calling the FBI should warrant as much attention as multi-national financial institution reporting a potential crime?
People are complaining as if GS putting the FBI on people is rampant. As far as I'm aware it has happened this once (though I'm open to other tales) and an over-zealous investigator tried to make a name for himself and messed it up royally.
I agree, what they did to this poor fellow is disgraceful, but let's not pretend that the justice system doesn't have a habit of railroading people when they desire a suspect. That's the real tragedy.
Of course it doesn't. That's the job of the FBI and legal system to determine.
How so? Anybody can contact the FBI.
And when that "someone" happens to be a massive, multi-billion dollar bank reporting a "crime", then I sure hope that they have the FBI's ears.
I'm glad you're able to identify "reality" and explain it to the rest of us, wandering around in a fog.
>A social life that revolves around doing positive things - fitness, creativity, learning.
My social life revolves around fitness, creativity, learning and some occasional social drinking the inevitably ends up being a good time with people I love. None of those things are precluded by drinking.
Between the comments here and on the sports article a few weeks back, I've learned this community is oddly concerned about and sometimes nasty towards things other people might happen to find enjoyable, and enjoy explaining how they're "wrong".
So you tax it, like Canada does. It's partly why our beer/wine/liquor is relatively expensive.
The world of "startups" is filled to the brim with charlatans. "Everybody's killing it." Be skeptical; even the "good" companies aren't all they're made out to be.
That said, start lining something else up while you make a little money and learning what you can. No big deal. Here's some advice: people care way too much about their "career path". There are more important things in life. If you're smart and capable, jobs and money will always come easy. This will be a mere blip on your radar.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Are you telling me that if we had the technological wherewithal to "create land" at will, you wouldn't use it? That you'd recommend we continue to deal with land scarcity? If not, why would you recommend those same actions when it comes to money?
It's pretty evident how we can pick cotton without slavery. We do it every day.
On the other hand, you want to expend resources digging a heavy, precious metal out of the ground to use as a glorified record-keeper of transactions. Seems like a huge waste.
Why not create it "out of thin air" as it is needed, and use the metals (and resources required to dig them up) on something else?
The error comes from thinking that money = wealth.
>With all debasement problems at least the precious metals system lasted thousands of years.
I don't think there's a country on the planet that will accept gold for financial transactions without converting to currency. So, no, it hasn't "lasted thousands of years"; it's gone.
>No wonder we've pressed the reset button every 40 years.
Pretty sure if you're anywhere in the First World you're part of the wealthiest, healthiest society that there ever has been.
Don't you think economists wish the same? It just isn't the way it works.
>We've got some ideas about how things work and can even bend a few to our will but there's no precision calculation, just experts making gut calls.
Absolutely true. Should we give up? Of course not.
So nothing can ever exist going forward that hasn't existed already in history?
>just like physics and we'd understand it all already.
You think we understand "all of physics"?
They change the method, then retroactively recalculate the values, because our basket of consumed goods changes over time.
The way the CPI numbers are calculated are free for anyone to look at, and they closely match the Billion Price Project. There is no conspiracy.
>The economic benefits that have been proposed as a result of this policy haven't appeared
I'm not sure how you can say that. If you ask me, the policy has been successful, despite massive political pushback. Again, that's the tough part of economics; it's very hard to separate all the conflating effects of a specific policy.
Why is that a good system? Why should people who happened to be here before our time have an inherent economic advantage by owning land? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we could cheaply create all the land we wanted?
Money is a commodity, and the demand for it changes over time. Do you really believe that we should have the same "amount" in circulation as we did 200 years ago?
>unable to be printed or manipulated
Think of money as a concept. It's a means to perform financial transactions, nothing more. My ability to perform such transactions shouldn't be constrained because we haven't "cut down enough trees make paper", or "dug enough metal out of the ground" or "solved enough mathematical puzzles".
Did it really? Perhaps you should refer to the original definition of "debasement".
>I like the idea of my money holding value but from what I hear that's somewhere between "old fashioned" and "retardedly luddite" these days.
Hah, I wouldn't define it as such, but I do question: why? We live in a capitalist society that benefits from capital being put to work. There are many places you can put your money that will benefit you and others financially.
Well, with all due respect, what you doubt doesn't really matter. We're watching it happen. Why would I buy bonds with a negative real yield when I can hold appreciating dollars risk free? Again, this concerns the system as a whole. Don't underestimate how important the V in MV = PT is.
>Wages are sticky.
Right. So people get fired to bring costs down, instead of everyone taking a little less.
>When I'm on a fixed income,
If you're on a fixed income with no debt, then you love deflation. Your dollars buy more goods.
>Money printing is the genesis of hyperinflation
Excess money printing is the genesis of hyperinflation. So, again, the problem is determining where that "excess" line is. One indicator of that is rising prices, which we don't see.
Are you calling for hyperinflation? If so, when?
What about debt to build businesses or infrastructure that creates real wealth?
So in what way would you have money production occur, if not "out of thin air"?
It isn't really complicated. First, when the value of holding cash gives a positive return, then it changes investment allocations. People often argue that "I won't change my spending habits!" Well, if you were economically rational, you would. But let's be realistic, no one cares about you putting off buying a TV. The concern is for the global financial system as a whole, who suddenly have incentive to hold money rather than circulate it.
Second, incomes are part of the deflation equation. It's one thing when technological progress allows for manufacturing processes to make items cheaper and we get cheaper computers. It's another when massive price deflation (ie oil) causes a sharp decrease in wages and mass unemployment.
Third, debtors are harmed during deflation, as the absolute value of their debts increases. That means your average household gets into trouble.
>That is NOT a good thing.
Prove it. Seriously. If you can, I'm sure you've got a Nobel in your future. I'm not being facetious. Nobody really knows how this ends, good or bad.
Unfortunately, Economics can't run experiments. You apply theory, make a best guess, implement the policy, and hope for the best.
I know, right? I mean, why don't I just throw these BofA bonds I own, paying 6.5% annually, into the trash because I don't like money. In the meantime, why doesn't Ford just give me the car I financed?
>Folks, if you think this astrologist/alchemist Krugman is doing scientific work in Economics, please stop and think
Don't project your financial ignorance on other people, just because you don't understand how a balance sheet works. Someone's debt is another's asset; someone's income is another's expense.
His politics aside, Krugman is right in pointing out a fallacy that I see over and over again in the mainstream. That is, looking at only one side of the sheet. For example, the US households have so much debt! Well, guess how much value they have in assets?
This is such a bizarre argument. You don't think there were/are oodles of prosecutors frothing at the mouth to throw some bankers in jail? Look around the internet! They'd be heroes! The public would rejoice, yet it hasn't happened, because proving that some of the perceived corruption and missteps are actual crimes is, apparently, more difficult than you think. And I don't want to live in a country when the government can decide, willy-nilly, to throw corporate executives in the slammer.
Second, tthrowing here are far more effective means of "punishment" than some low-ranking employee in white-collar prison (which costs us MORE money). Fines have been used, which punish earnings, executive pay, and shareholders.
So add Moneyball, Liar's Poker, The Big Short (good telling of the 2007 financial crisis), Panic (contrasts before and after news articles around financial crises) and The Blind Side to the list.
(Don't let The Blind Side motion picture scare you off. The book has a lot of on-and-off-the field football strategy that I found interesting.)