Comments like this.
Different take, Jeb Bush on immigration
Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
November 03 2012 19:19 GMT
#23321
Comments like this. Different take, Jeb Bush on immigration | ||
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
November 03 2012 19:24 GMT
#23322
On November 04 2012 04:01 johny23 wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 03:50 paralleluniverse wrote: On November 04 2012 03:39 johny23 wrote: When the economic stakes are so high for the ENTIRE WORLD, no other issue matters. It's like a company who is on the verge of closing down and filing bankruptcy, yet they have a meeting discussing if workers should get 15 minute or 20 minute breaks. There's pro's for both. Pros for Obama: Will let the Fed continue low interest rates, QE, easy money policies and allow us to basically buy our own debt to push the financial disaster down the road( who knows for how long Japan did it for along time). Pros for Romney: By some huge stroke of luck if he actually tries to change things maybe it will work (I doubt it). But the other Pro to Romney is that the economy would crash a lot faster, allowing us to at least have hope for the future and start to rebuild. The crash will be a lot worst when it comes if we keep doing what we have (as I explained in previous post). Anyone who thinks we can continue down this path without having a correction knows nothing about economics or cycles of life. There are Ups and Downs in almost everything, that includes the economy. You can't have never ending growth and never ending debt( That's what the American economy has been based on for a long time now). We needed a crash in order to correct this so that we could rebuild. All the policies were doing now are to stop this natural correction, but it EVENTUALLY HAS TO HAPPEN. How can you argue that growth and debt can go on forever without a NATURAL correction? Are you an Austrian economist? This is a popular Austrian theory, just let the entire economy crash and hit rock bottom, and somehow, inflicting this massive pain will fix everything. It's like Germany's masochistic obsession that economic pain is the solution to the Eurozone 's woes, meanwhile unemployment in Spain and Greece hits 25%. Enough pain yet? But why should we believe any of it is true? What's so wrong with the economy that nothing short of destroying it, so that it can be rebuilt, can fix it? After all, the Great Depression wasn't fixed because people had suffered enough economic pain, it was WW2. There is no reason why we can't have endless growth and endless debt as long as babies are born, technology improves and people work. Maybe endless growth won't be so endless when all the resources on the planet are depleted., but no one expects that to happen anytime soon. Well, I highly doubt anyone here is able to understand the ramifications of everything that has happened and the possible consequences(MYSELF INCLUDED). My opinion is that, the system were on is not sustainable. We had QE, QE2, QE3, Operation Twist and etc. The Fed is now buying MBS's and our bonds. We've done all this and we've barely kept our head above water. I am seriously interested to here how you think this can go on forever without serious ramifications. Not to mention interest rates cannot go lower. Are you saying to quadruple down and do even more stimulus? I haven't even began to touch on the pro debt policies that other countries are starting to and have already enacted. My question to you is what are you proposing? You're saying we can do this forever? The Fed has always maintained that monetary policy is not a panacea and cannot solve the problem alone. So I don't see why you're so shocked to learn that QE1, 2 and 3 hasn't sparked a massive recovery. You're overestimating it's anticipated effects. Not so surprising since the best part about QE is that it keeps disproving the claims that hyperinflation is just around the corner. Any day now. No one is saying that QE will go on forever. The Fed isn't stupid, it wouldn't have done QE if they didn't have an exit strategy, and they do have an exit strategy, they can hold the debt until it mature or sell it off as the economy recovers. Yes, stimulus is the answer. Government should increase spending as households increase savings and pays off debt, because if no one spends, there's no demand. No, borrowing money isn't evil. Interest rates are at historic lows, basically negative real interest rates, because investors and companies have so much idle capital that they are willing to pay the government to take their money. Put it this way: If the market isn't signaling to the government, "shut up and take my money", then why are the yields on government bonds so low? | ||
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
November 03 2012 19:25 GMT
#23323
No one is saying that QE will go on forever. The Fed isn't stupid, it wouldn't have done QE if they didn't have an exit strategy, and they do have an exit strategy, they can hold the debt until it mature or sell it off as the economy recovers. The exit strategy is "create another bubble and we'll repeat this process in 10 years." | ||
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
November 03 2012 19:27 GMT
#23324
