₦airaland Forum

Honestly, I remember back in the 90s, during the Kosovo brouhaha, one academist found a correlation between the skin complexion of war victims and the media's focus on their plight. The lighter they are, the more sympathy they seem to generate.

I was looking out for erosion ravaged roads, famished kids and street beggars in Gaza. Maybe the Jews are hiding them.

Did you see the ambulance and the state of their hospitals?

How many Nigerians in Naija can call upon an ambulance in an emergency? These Gazans even have fire services . I think the Darfurians' best chance is to undergo radical surgery to lighten their skin complexion, maybe then, the world will focus on their plight.

From a survey of pregnant Nigerian women:

On their view about domestic violence , (48.9%) felt it was excusable under certain
circumstance while  (14.6%) felt it is always excusable. A total of (28%) of the respondents had experienced domestic violence against them in the index pregnancy or in previous pregnancies ;(36%) were beaten up, (22%) were forced to have sex, (20%) had objects thrown at them, (18%) were slapped, and (4%) were flogged. The culprits in the 50 women who experienced DV are shown in Table 3. The spouse was the commonest
culprit.

On their reaction if they experienced domestic violence against them ; (35.9%) would
keep it secret, (27.5%) would report to their family,(15.7%) would report to the doctor, while others would report to the in-laws, police, clergy or tell a
close friend.

Read it and weep:https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/4065/1/am04002.pdf

Witness the way they are taking the Hamas run Health Ministry's casualty figures as gospel truth.

The World's Worst Central Banker


Your critics blame your monetary policies for Zimbabwe's economic problems. I've been condemned by traditional economists who said that printing money is responsible for inflation. Out of the necessity to exist, to ensure my people survive, I had to find myself printing money. I found myself doing extraordinary things that aren't in the textbooks. Then the IMF asked the U.S. to please print money. I began to see the whole world now in a mode of practicing what they have been saying I should not. I decided that God had been on my side and had come to vindicate me.

In November you shut down Zimbabwe's stock exchange. Will you open it again?
The stockbrokers were creating a money supply that wasn't there. I printed Z$1.5 quadrillion, but the exchange was operating with Z$100 sextillion. So I said, "Who is doing my job?" Unless there is more discipline and honor, the exchange will stay closed. I can't be bothered. I don't know when it'll open. It's a free market, a business which must be allowed to succeed or fail.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/181221/page/2

[quote author=**osisi link=topic=220770.msg3379626#msg3379626 date=1232759059]make una leave Olabs alone jo
He loves his women and his women love him.[/quote]You dey mind the spinsters? They think it's easy to get married. See as them dey jealous people like us. 

Cos Olabowale no gree marry them, we no go hear word.

spoilt:
Let me leave before these men start physically fighting.

Come hia, do you think the multiplier is 1.5 or 0.8? Answer the question before I slap you

Ibime:
Simple question - please provide the answer! You came on here spewing rubbish, irked at the fact that Obama's fiscal plans come with a proviso of 150% returns.
Oya, where is the link that says that the 1.5 multiplier holds for the short term?

Did Obama or any of his economic team make such an assertion or are these assertions that you manufactured in your head?If it is in the public domain, surely CNN and the like would report on it, and we would be able to get a link from you. Methinks it is not in the public domain, only in your head.

Look at this long discredited charlatan. I purposely waited for you to go out on a limb before addressing the issue. ''Obama's multipliers'' are a well known matter.

You are waiting for CNN to raise it in its ''Breaking News''.

Did the Obama team claim that their spending is about the long term or did you manufacture it in your head, like the Ijaw warriors who swim with one hand and fire AK47 with the other?

My friend sharrap dia! I did not mention the banks as part of Keynesian policy. Dont insult my intelligence.

You have to have intelligence for it to be insulted. This is a thread exclusively about Keynesian spending and you are spewing utter bollocks about everything from CDOs to the Swedish banking rescue model.

