Lets play a game of Ask Karth. Ask me any political science/econ you can think of and I'll answer it to the best of my ability. I'll be off and on for the next week because of Thanksgiving but I'll do my best getting back.

Ask away...

Explain the difference between a change on the demand curve versus a change in the quantity demanded!

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Why does it burn when I pee?

(please answer in the form of a spreadsheet.)

Why are people flipping out about the 50/barrel to 55/barrel price change in oil when 6 months ago we were dishing out 150?

Oh and I'd like tp know what kind of sustainability a pure service society has over an industrial one in economic terms.
Great science with no production sustainable for the full populyion economicly?

How come I got 12.30 cents change when I bought a 3.15 DQ and gave them 10.15.

Did the Pakistani ISS attack the U.S. on 9/11/01?

How many licks does it take to get to the toostie roll center

of a tootsie pop ?

All the quantity demanded is where the Y axis crosses equilibrium on the S&D curves. Price is the X axis. In cases where there is not a shortage quantity demanded equals quantity supplied.

These curves can shift and if they shift just right you will have no change in quantity demanded, but a large change in price. A situation where this could happen is if there is an increase in demand for a good, say corn for etahnol while at the same time a good chuck of the corn crop gets knocked out. Price increases while at the same time quantity demanded stays the same.



This answer your question?

I haven't seen much flipping out but I suppose it would be people panicing thinking that $150+ barrel of oil could come marching back as quick as the price droped. I also think that OPEC's production cut came into full force. But unless there is a major supply disruption we will not see oil at the summer levels for a very long time, if at all.



Well, even today we don't have a pure service economy. The majority of our GDP does come from service sector but I don't believe that it is possible to have a major economy specalizing in "pure" service. There will always be demand for some local industry like construction.

Now service goods do have some major advantages over mass produced industrial goods. All industrial goods are rivalrous, you buying one deny's another from purchasing it. A good number of service goods are non-rivalrous , they dont have this problem. For example digital goods like music, movies, software, games, whatever. When you download a song or tv show from iTunes it doesn't deny another from purchasing that same good. Also service goods can be customized to the customer's wishes. This is where American will stake it's claim in the 21st century. And we will be better off because of it.

I am fairly positive that the ISS had some operatives in Al Qaeda. In fact I would be shocked if they didn't. However due to the cell style operations I do not believe that the ISS operatives knew that 4 aircraft would be hijacked on Sept 11th though they probably knew something was in the works and passed it on to Pakistan who passed it on to US. In Aug 01 we knew something was in the works. It is just that we were expecting an attack like the USS Cole, military base bombing or embassy bombing and we acted accordingly. No one was expecting an attack on the US homeland.

Probably because a good number of high school kids can't count. I blame Republicans for cutting funding for k-12 education.

What will be the outcome of the worlds view of the united states since it was revealed that two euro guilds recently merged and now have some arab oil baron, or hindu habib guy backing them as sponsors in world of warcraft?

It will be like Y2K, only planes will actually fall out of the sky and computers will melt into liquid and burn through the floor like in Alien.

Congratulations you have achieved your educational goals; you are able to blame Republicans for everything regardless if it is true or not.

fox news did 911

_________________

Speaking of news conspiracies, I am pretty sure Nancy Grace (of CNN) killed Lacy Peterson. It was a 24/7/365 Lacy fiesta with that annoying soul soliciting pig-fucking bitch Nancy at the helm for like 6 months when that shit went down. I just wanted to catch some news. But, noooooo, every time I wanted to know what was going on in America or the rest of the world, I had to hear that grating southern accent that made my ears pee blood for months.

[/quote]

Because comercial paper was failing.

Lots of things fail, it doesn't mean the government is required to bail you out of it.

Maybe you can expand a bit on your answer.

I know in lolbertarian land everyone is supposed to lift themselves up by their bootstraps, but in the real world letting 90% of the businesses not have the money they need to meet payroll is not a good thing and is one of the many instances where government intervention is highly suggested.

So let me get this straight.

I take $50 million dollars and start a company. I hire 10,000 employees. The product I make is shit-flavored lollipops.

Amazingly, my company fails. I don't seem to be able to sell these lollipops! Oh crap! I can't meet payroll!