On November 04 2012 04:14 jdseemoreglass wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 04:12 DoubleReed wrote: On November 04 2012 04:04 jdseemoreglass wrote: And yet, there is so much class warfare, there is so much unnecessary regulation, and the customers tend to flock to the companies which treat them the best. I agree there are problems, such as with Wall Street, but that's because the system has been corrupted and government establishes laws with benefit them. If you talk about rich people, then Americans will appear leftist. But if you talk about higher taxes and more government regulations, they will appear right. It's not about left wing or right wing, that's a completely meaningless spectrum that can't be adequately defined. People like oneofthem are stuck in this partisan mindset like politics is a sports game. But the real problem here is that the devil is in the details, you can't advocate sweeping reforms like "consumer protections" without looking at them on a case by case basis and fairly assessing the consequences. Yea, I pretty much agree, except with customers tending to flock to the companies which treat them the best. I don't know where you got that idea, and it's a bit of a meaningless statement as if 'treat them the best' means 'treat them well.' When I say "treat them well," note that I include "charging them lower prices" as a potential factor. For most people, it is the most important factor. Right, so the company that fucks over their customers the most can lower their prices and WIN. | ||
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
November 03 2012 19:27 GMT
#23325
On November 04 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote: Illegal immigrants can't vote, or at least shouldn't be able to. Criticizing illegal immigration has nothing at all to do with hispanics/latinos. It's a straw man to extrapolate illegal immigration policies to racism, and a despicable extrapolation at that. Uhm, a lot of illegal immigation policies involve Racial Profiling. By definition that's racist. | ||
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
November 03 2012 19:29 GMT
#23326
On November 04 2012 03:50 paralleluniverse wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 03:39 johny23 wrote: When the economic stakes are so high for the ENTIRE WORLD, no other issue matters. It's like a company who is on the verge of closing down and filing bankruptcy, yet they have a meeting discussing if workers should get 15 minute or 20 minute breaks. There's pro's for both. Pros for Obama: Will let the Fed continue low interest rates, QE, easy money policies and allow us to basically buy our own debt to push the financial disaster down the road( who knows for how long Japan did it for along time). Pros for Romney: By some huge stroke of luck if he actually tries to change things maybe it will work (I doubt it). But the other Pro to Romney is that the economy would crash a lot faster, allowing us to at least have hope for the future and start to rebuild. The crash will be a lot worst when it comes if we keep doing what we have (as I explained in previous post). Anyone who thinks we can continue down this path without having a correction knows nothing about economics or cycles of life. There are Ups and Downs in almost everything, that includes the economy. You can't have never ending growth and never ending debt( That's what the American economy has been based on for a long time now). We needed a crash in order to correct this so that we could rebuild. All the policies were doing now are to stop this natural correction, but it EVENTUALLY HAS TO HAPPEN. How can you argue that growth and debt can go on forever without a NATURAL correction? Are you an Austrian economist? This is a popular Austrian theory, just let the entire economy crash and hit rock bottom, and somehow, inflicting this massive pain will fix everything. It's like Germany's masochistic obsession that economic pain is the solution to the Eurozone 's woes, meanwhile unemployment in Spain and Greece hits 25%. Enough pain yet? But why should we believe any of it is true? What's so wrong with the economy that nothing short of destroying it, so that it can be rebuilt, can fix it? After all, the Great Depression wasn't fixed because people had suffered enough economic pain, it was WW2. There is no reason why we can't have endless growth and endless debt as long as babies are born, technology improves and people work. Maybe endless growth won't be so endless when all the resources on the planet are depleted., but no one expects that to happen anytime soon. To be fair to Merkel, workers unions are strong in Europe and continually calling for austerity measures, decrease their demands for wages and privileges. Not sure how much it counts though to go from terrible at product cost competition to bad at product cost competition, but that is probably an advantage in very long terms. On the other hand, it is beating a dead cow in terms of getting the economy to grow now. | ||
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
November 03 2012 19:30 GMT
#23327
On November 04 2012 04:27 DoubleReed wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote: Illegal immigrants can't vote, or at least shouldn't be able to. Criticizing illegal immigration has nothing at all to do with hispanics/latinos. It's a straw man to extrapolate illegal immigration policies to racism, and a despicable extrapolation at that. Uhm, a lot of illegal immigation policies involve Racial Profiling. By definition that's racist. It's not correct at all to say "a lot of illegal immigration policies involve Racial Profiling." It's just factually inaccurate. | ||