The second question should have been the original title of your thread instead of harping on about some 1.5 multiplier bullshit. Your original question should have been "Are Keynesian policies the solution to the present crisis?"

You're a blithering idiot. Anybody who knows the issue and is not reeking of sciolism like you would know that this is about Keynesian spending.

If you don't know about a topic, don't try to come here and impress me. You are offering your opinion and you don't know your head from your a*se. Imagine, you're telling me how to phrase the thread so that your bovine brain can grasp it, ode.

Like I said, the Keynesian element of Obama's fiscal package are simply to keep employment up, create artificial demand, as well as long term benefits to the economy through the creation of capital goods. You cannot talk about Keynesian multiplier in the short term without considering the Long Run Keynesian multiplier and the effect of the increase in capital goods. Any attempt to hash out a figure of 150% in the short-term is evidence of your own stupidity. Besides, we do not know if this 1.5 figure of yours is just a fable that you created. At least, until we get a credible url confirming your initial yarns.

Look at this charlatan yapping. The Keynesian precept here is about priming demand and it starts with the assumption that the multiplier is at least, or more than, 1.0. If you have learnt anything today, please learn this or shut the hell up.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf Page 13, from the head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, Cristina Romer.

Output effects of a permanent stimulus of 1% of GDP (percent)
Government Tax
Quarter                  Purchases                    Cuts
1                            1.05                            0.00
2                            1.24                            0.49
3                            1.35                            0.58
4                            1.44                            0.66
5                            1.51                            0.75
6                            1.53                            0.84
7                            1.54                            0.93
8                            1.57                            0.99
9                            1.57                            0.99
10                          1.57                            0.99
11                          1.57                            0.99
12                          1.57                            0.99
13                          1.57                            0.99
14                          1.57                            0.99
15                          1.57                            0.99
16                          1.55                            0.98

Firstly, let me preempt Ibime by predicting what he would have typed. ''I asked for short term but the multiplier doesn't hit 1.5 until Q5 so you are still wrong''  I've seen it all before, try a better line.    

Obama's multipliers is the hottest topic on the econo-blogs for the past couple of months. The idea that I have to provide a weblink for a topical and blindingly obvious matter shows you are clueless about the debate.

Ibime:
Guy, all this rambling is not helpful.Can you provide a link where Obama says his stimulus package will make 150% returns in the short-term?

An easy way of rebutting this charlatanism is to ask where on this thread anyone says Obama has stated the above. Or presumably, I can as well ask for a single link of the Obama team saying their stimulus plan is in regards the long term and not the short term.

I do not know the actual contents of the stimulus package until it is passed, but I believe some of it will be geared toward the banks1, whilst other money will be allocated to the auto-industry, infrastructure, medicine2, etc. On top of that we will be seeing middle-income tax cuts and no repeal of the bush tax cuts3.

If you think the current debates about the multiplier in Keynesian spending is about supporting the banks or the auto-industry, that means you haven't got a clue what the subject is. It's like coming to a thread about the effects of communism to talk about the effects of Islamism.

What the hell is the banking rescue measures got to do with Obama's planned Keynesian spending?

I believe the keynesian elements of (2.) is what you have a problem with as

No sh*t! The topic is about Keynesian spending alone and you are yapping about everything including CDOs. What in Zeus' name does CDO have to do with the topic?

Hence, Obama is tackling the immediate problem whilst simultaneously protecting jobs and creating artificial demand through (2.).

That's all I'm interested in. How does the Keynesian spending increase demand?

All this talk of 150% returns in the short-term can only be substantiated if you provide us with credible http://.

Asking for weblinks of whether Keynesians think such spending has a multiplier of more than 1.0 is a bit like asking for weblinks to show monetarists believe in the quantity theory of money.

Ibime:
Guy, just think of it as a collaterised debt obligation.
Government buys the economy's bad assests, giving it a chance to recover.

Please do me a favour, google ''what is the multiplier''.