But in your world.....you think government intervention is highly suggested. They should bail out my multi-million dollar company so I can meet payroll?

And you are a poly sci/econ major? Holy crap. Is there any way we can get one of your professors to check out this thread?

Nek, to be fair, he's not talking about one company. He's talking about problems throughout the economy. There's not a rational person in the world who'd bail out your lollipop company.

But this isn't what what happened.

Listen to this to get a better understanding of the financial crisis. And it isn't about banks being able to meet payroll, it is about banks offering commercial paper so that everyone ELSE can make payroll.

What are you going to post next, something wonderful about von Mises or Hayek or perhaps "Google Ron Paul"

Leo - I'm not arguing about bailing out the economy. I'm talking about one very specific situation. That situation is the government giving $700 billion to some banks. SOME banks. Not ALL banks.

So my question to Karthun was, why is this bailout a good idea? Why not let shitty banks fail and get bought out by better managed ones? Maybe you would like to answer that.

Now according to Karthun, these select banks are responsible for 90% of all the payroll of all the companies in America? That's laughable.

His answer is apparently because we need to bail these banks out because of payroll concerns. More on this later.

Karthun - now you have me even more worried. Do you really think this is what the bailout is about? About helping companies make payroll? Correct me if I'm wrong.....isn't that bailout about helping resolve the credit crisis? Loosening lending practices so people can borrow again? So people and businesses have access to financing?

But you think this bailout is about payroll? Really? Can you show me somewhere that this was the major concern that resulted in giving banks the $700 billion? Because up to this point, I think it had to do with credit, financing, and lending, not payroll. Here I was thinking that it was to give banks money so they feel comfortable lending and financing again, but here you are telling me it's about payroll.

Now let's talk about payroll.....and why you don't need to bailout banks just because of it.

1) EVEN IF my bank went under, I would be FDIC insured for $100,000, which is plenty to make payroll, at least for me and the majority of small business owners.

2) Since FDIC only insures up to that amount (although it's suppose to be increased to $250,000), that means I have my money spread across multiple banks. Do you think I'm the only one that's come up with this brilliant plan? No. Most businesses, at least if they have more than $100,000 in cash, will have their money spread out.

3) What does this mean? NOT ALL BANKS HAVE FAILED. So I just move my money from the banks on the verge of collapsing, to safer ones.

4) EVEN IF, by chance, every bank I had money in failed.....I would just move my money. OMG TO ANOTHER BANK IMAGINE THAT! It's not like if a few banks fail that suddenly the entire banking industry disappears. Maybe the new bank can use my money to buy out the old bank and teach it how to be managed better and more profitable! Crazy idea, right!?!!?



So just for emphasis, Karthun, you think this $700 billion is about allowing companies to make payroll?

Oh, and one more thing, just because I thought of it...

EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE BANK IN THE WORLD WENT UNDER....

I would still be able to make payroll. I would just be paying all my employees in cash. There wouldn't be a bank for me to deposit my money in is all.

So I'm not sure how you can think this is about payroll.

Christ dude, it isn't about payroll. The bailout was all about commercial paper and how the failure of Lehman Brothers caused commercial paper to freeze.

Read this for more info http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=95099470

I missed this earlier also...

Am I missing something? Please explain to me why I need any form of commercial paper to make payroll. I'm pretty sure I don't even need checks since I've pointed out to you I can pay my employees in cash.

But you are the econ major, so there may be something to this I'm missing. Enlighten me.

1) I know it's not about payroll....so why keep using payroll in your explanations? If it has nothing to do about payroll, why did you even bring it up in the first place?

2) If the failure of Lehman Brothers caused the commerical paper freeze, then why did the government let it fail if it's that important? And then back AIG?

3) Lehman brothers has failed, AIG is still in the process of getting bailed out.....and yet I see businesses, large and small, continue to chug along. I haven't seen any company complaining yet of inability to secure inventory or make payroll and the like because of lack of financial funding. Is there one? If there isn't, doesn't that sink the whole argument of needing the bailout?