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
November 03 2012 19:37 GMT
#23328
On November 04 2012 04:30 jdseemoreglass wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 04:27 DoubleReed wrote: On November 04 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote: Illegal immigrants can't vote, or at least shouldn't be able to. Criticizing illegal immigration has nothing at all to do with hispanics/latinos. It's a straw man to extrapolate illegal immigration policies to racism, and a despicable extrapolation at that. Uhm, a lot of illegal immigation policies involve Racial Profiling. By definition that's racist. It's not correct at all to say "a lot of illegal immigration policies involve Racial Profiling." It's just factually inaccurate. How is calling the language spoken by most Latinos, "The language of living in a ghetto" not racist. | ||
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
November 03 2012 19:38 GMT
#23329
On November 04 2012 04:11 johny23 wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 03:57 paralleluniverse wrote: On November 04 2012 03:52 jdseemoreglass wrote: There is no reason why we can't have endless growth and endless debt as long as babies are born, technology improves and people work. If this is really what you believe, then you must think there are millions of Austrian economists out there. Keynes himself would say this notion is nuts. The economy has been growing since the beginning of economies, there's no reason we should expect it to stop in the near future, unless we hit some sort of physical constraint. Obviously, growth can't continue at extremely high rates, for example China's growth, which is in the ballpark of 10%, will slow to that of other advanced economies as it's catchup growth eventually fades. Also this isn't some crazy idea that I just made up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_growth_model#Long_run_implicationsl When I mean endless debt, I don't mean infinite debt, I mean a finite amount of debt that continues to roll over, which is also basically what has been happening since the start of economies. I am not disagreeing with what you're saying. However, I disagree with your time frame(even you admit at some point we would peak out if for no other reason then physical resources), as I think we are starting to hit that plateau of growth that we are not ready to push past for multiple reasons. I point to all the extreme measure we're taking to try and push ourselves over this hump and from what I see it's not working to well. Even if you want me to concede and say the economy is slightly improving (which I disagree with) it took so much debt, so many "QE's' and so many pro debt policies just to get this slight improvement. The diminishing returns should be enough alone to show you we've hit a plateau. I am not saying the world CAN NEVER grow past the level it has now, I am simply stating it's not going to happen without a fairly substantial correction first. It's just what I see, I am no genius. Your argument seems to be that we've done so much, yet we're still stuck in a slow economy. You need to note that the output gap is about $1 trillion a year. While it would have been higher without the stimulus, we shouldn't expect spending $787 billion once off, and buying $40 billion in MBS each month as QE3 does, to be enough to close it. ![]() | ||
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
November 03 2012 19:39 GMT
#23330
On November 04 2012 04:37 Feartheguru wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 04:30 jdseemoreglass wrote: On November 04 2012 04:27 DoubleReed wrote: On November 04 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote: Illegal immigrants can't vote, or at least shouldn't be able to. Criticizing illegal immigration has nothing at all to do with hispanics/latinos. It's a straw man to extrapolate illegal immigration policies to racism, and a despicable extrapolation at that. Uhm, a lot of illegal immigation policies involve Racial Profiling. By definition that's racist. It's not correct at all to say "a lot of illegal immigration policies involve Racial Profiling." It's just factually inaccurate. How is calling the language spoken by most Latinos, "The language of living in a ghetto" not racist. That isn't an illegal immigration policy. Please read more carefully and stay on topic. | ||
RvB
Netherlands6190 Posts
November 03 2012 19:40 GMT
#23331