What you are talking here has nothing to do with this thread. I'm in favor of Govt spending to sanitise the banking sector. I would prefer capital injections and the ''bad bank approach'' in that regard, but that is not the issue here.

The question is how Obama's stimulus package, the programme of public works justified by some economists as having a multiplier of 1.5, is going to work. 2 separate issues entirely.

Now, as to the Keynesian elements of the stimulus package such as infrastructure spending and computerised healthcare, these are even longer term strategies design to re-orientate the economy AND provide jobs for those who have been displaced in the short-term.

Another example of mutilating the point of the original advocates. Keynesian theories on priming up aggregate demand, is exactly that, priming up aggregate demand. The idea is that as the economy contracts, private spending falls, public spending is increased to replace private spending. That, in a nutshell, is what the stimulus package is meant to acheive in the short term.

Does it have longer term benefits? Of course, but that is not the debate here.

No, my point is exactly the same as theirs. The fiscal stimulus is intended to rejuvenate the economy in the medium term, and the Government will make back its investment in the long term. For example, you cannot hope to have quick returns on infrastructure projects, nor on the 'bad banks' which are created to take away toxic assets from the banks.

Firstly, your point has little resemblance with that of stimulus advocates. Their point is that the economy is contracting because of a fall in aggregate demand. The stimulus package is meant to replace lost private demand with public demand. In effect, it's meant to deal with the current situation.

If your house is on fire, your primary concern while the fire is raging is not who to take out a future home insurance policy with(long term) but what you can do now to quench the fire(short term).

Effectively, you are admitting that the major plank of the new administration's policy has little or nothing to offer for the current problem.

Creating jobs and recouping investment fully are two different things with two different timescales.

This is a distinction without a difference. If a President promises that the investments he is making is justified because the investments will lead to job creation, how will any normal understanding of English entail that the purported new jobs are anything other than a recouping of the investment?

Besides, its a red herring. Obama has in speech after speech defended his spending plans as a panacea for today's problems. That is the whole point of the stimulus in the first place.

It is already in effect. Without it, there would be a total systematic collapse by now.

The stimulus package yet to pass is already in effect? Retroactively or what?

Simply, the Government will not 'recoup' their investment in the short term. I don't know why this hard to understand. We do not judge the economy by the budgetary deficit, we judge it by GDP.

What is the point of a Keynesian stimulus which is not a stimulus but a long term investment programme?

Effectively, we both agree that the stimulus, at best, is beneficial in the long term and as such, is no panacea for today's problem. The key difference is that you claim the stimulus supporters also say this, which is like claiming that Christians worship Buddha. All the arguments by the Obama's team, the likes of Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, e.t.c that the stimulus is justified on the basis of its exapnsionary impact today is tossed aside for a bizzare claim that the stimulus is about the long term. They all claim that the multiplier is 1.5. 1.5 today, not in the long term. It seems you don't have any understanding of the what the debate is about in the first place.

He can either let the whole system collapse, with catastrophic short-term consequences which could lead to anarchy and even social unrest or he can limit the fallout by spending big in the short-term. Either way, his objective has always been to have strong fiscal governance and to produce budget-surpluses like we had in the Clinton years. Unfortunately, he is going to have to put that off until he takes care of this mess.

Why would he want to limit the fallout in the short term if he doesn't have a time frame for his plans like you asserted in your penultimate post?

You have now touched the crux of the debate after perambulating endlessly.

Can such a huge spending package have net beneficial effects in the long term? Yes. I made that point in the very first post.

Does it have net beneficial effects such as limiting fallouts in the short term? No evidence of that here.

Secondly, even if this recession lasts only a couple of years, you cannot expect to recoup investment as soon as the recession is over.

Sorry, I missed this part. You cannot defend something you don't understand. Let me summarise it for you.

America is suffering a major contraction of its economy. Most economists' solution to this contraction is a major Keynesian spending package. The question this thread is trying to get to the root of is how such spending deals with the present problem.

The people who support it, you being the exception, defend it mainly on the basis of what it's going to do in the short term.

