Carrier Corp. Moving out of Indy, 1,400 Jobs Gone

[churchmouse]

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/why-larry-summers-wants-to-take-away-the-100-bill-2016-02-16p



That also means it's easier for you to cash out your retirement accounts and take your money somewhere.

Before they take it.......

 

[IndyDave1776]

Maybe it will come to a grinding halt, leading to a correction. Such is life.

I just hope that you aren't suggesting more Government to solve this problem.

The problem with your correction is that we, not those responsible, are going to be the ones to take it in the chin and/or nuts. The 'government solutions' I see hinge on the elimination of the government-sponsored guarantee to lose for our people, including and especially the eradication of one-sided trade agreements which help foreign interests and domestic business interests who are positioned to do exactly what is being done here. Further elimination of oppressive regulations for us and none for the others in what that dumbass Friedman calls a 'flat world' economy which is anything but flat when considering the vast disparity in regulations is necessary. While we are at it, some tariffs would be in order. Our founders set up the republic to operate on tariffs as its primary source of revenue for a good reason. It would serve us well to rediscover that fact.

You're probably right. All of your wealth digital, and controlled by the banks/Fed...

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/why-larry-summers-wants-to-take-away-the-100-bill-2016-02-16p



That also means it's easier for you to cash out your retirement accounts and take your money somewhere.

Before they take it.......

Oh yes, they are getting ever closer to their hot sweaty dreams of controlling our wealth to the extent that we have only that portion of our wealth that they want us to have access to at any given time. This would allow for such manipulations as freezing assets to manipulate the economy or helping themselves any time they so choose. The only viable solution I could see once this happens is to convert your electronic 'paper' that says you have money into tangible assets of some type suitable for either use or barter as it comes in so that you don't have any large sum sitting as a target. This is especially true regarding the retirements funds that have been on the receiving end of lustful eyeballing for quite some time now, generally with thoughts of nationalizing such funds into Social Security 2.0: The massive redistribution.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Before they take it.......

The problem with your correction is that we, not those responsible, are going to be the ones to take it in the chin and/or nuts. The 'government solutions' I see hinge on the elimination of the government-sponsored guarantee to lose for our people, including and especially the eradication of one-sided trade agreements which help foreign interests and domestic business interests who are positioned to do exactly what is being done here. Further elimination of oppressive regulations for us and none for the others in what that dumbass Friedman calls a 'flat world' economy which is anything but flat when considering the vast disparity in regulations is necessary. While we are at it, some tariffs would be in order. Our founders set up the republic to operate on tariffs as its primary source of revenue for a good reason. It would serve us well to rediscover that fact.







Oh yes, they are getting ever closer to their hot sweaty dreams of controlling our wealth to the extent that we have only that portion of our wealth that they want us to have access to at any given time. This would allow for such manipulations as freezing assets to manipulate the economy or helping themselves any time they so choose. The only viable solution I could see once this happens is to convert your electronic 'paper' that says you have money into tangible assets of some type suitable for either use or barter as it comes in so that you don't have any large sum sitting as a target. This is especially true regarding the retirements funds that have been on the receiving end of lustful eyeballing for quite some time now, generally with thoughts of nationalizing such funds into Social Security 2.0: The massive redistribution.

Yeah, look/listen for stories about moving towards cashless societies. They've been around for awhile. Probably most "reputable" financial folks will poo-poo this prospect as tin-foil-hat wearing flights of fancy. But with the way things are going, with the financial problems that are out there, would anybody be all that surprised if they made the announcement the decision's been made?

 

[Leadeye]

The problem with your correction is that we, not those responsible, are going to be the ones to take it in the chin and/or nuts. The 'government solutions' I see hinge on the elimination of the government-sponsored guarantee to lose for our people, including and especially the eradication of one-sided trade agreements which help foreign interests and domestic business interests who are positioned to do exactly what is being done here. Further elimination of oppressive regulations for us and none for the others in what that dumbass Friedman calls a 'flat world' economy which is anything but flat when considering the vast disparity in regulations is necessary. While we are at it, some tariffs would be in order. Our founders set up the republic to operate on tariffs as its primary source of revenue for a good reason. It would serve us well to rediscover that fact.







