US Politics Mega-thread - Page 455

On September 19 2013 09:03 DoubleReed wrote:


Hey now. Just a few posts ago you were being pretty hyperbolic about QE about how it's just another way for the rich to screw the poor. Then I posted and you may have learned some stuff about how things work. Let's not talk shit quite yet, eh?

WASHINGTON -- As House Republicans prepare to vote this week on a continuing resolution that would defund Obamacare, several Senate Republicans continue to think they're playing a losing hand.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) told The Huffington Post that he still thinks demanding that President Barack Obama's health care law be defunded in order to avoid a government shutdown is a "dumb idea," as he deemed it last July.

"I said it was the dumbest idea I'd ever heard of," Burr said. "I still think it's a dumb idea, because you can't defund Obamacare."

The North Carolina Republican added that he hadn't determined how he'd vote on a continuing resolution, because it wasn't clear what type of bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to bring to the floor. But a source close to Burr said he opposes a strategy that would tie an effort to defund the health care law to the government funding measure.

Fellow Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) never intended to vote for a continuing resolution in the first place, his office confirmed, because it would only be a temporary stopgap measure to keep the government running. And he won't do so even if the House version defunding Obamacare makes its way to the Senate floor. But in a statement to The Huffington Post, his top spokesman John Hart said that Coburn continues to see the legislative strategy as a political dead end for the GOP, despite his desire to see the health care law repealed.

"Dr. Coburn is not inclined to support a CR regardless of what it says regarding Obamacare. He views CRs as a terrible and irresponsible way to govern," said Hart. "He believes members are elected to make specific decisions, set priorities, conduct oversight, debate amendments and pass spending bills, which we haven’t done in years.

On September 19 2013 09:15 IgnE wrote:


Sam wants to watch the world burn sooner rather than later.

On September 19 2013 09:42 sam!zdat wrote:


no I don't I'm utterly terrified

On September 19 2013 07:13 sam!zdat wrote:
because if you print a bunch of money and it doesn't do anything that is going to fuck with your currency down the road right? And it's not doing anything because it's not creating jobs, which is what we need. And it can't create jobs because the new economy doesn't need people, so no matter how much gas you give it it's just not going to do that.

he talks about trying to lower interest rates to their 'natural' rate which is below zero. That's what QE does is let you lower rates below zero. Which I'm pretty sure means we are loading up banks balance sheets with money and then paying them to hold it, because that's what negative interest rates mean.

can someone explain the mechanism by which QE inflates stock prices

edit: I don't understand how this plays out in the conflict between various factions of capital. Certainly what happened today was not what the banks wanted, but it was what equities and bonds wanted? Idk

edit: how can buying something be not a gift if you print the money with which to buy it out of thin air? It's not a gift to the person from whom you bought it maybe but it's a gift to the market in general, right?

edit: ok so QE raises prices but lowers yields of financial assets. So the traders don't like it because it means there is less room between those things for them to maneuver and flip things and they are not just 'chasing beta' or whatever, they are trying to take advantage of mispricing and when there is less room there are smaller amounts of mispricing to exploit. But it inflates the financial markets IN GENERAL because you are artificially increasing demand for these securities by printing money to buy them. So the traders don't like it because the government is essentially competing with them and increasing demand for the things they also want to buy. Right?

edit: but the problem is that all this money that is being printed wis not being used to expand the economy and reate jobs, for reasons which are not cyclical but structural and historical (if it were cyclical the money would create jobs). The money is being used to buy second homes in the hamptons and sit on banks balance sheets enjoying negative real interest rates

On September 19 2013 10:00 farvacola wrote:
Every time you link something from CATO, a Heritage Foundation demon gets its many pronged whip. Tsk tsk Jonny.

On September 19 2013 09:42 sam!zdat wrote:


no I don't I'm utterly terrified

On September 19 2013 09:54 oneofthem wrote:

get dat tenure before they take it away yo

On September 19 2013 10:17 sam!zdat wrote:


too late for that I'm afraid. There was an article going around today about a 25yr prof at duquesne who died in poverty after having been severed without so much as a gift basket. Good catholic morality for you. I'll be an adjunct until I decide to blow my brains out (edit: it's too bad I don't have something useful to contribute to society, like financial speculation or a new color iphone)

jonny I feel it is disingenuous to say that you can print money and just because the banks tigthen credit therefore it doesn't count as printing money

edit: thanks for explaining abt the equities that makes sense

edi @ abovwe: ok yes then I want it to burn now because it will only be worse later

But when the private money comes back the Fed can remove its money. It's not doing something irreversible.

we have no end in sight and no way out and no plan at all!

On September 19 2013 11:05 DoubleReed wrote:






Quite frankly, sam, you sound like one of the Doomsayers from the Austrian School.