Firstly, Obama never put a date on when he expects to recoup the cash.

What? He says he will create or save, 2.5 million to 3 million jobs over the next 2 years. That is putting a time period on when the stimulus will start having effect.

Besides, how can a defense of Obama be that he has no time frame for his economic plans? That is not a defence of Obama but a denigration.

I do.

If a major part of your recovery programme won't start coming into effect until a couple of years' time, what happens to the economy in the preceding time? The likely outcome will be that in 2 years' time, the economic outlook will be much worse.

Again, an ill-posed question. Nobody is talking about months here, he are talking about years and maybe a decade or two.
Sweden just announced recently that they have made a profit from their "bad banks" which they set up in 1992. So, any bailout or fiscal package will not see full returns for at least 10-15 years.

Obama's plan has been sold by him, and the supporters of the plan, as the answer to today's problem. In a decade or two, the US's social security liabilities will be more acute so a borrowing and spending spree today is not going to solve the US's economic problems in the long term.

You are advancing a point that the stimulus advocates don't even share - that the fiscal stimulus is about the long term, not the short term. That is a bizarre argument.

slowpoke, my self-development is too advanced for any form of racial discrimination unlike you that think people should die because they are muslim Arabs you hate. Even though I am against the ideology their religion induces that does not mean I should hate all muslims.

Bumpkin, obviously not too self developed to be spouting ''blood libel'' against Israel?

slowpoke, if that is the case, so where is the evidence that Hamas is the one sending bombs into Israel? Even, where is the evidence that bombs are even being sent to Israel.Moronic arguments.

Look at this boneheaded fraud. Is Israel bound by the Convention in question? No. Is there evidence of the indiscriminate use of white phosphorous as you allege? No

Evidence of Hamas' rockets is not derived solely from critics of Hamas. Idiot, can you see why your analogy is hopelessly crass?

slowpoke, where is your evidence that female casualities are low? Please show me.

Here is from a Dhimmi source, idiot: "So the latest figures for casualties are: Palestinian deaths -- 1,314 of whom 412 were children and a hundred were women'' [url]http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/detail/67863.html
[/url]

So Israel took great care? Great care in demolishing 4000 buildings and 20,000 damages all in 3 weeks? Great care in destroying infrastructure for light and water.

You are a rabid slowpoke. 4,000 buildings in a place densely populated by 1.5m people, if there is a ratio of 18 people for each building in Gaza( extremely high) Gaza would have around 80,000 buildings. Maybe the example of Odi where only a police station and an Anglican church where reputedly the only buildings left is preferable to you, yet, I don't see you claiming Nigeria is guilty of war crimes.

You dolt stupidly proclaim that Israel bombs indiscriminately, yet indiscriminate bombing produced a casualty rate that has no resemblance to the general population .This is a conflict where the proportion of the children and women who make up the casualties is significantly lower than almost any war fought in living memory and this dolt is shouting himself hoarse about war crimes.

slowpoke, where is the analogy with Odi? Or because killings took place in Odi then we should never criticise other killings?

You are an slowpoke. If this Gaza conflict constitutes war crimes, then practically every party to every war ever fought is guilty of war crimes. You should learn to put things in perspective and Odi helps show rabid anti-Semites like you have no sense of perspective, actually, you have no sense at all.

Here is an article for you to read. We have been extremely generous to accept the UN figures, obtained from Gaza's Health Ministry run by Hamas, at face value.  

A doctor at Gaza's Shifa Hospital told the Gaza correspondent of the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead might have been 500 or 600, mostly young men between the ages of 17 and 23, "drafted by Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter."

The doctor, who refused to identify himself out of fear for his life, also told the correspondent, Lorenzo Cremonesi: "It might have been like in Jenin in 2002. First they talked about 1,500 dead, and in the end it turned out to be only 54, among them 45 fighters."The doctor said he was surprised that aid groups, including Western ones, reported the numbers without confirming them.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057960.html

BAC:
That was a Dead Cat bounce. Soludo's talks cannot produce dollars. You need dollars to support this currency. Until we ascertain where dollars will be coming from,  Target remains N175. Oils cannot produce those dollars now.

