- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 4/24/23 at 8:12 am to upgrayedd
Posted on 4/24/23 at 8:12 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Because if Ukraine wins, we'll be leading the charge to rebuild the entire country and its going to cost exponentially more than the war.
Rebuilding Ukraine won't be a cost but an opportunity for our capitalists to make money.
0
Posted on 4/24/23 at 8:22 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Ok, so if we've got an infinite amount of money to spend and you're ok with it. Is there a tipping point as to how much you're willing to spend on Ukraine? If so, how much?
Falso premise. Do you save money by not changing the oil in your vehicles? Same goes for Ukraine. Cheapest money ever spent. Russia becomes not a threat after degradation in Ukraine. China sees what happens and that the coalition supporting Ukraine sticks together so forgets Taiwan.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 8:32 am to upgrayedd
quote:
We’re printing money we don’t have to give it to US contractors. That’s not a wild concept.
We aren't 'printing money.' The Fed has started 'quantitative tightening' since June of 2022, which in Powell's own words is 'shrinking the balance sheet.'
Regardless, your point is doesn't make any sense. If the Fed was participating in open market operations just to fund Ukraine, and for those funds to end up in the hands of US citizens (who happen to be contractors), that investment will lead to more economic growth. You are thinking of US debt as though it is like credit card debt, which it is not. Each dollar the US spends has an output attached to it, which increases the velocity of transactions done in dollars, which boosts GDP growth, which allows for the Fed to have a wide leeway in terms of monetary policy, both accommodative and restrictive.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 8:37 am to CitizenK
quote:
Falso premise. Do you save money by not changing the oil in your vehicles? Same goes for Ukraine. Cheapest money ever spent. Russia becomes not a threat after degradation in Ukraine. China sees what happens and that the coalition supporting Ukraine sticks together so forgets Taiwan.
How much? It's not difficult
Posted on 4/24/23 at 8:42 am to upgrayedd
quote:
How much? It's not difficult
More than Russia.
If Russia wins when the west reaches a predetermined top figure, then Russia will starve itself to reach that top number. This is actually a Russian strategy, to try to find the limit of western assistance and then get western policy makers to say, "This much, and no more." Then Russia will do whatever it takes to ensure that the west spends to that limit. Then Russia wins.
So the actual correct answer in this situation is, the west will outspend Russia no matter how much Russia commits.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 8:54 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Well, that's just nonsense. We're printing money we don't have in the middle of the highest inflationary period in at least 40 years
How much cash are we giving them? How much are we spending to replace weapons we are giving Ukraine?
These are two big questions and it’s tough to get an answer.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 9:02 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Regardless, your point is doesn't make any sense. If the Fed was participating in open market operations just to fund Ukraine, and for those funds to end up in the hands of US citizens (who happen to be contractors), that investment will lead to more economic growth. You are thinking of US debt as though it is like credit card debt, which it is not. Each dollar the US spends has an output attached to it, which increases the velocity of transactions done in dollars, which boosts GDP growth, which allows for the Fed to have a wide leeway in terms of monetary policy, both accommodative and restrictive
If this were the case, we would never have a recession
Posted on 4/24/23 at 9:03 am to TBoy
quote:
More than Russia.
We're already doing that. How much?
Posted on 4/24/23 at 9:14 am to upgrayedd
quote:
If this were the case, we would never have a recession
Lol, what a terrible response to being completely wrong about the Fed 'printing money.' That the fact that recessions can occur isn't evidence that dollars spent by the US aren't output-dependent. The fact that the traditional notions of Keynesian economics includes governments spending more in recessionary phases doesn't mean that governments can prevent recessions through spending alone. Every thing in the economy is output-dependent. You can have recessions which are dependent on supply-chain crises, you can have recessions linked to the overextension of credit, you can have asset bubbles, and on and on.
When the Fed participates in open market operations by selling a security, the asset has to go somewhere. You aren't thinking anything through.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 9:14 am to upgrayedd
Does your husband ever tell you to stop nagging?
Posted on 4/24/23 at 9:27 am to Athanatos
quote:
Does your husband ever tell you to stop nagging?
Feel free to answer as well. No one else will
Posted on 4/24/23 at 9:37 am to upgrayedd
Almost no rain forecasted in the south this week for the first time in months. Maybe it will start to dry out a bit.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 9:40 am to upgrayedd
Ask the correct board, you get answers.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 9:54 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Feel free to answer as well. No one else will
As much as it takes.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 10:11 am to upgrayedd
I will answer you as best I can.