Also, thanks for the link. It helps explain why large companies need much more liquidity than small companies. It still doesn't support your argument that "in the real world letting 90% of the businesses not have the money they need to meet payroll is not a good thing" considering large cap companies do not consitute 90% of businesses, so you probably have that backwards.

Well when companies dont turn profit the find ways to make profit... One of which is 'not making payroll' but instead of not paying people who are working, they pay people who wont be working tomorrow!

I definitely think there was a problem in the financial industries, which is now being seen to spread all over the place, service, consumer, energy... Its pretty bad. When you see companies laying off 10pct+ of their workforce, and its not isolated, thats bad news bears for everyone - all taxpayers pay the price.

I just hope its over soon.

I dont agree with most of the bailout either - btw. I understand parts of it but not others - for instance, i cant refinance my house to get a near 2pct reduction in my fixed APR, because my house is no longer worth what i bought it at(even though i can, have, and will continue to make my payments on time)... But they'll pay off other peoples principles, lower their payments, adjust their rates, etc... And now more than 50pct of those derelicts are back in delinquency.

Oh well.

_________________
My sig got eated by the bit bucket...
Fellenwhite Moonsong
Sixty-Something drunken freak of Lanys
Formerly known as:
Dashkast Justifyer
75 Gnomish Puppy kicker

Here's a question:

Why is it better for us to bailout the financial institutions as opposed to the Auto manufacturers?

heres one...

Since I am 16th from the bottom on the choppoing list for the next Mittal layoffs- What is the estimated time it will take for the the car companies to get bailed out, the credit get back to giving people credit and the car companies need to start producing again and for them to start needing steel?

Jebus, I only get 6 months medical once I am out so if you say 6mths 1 day I will cry.

p.s. everyone go buy a car and a washer and a fridge... NOW
p.s.s. if you are over 65 and in a factory- we can assume youve prob been there 30-40 years, for the love of pete, retire! if you dont have enough saved by now, working until you die wont help.

uhhh... if you don't have money saved up, working until you die is your only option short of starving to death on the streets.

I'm basically referring to the steel and auto industries.

These fellas are making a damn good wage and have been for years. They have their pensions, social security, 401ks, and whatever else they have used to save up.

From what I've read about auto and know from steel in Ohio the average pension is $100 per year served. 30 years is the normal in my mill for the old timers. Thats $3000 a month alone. Add SS into that plus anything else they have saved up.

Last week we pulled up a mill list, 1500 employees- 40% are over 62. The mill average age is 56.

One fella is 67, I asked why he hasnt retired yet- cause he doesnt have enough in his 401 he says. He started in '68. Thats a $4000 pension right there and I believe he is already collecting SS.

On the pension alone- he should be living very comfortably and enjoying those golden years. Yeah, I know everyone has their own choice, their own problems and such- but its not only 1 person. The paper here says Ford in our area is even worse with more way over the age of retirement.

It's a circle of life issue. These people need to retire and have young ones move in. That pulls them off the unemployment line, that keeps the companies rolling. We can't wait until these guys drop dead to toss someone now in their spot- these jobs take skill, hands on skill. It's going to take serious time for new people to learn the knowledge these older guys have. Problems that happen aren't in manuals, they are fixed from experience. Remember, when a mistake happens in auto/steel factories- usually it results in a death.

I say more power to those folks. It depends on what kind of work ethic people have, I think. Some people simply do not WANT to retire period because they either enjoy what they do, or they don't relish the idea of not being productive and/or "doing nothing". That type of person is not overly common, but I've known people who simply cannot sit still and LOVE the idea of going to work every day.

As for making room... I'd chalk that up to just general problems with not having enough jobs in that field. It sucks, but in the job market not every passion/profession is created equal. I have a tough time blaming the elder workers for that problem.

Carolsue, the problem you are describing is bad today but it will be much, much worse in 10 years. I'm not sure what the solution is, though.
Because people are living longer we need them to work longer so the non-working portion of our population doesn't grow too fast or too large. Because people are working longer there are less and less jobs for the young and (when dealing with the auto makers in particular) they are lower paying because of the legacy costs of previous generations. And, if a young person is lucky enough to find a job there is little to no upward mobility. It's a pretty nasty picture if you are young and looking for work in fields that don't require recent education.