On November 04 2012 04:24 paralleluniverse wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 04:01 johny23 wrote: On November 04 2012 03:50 paralleluniverse wrote: On November 04 2012 03:39 johny23 wrote: When the economic stakes are so high for the ENTIRE WORLD, no other issue matters. It's like a company who is on the verge of closing down and filing bankruptcy, yet they have a meeting discussing if workers should get 15 minute or 20 minute breaks. There's pro's for both. Pros for Obama: Will let the Fed continue low interest rates, QE, easy money policies and allow us to basically buy our own debt to push the financial disaster down the road( who knows for how long Japan did it for along time). Pros for Romney: By some huge stroke of luck if he actually tries to change things maybe it will work (I doubt it). But the other Pro to Romney is that the economy would crash a lot faster, allowing us to at least have hope for the future and start to rebuild. The crash will be a lot worst when it comes if we keep doing what we have (as I explained in previous post). Anyone who thinks we can continue down this path without having a correction knows nothing about economics or cycles of life. There are Ups and Downs in almost everything, that includes the economy. You can't have never ending growth and never ending debt( That's what the American economy has been based on for a long time now). We needed a crash in order to correct this so that we could rebuild. All the policies were doing now are to stop this natural correction, but it EVENTUALLY HAS TO HAPPEN. How can you argue that growth and debt can go on forever without a NATURAL correction? Are you an Austrian economist? This is a popular Austrian theory, just let the entire economy crash and hit rock bottom, and somehow, inflicting this massive pain will fix everything. It's like Germany's masochistic obsession that economic pain is the solution to the Eurozone 's woes, meanwhile unemployment in Spain and Greece hits 25%. Enough pain yet? But why should we believe any of it is true? What's so wrong with the economy that nothing short of destroying it, so that it can be rebuilt, can fix it? After all, the Great Depression wasn't fixed because people had suffered enough economic pain, it was WW2. There is no reason why we can't have endless growth and endless debt as long as babies are born, technology improves and people work. Maybe endless growth won't be so endless when all the resources on the planet are depleted., but no one expects that to happen anytime soon. Well, I highly doubt anyone here is able to understand the ramifications of everything that has happened and the possible consequences(MYSELF INCLUDED). My opinion is that, the system were on is not sustainable. We had QE, QE2, QE3, Operation Twist and etc. The Fed is now buying MBS's and our bonds. We've done all this and we've barely kept our head above water. I am seriously interested to here how you think this can go on forever without serious ramifications. Not to mention interest rates cannot go lower. Are you saying to quadruple down and do even more stimulus? I haven't even began to touch on the pro debt policies that other countries are starting to and have already enacted. My question to you is what are you proposing? You're saying we can do this forever? The Fed has always maintained that monetary policy is not a panacea and cannot solve the problem alone. So I don't see why you're so shocked to learn that QE1, 2 and 3 hasn't sparked a massive recovery. You're overestimating it's anticipated effects. Not so surprising since the best part about QE is that it keeps disproving the claims that hyperinflation is just around the corner. Any day now. No one is saying that QE will go on forever. The Fed isn't stupid, it wouldn't have done QE if they didn't have an exit strategy, and they do have an exit strategy, they can hold the debt until it mature or sell it off as the economy recovers. Yes, stimulus is the answer. Government should increase spending as households increase savings and pays off debt, because if no one spends, there's no demand. No, borrowing money isn't evil. Interest rates are at historic lows, basically negative real interest rates, because investors and companies have so much idle capital that they are willing to pay the government to take their money. Put it this way: If the market isn't signaling to the government, "shut up and take my money", then why are the yields on government bonds so low? Solvency is actually a huge part of the reason why. In Europe atleast banks have to up their equity by law and Basel III. Well anyway the equity a bank has to hold is based on their risk weighted assets and for government bonds rated highly ( US, Germany, Netherlands etc.) you don't have to hold any equity. So basically banks have money that they can't really use since it would increase their risk weighted assets and that would in turn decrease their solvency so they buy bonds to get atleast some return on their money. Add to this that the US still has an underlying economy and that nobody believes they will default very soon you get low interest rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-weighted_asset http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III | ||
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
November 03 2012 19:42 GMT
#23332
On November 04 2012 04:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 04:37 Feartheguru wrote: On November 04 2012 04:30 jdseemoreglass wrote: On November 04 2012 04:27 DoubleReed wrote: On November 04 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote: Illegal immigrants can't vote, or at least shouldn't be able to. Criticizing illegal immigration has nothing at all to do with hispanics/latinos. It's a straw man to extrapolate illegal immigration policies to racism, and a despicable extrapolation at that. Uhm, a lot of illegal immigation policies involve Racial Profiling. By definition that's racist. It's not correct at all to say "a lot of illegal immigration policies involve Racial Profiling." It's just factually inaccurate. How is calling the language spoken by most Latinos, "The language of living in a ghetto" not racist. That isn't an illegal immigration policy. Please read more carefully and stay on topic. The entire point of your argument is irrelevant if you accept that the GOP is racist towards Latinos. | ||