Oh yes, they are getting ever closer to their hot sweaty dreams of controlling our wealth to the extent that we have only that portion of our wealth that they want us to have access to at any given time. This would allow for such manipulations as freezing assets to manipulate the economy or helping themselves any time they so choose. The only viable solution I could see once this happens is to convert your electronic 'paper' that says you have money into tangible assets of some type suitable for either use or barter as it comes in so that you don't have any large sum sitting as a target. This is especially true regarding the retirements funds that have been on the receiving end of lustful eyeballing for quite some time now, generally with thoughts of nationalizing such funds into Social Security 2.0: The massive redistribution.

That's scary for us old folks. I'm still working part time, but slowly converting my old 401K into something more tangible.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yeah, look/listen for stories about moving towards cashless societies. They've been around for awhile. Probably most "reputable" financial folks will poo-poo this prospect as tin-foil-hat wearing flights of fancy. But with the way things are going, with the financial problems that are out there, would anybody be all that surprised if they made the announcement the decision's been made?

Absolutely. They are not about to admit that there might be the smallest bit of merit since they and their owners stand to gain immensely from blindsiding the rest of us.

 

[steveh_131]

The problem with your correction is that we, not those responsible, are going to be the ones to take it in the chin and/or nuts. The 'government solutions' I see hinge on the elimination of the government-sponsored guarantee to lose for our people, including and especially the eradication of one-sided trade agreements which help foreign interests and domestic business interests who are positioned to do exactly what is being done here. Further elimination of oppressive regulations for us and none for the others in what that dumbass Friedman calls a 'flat world' economy which is anything but flat when considering the vast disparity in regulations is necessary. While we are at it, some tariffs would be in order. Our founders set up the republic to operate on tariffs as its primary source of revenue for a good reason. It would serve us well to rediscover that fact.

I can't figure out what you want to do. Eliminate regulations or create more of them?

By what standard do you support infringing on the peoples' right to trade freely? The 'common good'?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I can't figure out what you want to do. Eliminate regulations or create more of them?

By what standard do you support infringing on the peoples' right to trade freely? The 'common good'?

You have to untangle the web. You cannot negotiate 'free trade' agreements, accept vastly different sets of regulations pertaining to conditions and process, impose vastly different tax structures, impose vastly different laws regarding wages, open up the borders and make any intellectually honest pretense of this constituting free trade. There are only two approaches which do not come with a complete backstabbing of our own citizens which are to make 'free trade' contingent on similar sets of regulation, or the elimination of most regulation. I really don't care to get into a side argument on this topic, especially given that it is completely irrelevant to the fact that trade in which foreign-sourced goods have artificially created advantages over domestic production cannot be said to be free, unless one is either very dishonest or else delusional. As it is, we are allowing goods made in economies in which the best paid workers are below our minimum wage to be imported in many cases completely free of tariffs to compete with domestic workers who cannot legally compete with this even if they were so inclined and willing to live in third-world squalor to do it. The first and most significant problem is dealing with the subversive element of this situation which is that we have national leaders who serve their owners by choosing not to understand that they are supposed to represent our nation, not the rest of the world. If we could get that much right, most of the other problems would get settled as a consequence of that. So far as I am concerned, corporate interests which choose not to be a part of our society are not entitled to the benefits of being part of our society. Arguing otherwise is very similar with the illegal Mexicans who in one breath scream that they have a 'right' to be here, yet when confronted with Mexico's immigration laws (second most draconian on the planet, right behind the DPRK), will tell you that no, you do NOT have a right to be in Mexico. The economic attack on national sovereignty is not better or worse than the political attacks on national sovereignty. If our corporate interests want to be foreigners, they are entitled to exercise one of our many rights, the right to leave, but not to have it both ways. We hear so much argument about equality and freedom, then let's get rid of the one-sided trade agreements and treat all imports alike regardless of the nationality of the importers.