Bros, why 175? Unless there is a major conflict in the Middle-East(say Israel bombing Iran), oil prices won't be going up significantly for another 6 months. Within that time, what stops the Naira going down to N200 per dollar?

Hopefully, there is someone on this forum who will explain the ''miracle of the fiscal stimulus multpilier''.

According to the stimulus advocates, the Govt spends $1 and, using the Obama team's numbers, you will get $1.5 in output. The multiplier is thus $1.5. Thus, not only will society get the initial $1 back, it will get 50 cents in addition.

I can see how that can work in the long term: roads, power plants, bridges,e.t.c can boost growth by lessening the infrastructural constraints on business activity. However, it takes a while to complete such projects and by the time they are built, America will be out of the recession. Unless you belong to the Roubini school of thought who think this recession will last a considerable lenght of time.

So does anybody know how spending $1 today will bring about $1.5 in output within the next few months?

Besides, it seems Richy started following politics in the Bush years. Back in the Clinton era, an air strike was ordered on a target in Sudan. The Clinton Administration claimed it was a chemical weapons plant used jointly by Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Very short memories with people.

RichyBlacK:
I disagree! Obama is only three days old as president. It's not enough time to defeat the giant beast of lawlessness released by Bush.

Are you saying that the air strikes were conducted against Obama's wishes?

2009 will be very tough. The article says consensus estimates are of a 2.1% decline in GDP for 2009.

The scare mongerers are talking of the UK going bust and seeking IMF bailout but I don't think the situation is that dire.

For the US, the plans to deal with the recession through a fiscal stimulus is unconvincing. I still don't see how Govt spending will lead to higher output in the short term. If you spend $1 today, how does that lead to $1+ in output in the near future?

Chai, see what 5th place is doing to Gayners' mental health. 

Mr Crackles is cracking up big time, Debosky has always has always been barmy.Consequences of following a club with no prospects. 

Because Olabowale no gree for una, una come dey yab am. Frustrated spinsters!

@Olabowale

No mind these spinsters. They are always jealous of married people like us. If you offer them marriage now, they will start blushing.

Breaking News! The goat is going on Larry King Live tomorrow night to be interviewed. Must watch TV:
www.cnn.com/naijagoat

I'm quite surprised the Rwandans would arrest him . I suppose they have caved in to Western pressure.

It would be interesting to see what measures they will take against him but the prospect of the Rwandan and Congolese military working together against the Hutu and Tutsi militia bodes well for the region.

RichyBlacK:
Such strikes violate Pakistan's sovereignty, except they got the green light from Islamabad. Otherwise, they are illegal and must be stopped!

Pakistan is a cesspit full of Al-Qaeda terrorists who murdered thousands on 9-11 and who continue to plot mass murder from their hideouts in Pakistan. If the Pakistani Govt can't rid their country of these people, the US will have to do so.

Sagamite:
slowpoke, I keep on telling you that I am more on the side of Israel and have been saying this from the start. I am just not dumb like you or full of hate so I hold on to my objectivity.

Why announce repeatedly that you are on the side of Israel instead of letting the facts speak for themselves?

Objectivity? This self-contradicting dolt, if you are on the side of Israel, you are not objective anyway.

If this is not evidence, then I don't know what is. slowpoke.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7841999.stm

The eyewitness accounts of Israel's critics prove what?

Sagamite:
And if they know they were not doing anything wrong, then why were they denying it?

I bet fools like you believed Mugabe when he said his people were not responsible for missing opposition members.
I bet you even continued believing him when an opposition member that they denied they knew her whereabouts appeared in court 3 weeks later under police custody.

Chop-sh*t-fool.

Israel is not a signatory to the applicable treaty. There is no proof of it breaching the law, it can't actually breach a law it's not bound by. More importantly, there is no evidence of the supposed indiscriminate use of white phosphorous.