I do not have a fixed dollar amount that we shouldn't go over. I do worry about the deficit and the amount of government spending that has occurred in the last 3 years. On top of Trump's economic stimulus spending which was large, this current administration has passed over $7 TRILLION dollars of new spending. $100B is 1.43% of this. What about the other 98.57%? Are you as worried about that as you are about the 1.43%?
I get that Ukraine is a very visible, in-your-face, kind of expenditure, but this never-ending talking point on the cost of the aid seems very misplaced to me given everything else being spent.
So, how much is enough? I think we continue to provide them with munitions and heavy equipment support in the short term. We should provide everything we can to help their upcoming offensive be successful.
If that offensive fails to alter the situation on the battlefield in a material way and a long-term stalemate appears inevitable, then I think that's the point where we reevaluate what our go-forward support looks like.
I do not have a fixed dollar amount that we shouldn't go over. I do worry about the deficit and the amount of government spending that has occurred in the last 3 years. On top of Trump's economic stimulus spending which was large, this current administration has passed over $7 TRILLION dollars of new spending. $100B is 1.43% of this. What about the other 98.57%? Are you as worried about that as you are about the 1.43%?
I get that Ukraine is a very visible, in-your-face, kind of expenditure, but this never-ending talking point on the cost of the aid seems very misplaced to me given everything else being spent.
So, how much is enough? I think we continue to provide them with munitions and heavy equipment support in the short term. We should provide everything we can to help their upcoming offensive be successful.
If that offensive fails to alter the situation on the battlefield in a material way and a long-term stalemate appears inevitable, then I think that's the point where we reevaluate what our go-forward support looks like.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 10:26 am to Chromdome35
That person doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand very much.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 10:36 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
As much as it takes.
$5 trillion? Less? More?
Posted on 4/24/23 at 10:38 am to Chromdome35
quote:
So, how much is enough? I think we continue to provide them with munitions and heavy equipment support in the short term. We should provide everything we can to help their upcoming offensive be successful.
If that offensive fails to alter the situation on the battlefield in a material way and a long-term stalemate appears inevitable, then I think that's the point where we reevaluate what our go-forward support looks like.
Ok, and what if Ukarine wins? How much are you willing to spend to rebuild?
Posted on 4/24/23 at 10:40 am to Chromdome35
(Russian website) TopWar
Acting Governor: Armed Forces of Ukraine have captured part of the "gray zone" of the Zaporozhye region and are shelling settlements
Acting Governor: Armed Forces of Ukraine have captured part of the "gray zone" of the Zaporozhye region and are shelling settlements
quote:
Ukrainian formations have now invaded the "gray zone" of the Zaporozhye region and occupied part of it. This was stated on the air of the Russia 24 TV channel by the acting governor of the Russian Zaporozhye region Evgeny Balitsky.
Meanwhile, the leader of the movement "We are with Russia" Vladimir Rogov, who constantly comments on the events in the Zaporozhye region, said that for an hour and a half the Armed Forces of Ukraine have been conducting a massive shelling of several villages in the region. As Rogov wrote in his Telegram channel, Ukrainian formations are shelling the settlements of Kamenka-Dneprovskaya, Velyka (Bolshaya) Znamenka, Vodyane. The fire is conducted from guns of caliber 152 mm. To date, about 20 arrivals have been recorded, Vladimir Rogov said.
The listed settlements are located not far from Energodar, where a strategically important facility is located - the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant. On the other side of the Dnieper is Nikopol, controlled by Ukrainian forces.
It should be noted that earlier, many Western analysts called the Zaporozhye region one of the most likely directions of the counteroffensive of Ukrainian formations announced for the spring - early summer of 2023.
Of course, it is unlikely that this counter-offensive has already begun with the shelling of villages or the occupation of sites in the "gray zone" of the Zaporozhye region. But it is possible that the Ukrainian formations are thereby trying to conduct reconnaissance in force, probing the positions and capabilities of Russian troops, and also diverting Russian forces, creating the appearance of military activity in this area.
Posted on 4/24/23 at 10:44 am to GOP_Tiger
Tucker Carlson is out at FoxNews. Now, who will Putin get to repeat his talking points?
Page 2668 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News