 

[steveh_131]

We hear so much argument about equality and freedom, then let's get rid of the one-sided trade agreements and treat all imports alike regardless of the nationality of the importers.

I find this to be reasonable.

 

[BugI02]

... We hear so much argument about equality and freedom, then let's get rid of the one-sided trade agreements and treat all imports [STRIKE]alike[/STRIKE] the way the exporting countries treat our goods regardless of the nationality of the importers.

.

 

[AtTheMurph]

The problem with "free trade" is that it isn't.

We in the USA are in a unique position where we have a fiat currency that also happens to moonlight as the worlds reserve currency. There is currently high demand for dollars. High demand means higher price. Higher price means we can buy things from the rest of the world at a discount.

This means that the goods we make are expensive to us and the rest of the world. Manufacturing will necessarily move from the USA to other countries so they can sell these goods back to us for dollars.

The solution is simple, but it also entails the loss of unlimited power for our government - the end of the fiat currency system. Ron and Rand Paul are exactly right. If the US were to go back on the gold standard our trade imbalances would have to end, the rest of the world would have to go back on the gold standard as well.

You couldn't have a country that ran a trade imbalance for 4 decades because all the gold would flee that country. That is exactly the reason that Nixon closed the gold window and turned the US dollar into worthless chits of paper. Since 1971 the US dollar has been backed by nothing. The "full faith and credit" is a lie because there is nothing that a bankrupt government cannot repay all it's obligations.

End the Fed, return to hard money and the problems will disappear.

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." Keynes​

 

[CampingJosh]

If the US were to go back on the gold standard our trade imbalances would have to end, the rest of the world would have to go back on the gold standard as well.

Or pick a new fiat currency such as the Euro.

Switching to a gold standard could have disastrous results for our economy. There's a lot you can't know until it happens, and this is one of those things.

 

[dusty88]

Or pick a new fiat currency such as the Euro.

Switching to a gold standard could have disastrous results for our economy. There's a lot you can't know until it happens, and this is one of those things.

Oh it would be a massive adjustment, but that adjustment is going to be forced upon us one of these days (not necessarily the gold standard, but the debt expansion will reach its limits) and that will be even worse.

The gold standard is not perfect, but AtTheMurph is correct that having our currency as the global fiat is what allows us to continue with such a big trade deficit

 

[dusty88]

The problem with "free trade" is that it isn't.

We in the USA are in a unique position where we have a fiat currency that also happens to moonlight as the worlds reserve currency. There is currently high demand for dollars. High demand means higher price. Higher price means we can buy things from the rest of the world at a discount.

This means that the goods we make are expensive to us and the rest of the world. Manufacturing will necessarily move from the USA to other countries so they can sell these goods back to us for dollars.

The solution is simple, but it also entails the loss of unlimited power for our government - the end of the fiat currency system. Ron and Rand Paul are exactly right. If the US were to go back on the gold standard our trade imbalances would have to end, the rest of the world would have to go back on the gold standard as well.

You couldn't have a country that ran a trade imbalance for 4 decades because all the gold would flee that country. That is exactly the reason that Nixon closed the gold window and turned the US dollar into worthless chits of paper. Since 1971 the US dollar has been backed by nothing. The "full faith and credit" is a lie because there is nothing that a bankrupt government cannot repay all it's obligations.

End the Fed, return to hard money and the problems will disappear.

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." Keynes​

Well said

I've tried to explain this before and haven't done well at it. Your explanation was concise. Thanks.

 

[steveh_131]

The problem with "free trade" is that it isn't.

We in the USA are in a unique position where we have a fiat currency that also happens to moonlight as the worlds reserve currency. There is currently high demand for dollars. High demand means higher price. Higher price means we can buy things from the rest of the world at a discount.

This means that the goods we make are expensive to us and the rest of the world. Manufacturing will necessarily move from the USA to other countries so they can sell these goods back to us for dollars.