1330 dead
460 are children (more than a third), over a 1000 wounded
Many of the rest are women, and even no fool can say all the men were Hamas
4100 homes destroyed (including peoples life possession
17,000 homes damaged

Most Gazans are children, yet, Israel managed to keep casualties down to 35% of the total according to your figures. The female casualties were significantly lesser than the casualties for children and yet some dolt proclaims this is in breach of international law.

This is proof that Israel took great care. Given that its enemy constitutes less than 1% of the population, its as good a records as any major conflict on the planet. The Nigerian army managed to reach nearly that figure in 24 hours at Odi, I don't suppose the Nigerian army is as powerful as Israel's.

Hamas is not that much of a threat to warrant these atrocities.
In 8 years Hamas sent 13,000 bombs into Israel and only killed 15 people.

13,000 killed 15, what low accuracy.
It does not warrant having that much anger to kill and destroy the livelihood of innocent people.

Dolt, so Israel's response to a barrage of rockets should be constrained because it makes elaborate efforts to protect its citizens? Supposedly, if Israel was a nation that didn't give a toss about protecting its citizens and, thus, many of its citizens were to die under the Hamas barrage, it will now be justified to escalate its response?

Sagamite:
slowpoke, me anti-semitic?
Fool, I am actually an Israel supporter. But I have to open my eyes and be objective when evil is being done with impunity from those that claim they are crusading for justice (USA).

Israel supporter? Well, I'm a Muslim.

And yes israel has admitted they used the bomb AFTER initially denying it for days.
Is this a bomb meant to target Hamas? Is this targeting Hamas?

Idiot, is the use of white phosphorous prohibited? No

Is its use constrained? Yes

Has Israel breached those constraints? Tough question but for now, there is little evidence to establish that its use was ''disproportionate''.

So, go and sit in your Jew hating corner and continue spouting your blood libel, Mr Israel supporter. What a schmuck.

Na Europe I dey pity. Places like France and Holland, they're sitting on a demographic time bomb.

davidylan:
There is precious little you can do with those who are ideologically committed to your destruction.

I have always felt that Islamo-fascism is a problem the US can contain but never defeat. It is for Muslims to ''defeat'' it. The war on terror will go on for generations. As Samuel Huntington suggested in his Clash of Civilizations, this is the new cold war.

In the 90s, Clinton waged war on Serbs on behalf of Bosnian-Muslims and Kosovars, something he omitted to do when worse things were happening in Rwanda. He ignored the massacres in the South of Sudan that claimed at least 1 million lives and also ignored the massacres in East Timor. He increased aid to the Middle-East and spend long hours into the night striving for peace between Israel and Palestinians. Yet, it was the same 90s that Al-Qaeda was formed, same 90s that 9-11 was hatched. It's clear to me that appeasement doesn't work. Maybe it's worth trying again as people's memories are very short.

davidylan:
Should he close Gitmo the rightwingers are coming after him, should he leave it open he will only be classified as the second coming of Bush. What should he do in this case?

When it comes to protecting Americans, criticisms from any angle should be the least of his concern.

He should do nothing unless he has a better solution.

I dont think he took the decision to close Gitmo in a haste, if he did we havent heard a lot of noise from the canterkarous group in the senate and house yet. I still say he simply opens a parallel to gitmo on US soil, these terrorists dont deserve to be in the same jails as petty criminals.

I think most people want Gitmo closed and like I noted before, the Bush administration was seeking European help in rehousing these people. However, that most people want it closed is no reason to close it unless there are better alternatives.

Your idea of detaining in the US doesn't work because, like Debosky's idea, it's effectively doing the same thing as before but in a different location. Opposition to Gitmo is not because of the location but the legality of the whole process.

PS: The last time there was a major attack on the US,FDR's solution was to lock up every single person of Japanese nationality. If someone can come up with a good way to deal with this problem, I'm all ears.