The solution is simple, but it also entails the loss of unlimited power for our government - the end of the fiat currency system. Ron and Rand Paul are exactly right. If the US were to go back on the gold standard our trade imbalances would have to end, the rest of the world would have to go back on the gold standard as well.

You couldn't have a country that ran a trade imbalance for 4 decades because all the gold would flee that country. That is exactly the reason that Nixon closed the gold window and turned the US dollar into worthless chits of paper. Since 1971 the US dollar has been backed by nothing. The "full faith and credit" is a lie because there is nothing that a bankrupt government cannot repay all it's obligations.

End the Fed, return to hard money and the problems will disappear.

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." Keynes

So you're saying that Big Government is the problem and Small Government is the solution? I like it.

 

[CampingJosh]

Oh it would be a massive adjustment, but that adjustment is going to be forced upon us one of these days (not necessarily the gold standard, but the debt expansion will reach its limits) and that will be even worse.

The gold standard is not perfect, but AtTheMurph is correct that having our currency as the global fiat is what allows us to continue with such a big trade deficit

Why is the gold standard better?

One of the things that is recognized by a fiat currency that is impossible with a gold standard is that not all economic value is a physical item. Service economies make many, many people wealthy, and there isn't a physical good to be had. If we always have to trade physical goods for nonphysical services (such as a web forum like this one, someone detailing my car, etc.), we soon run out of the physical thing. And so the physical thing has to be worth less and less over time.

And therein lies the rub: A gold standard forces deflation. This is very bad news. The growth of wealth worldwide massively outpaces the mining of gold, and a gold standard makes that impossible.

A trade deficit is only a real problem if it leads to a shrinking GDP. So long as we're creating more wealth than we're sending away in trade, we're still getting richer.

 

[dusty88]

Why is the gold standard better?

Gold makes a decent currency because it's fungible and difficult to counterfeit. It's also relatively scarce (somewhat related to the ability to counterfeit).

It's not perfect, because the amount newly emerging (ie mined) will never perfectly balance with economic growth. But there is a reason that societies always come back to it after they destroy their fiat currencies. You just can't trust a government (and in our case a central bank) to manage a fiat currency. The Federal Reserve's original mandate was for stable prices. How's that been going the past 100 years?

One of the things that is recognized by a fiat currency that is impossible with a gold standard is that not all economic value is a physical item. Service economies make many, many people wealthy, and there isn't a physical good to be had. If we always have to trade physical goods for nonphysical services (such as a web forum like this one, someone detailing my car, etc.), we soon run out of the physical thing. And so the physical thing has to be worth less and less over time.

Whatever the form of currency, it can be exchanged for services just as it can be for commodities.
Maybe what you are describing is the false wealth effect of monetary expansion? ie if your house is perceived to be worth more you borrow money (which is new fiat currency in the system) and spend it on services thus growing the service sector of the economy?
I'd say that's more about monetary expansion and it's false wealth, but can also be used to drive up the price of assets so it's not limited to the service sector growth.

And therein lies the rub: A gold standard forces deflation. This is very bad news. The growth of wealth worldwide massively outpaces the mining of gold, and a gold standard makes that impossible.

Growth of wealth? Are you counting wealth in fiat currency?

It is possible for an economy to outpace gold, but that isn't what's been happening lately. That's devaluing of currency that makes things look like they are worth more. Bernanke calls it the wealth effect. Historically, new gold was usually mined at about the rate of economic growth but you are right that it's not perfect in that way.

Deflation isn't the ultimate boogeyman. Deflation makes things cheaper to buy. It's good for a guy who doesn't have much money, and it's good for savers. It's bad for debtors. That's why our government is so afraid of it. They've built a debt-based economy.

Periodic deflation (also called recessions) are part of needed corrections. Businesses and borrowers that were on the edge will go bankrupt but this avoids driving up the price of their businesses or assets to an unrealistic height. We have taken many unnatural steps to fight deflation. So when it finally occurs it's going to be epic. (and likely will be followed by massive money printing, leading to the bad combination of an inflationary prices and declining asset values.... but that depends in what order things happen)

A trade deficit is only a real problem if it leads to a shrinking GDP. So long as we're creating more wealth than we're sending away in trade, we're still getting richer.

We're not. We're creating debt faster than we are creating growth. And even so what would be the point or benefit? It's an illusion granted us by having this global fiat currency. Things like that always roll downhill on the other side.

 

[CampingJosh]

Growth of wealth? Are you counting wealth in fiat currency?

By "growth of wealth" I mean an increase in the total value of everything that exists.

One of my employees is excellent at cabinetry. Last year he used some reclaimed lumber we had in storage to build a wonderful oak cabinet in our dining hall. The boards were worth maybe $300, but that cabinet is easily $3000.

He added to the overall value of everything that exists, yet no new gold was created. And this happens all the time all over the world. So gold isn't a good measure of all the wealth in the world.

Surely you don't deny that the process of turning iron ore into automobiles (for example) adds to the total wealth of the world. Yet it doesn't add gold.

Honestly, I would say that gold mining is one of the things that does very little to add real wealth to the world; gold doesn't have nearly the industrial utility of silver (or many other metals for that matter). Most of gold's value comes from the agreement that it has value. It's neither scarce compared to need nor intrinsically useful for many purposes.

Deflation isn't the ultimate boogeyman. Deflation makes things cheaper to buy. It's good for a guy who doesn't have much money, and it's good for savers. It's bad for debtors.

Deflation may not be the ultimate boogeyman, but it's pretty stinking bad. When something will cost less tomorrow, there's incentive not to buy. When everyone has incentive not to buy, the bottom drops out of the economy. That's not my idea of a good plan.

I'm a saver myself; I haven't had a cent of debt for years. I have money in savings. I'm not real big on inflation. But I do see the value to everyone when there is incentive to spend money. It maximizes demand, which drives production, which drives employment. That's good for people who like to be employed. It leads to economic growth.

That's why our government is so afraid of it. They've built a debt-based economy.

The government built our economy?

 

[dusty88]

By "growth of wealth" I mean an increase in the total value of everything that exists.

One of my employees is excellent at cabinetry. Last year he used some reclaimed lumber we had in storage to build a wonderful oak cabinet in our dining hall. The boards were worth maybe $300, but that cabinet is easily $3000.

He added to the overall value of everything that exists, yet no new gold was created. And this happens all the time all over the world. So gold isn't a good measure of all the wealth in the world.

Surely you don't deny that the process of turning iron ore into automobiles (for example) adds to the total wealth of the world. Yet it doesn't add gold.

You are talking about 2 different things.

Does quality labor and productivity add value? yes
The means of exchanging that value don't change that reality. The value of the currency relative to things of value, including labor, might fluctuate. What you use as currency doesn't mean you can't exchange services for commodities, or either for currency.

If someone discovered a new way to make cabinets (for example) thus attracting new currency to himself (ie building his wealth) he attracts the currency away from something of lesser value. Only with overall economic growth do we need more currency. There could certainly be times where the economy could truly grow more than the gold supply. In that case, each oz of gold would buy more wealth than it used to. (price deflation relative to gold)

This again, would be good for savers, bad for debtors, good for people laborers . And yes, in an ideal world, the currency would expand just exactly as the economy does and keep prices exactly stable. That is what the Federal Reserve was supposed to do (well that was the philosophy the bankers sold to the government. In reality it was always about the banks. I recommend the book "Creature from Jekyll Island" for a perspective. )

If you think the economy is expanding as rapidly as the numbers indicate, I would suggest you are putting a perceived value on the fiat currency that does not really exist.

The fluctuation in gold supply relative to the economy is minor compared to how our currency has devalued relative to the economy. The Fed inflated the money supply almost as soon as they came into existence which is why the 1935 government had to confiscate gold, so they could revalue the currency. We have of course massively devalued our currency since 1971 when the gold window was removed.

The lesson of our history and every fiat currency in existence is that you can't trust government to set the value of currency.

A fixed monetary standard does not prevent the standard of living from increasing. If you have deflation, it might encourage savings more than debt (maybe even too great of an extent)

But what we have now is the opposite. We have encouraged everyone and everything: government, business, households to go into debt as we continue to punish savers. This cannot go on forever.

Honestly, I would say that gold mining is one of the things that does very little to add real wealth to the world; gold doesn't have nearly the industrial utility of silver (or many other metals for that matter). Most of gold's value comes from the agreement that it has value. It's neither scarce compared to need nor intrinsically useful for many purposes.

Silver was used for money in many societies also. But that's a fine point. And actually if gold had more industrial uses, it would make it even less desirable as a currency because it would cause more value fluctuation. Money is intended to be a medium of exchange, preferably with a stable value. If gold were only money (ie had zero industrial uses) the miners then serve as a minor service industry to help facilitate money, much as bankers should do. Currently bankers have an overwhelmingly dangerous share of the economy.

Our US currency was supposed to be a medium of exchange and have stable value as such. That is why it was chosen as the global currency at Bretton-Woods, because the US actually had gold storage. When we started to print more money than we had gold for, a few people caught on and started to ask for their gold (the French president Charles de Gaulle in particular). Of course, US citizens could not do this so we were shipping our gold out. The realities of that hit home, and Nixon did something obviously unconstitutional and removed the gold window (supposedly temporarily...hah!). The rest of the world should never have accepted the dollar after that as the global currency, but I reckon they didn't want to accept the disruption.

So the global currency we use now (an unbacked US dollar) has really only been around for 45 years.

This currency is not a store of value. It is debt. Money is literally created into existence through loans.

Deflation may not be the ultimate boogeyman, but it's pretty stinking bad. When something will cost less tomorrow, there's incentive not to buy. When everyone has incentive not to buy, the bottom drops out of the economy. That's not my idea of a good plan.

You don't like prices going down when you buy things?
In any case, it doesn't matter if you "like" deflation. It's a correction. Because we have been fighting it, we have created a Ponzi-like economy. We create debt to buy more things. In recent years the "savings" rate has been so bad that the $$ are going into asset bubbles like the stock market and housing. Thus the next thing is seeing several countries try to force negative interest rates. They are getting close to the end of the debt bubble they have created.

I'm a saver myself; I haven't had a cent of debt for years. I have money in savings. I'm not real big on inflation. But I do see the value to everyone when there is incentive to spend money. It maximizes demand, which drives production, which drives employment. That's good for people who like to be employed. It leads to economic growth.

Stable value with the ability to loan can allow for steady growth, with a balance between saving and borrowing. You are correct that we don't DESIRE severe deflation. But it's somewhat like gravity. The longer you resist it, the harder the smack-down when it comes.

To illustrate how we have been living off of borrowing and the trade deficit, look at the graph of our trade balance. Go to this chart and then hit "max". The US was a creditor nation at the end of WW2. Now we are the largest debtor.

United States Balance of Trade | 1950-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar

The government built our economy?

The government certainly did not build productivity nor value. They did however structure the medium of exchange, which is a debt-based currency. It would probably be more accurate to say that the government has built the faux economy: perceived value such as inflated asset values and excess borrowing.


Edit: I'm not sure that AtTheMurph was advocating the gold standard. However, his point is specifically that having the fiat currency as a global currency allows the trade deficit. It's a bit like borrowing money. It makes you look wealthy for a while, but when the payoff is demanded the downside doesn't feel so good.

 

[CampingJosh]

Slight inflation makes for much more stable prices and a much more stable economy than does any hint of deflation.

We're not going to agree on much here, so I'm ready to be done.

 

[phylodog]

Just stumbled across this via FB. I'm not familiar with the source nor am I claiming it to be true but it would be interesting. https://www.southcrane.com/deal-carrier-air-conditioners-endorses-donald-trump-relocate-factory/