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
November 03 2012 19:45 GMT
#23333
On November 04 2012 04:24 paralleluniverse wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 04:01 johny23 wrote: On November 04 2012 03:50 paralleluniverse wrote: On November 04 2012 03:39 johny23 wrote: When the economic stakes are so high for the ENTIRE WORLD, no other issue matters. It's like a company who is on the verge of closing down and filing bankruptcy, yet they have a meeting discussing if workers should get 15 minute or 20 minute breaks. There's pro's for both. Pros for Obama: Will let the Fed continue low interest rates, QE, easy money policies and allow us to basically buy our own debt to push the financial disaster down the road( who knows for how long Japan did it for along time). Pros for Romney: By some huge stroke of luck if he actually tries to change things maybe it will work (I doubt it). But the other Pro to Romney is that the economy would crash a lot faster, allowing us to at least have hope for the future and start to rebuild. The crash will be a lot worst when it comes if we keep doing what we have (as I explained in previous post). Anyone who thinks we can continue down this path without having a correction knows nothing about economics or cycles of life. There are Ups and Downs in almost everything, that includes the economy. You can't have never ending growth and never ending debt( That's what the American economy has been based on for a long time now). We needed a crash in order to correct this so that we could rebuild. All the policies were doing now are to stop this natural correction, but it EVENTUALLY HAS TO HAPPEN. How can you argue that growth and debt can go on forever without a NATURAL correction? Are you an Austrian economist? This is a popular Austrian theory, just let the entire economy crash and hit rock bottom, and somehow, inflicting this massive pain will fix everything. It's like Germany's masochistic obsession that economic pain is the solution to the Eurozone 's woes, meanwhile unemployment in Spain and Greece hits 25%. Enough pain yet? But why should we believe any of it is true? What's so wrong with the economy that nothing short of destroying it, so that it can be rebuilt, can fix it? After all, the Great Depression wasn't fixed because people had suffered enough economic pain, it was WW2. There is no reason why we can't have endless growth and endless debt as long as babies are born, technology improves and people work. Maybe endless growth won't be so endless when all the resources on the planet are depleted., but no one expects that to happen anytime soon. Well, I highly doubt anyone here is able to understand the ramifications of everything that has happened and the possible consequences(MYSELF INCLUDED). My opinion is that, the system were on is not sustainable. We had QE, QE2, QE3, Operation Twist and etc. The Fed is now buying MBS's and our bonds. We've done all this and we've barely kept our head above water. I am seriously interested to here how you think this can go on forever without serious ramifications. Not to mention interest rates cannot go lower. Are you saying to quadruple down and do even more stimulus? I haven't even began to touch on the pro debt policies that other countries are starting to and have already enacted. My question to you is what are you proposing? You're saying we can do this forever? The Fed has always maintained that monetary policy is not a panacea and cannot solve the problem alone. So I don't see why you're so shocked to learn that QE1, 2 and 3 hasn't sparked a massive recovery. You're overestimating it's anticipated effects. Not so surprising since the best part about QE is that it keeps disproving the claims that hyperinflation is just around the corner. Any day now. No one is saying that QE will go on forever. The Fed isn't stupid, it wouldn't have done QE if they didn't have an exit strategy, and they do have an exit strategy, they can hold the debt until it mature or sell it off as the economy recovers. Yes, stimulus is the answer. Government should increase spending as households increase savings and pays off debt, because if no one spends, there's no demand. No, borrowing money isn't evil. Interest rates are at historic lows, basically negative real interest rates, because investors and companies have so much idle capital that they are willing to pay the government to take their money. Put it this way: If the market isn't signaling to the government, "shut up and take my money", then why are the yields on government bonds so low? This is quite a series of mischaracterizations. Ben Bernanke has been insistent that quantitative easing was a necessary and vital policy to stave off disaster and kick off growth, and he's been forced to admit subsequently after each round that its effect has been smaller than he thought and MUCH smaller than economic theory has suggested. Which he already knows because he spent the 90s criticizing Japan for doing too many rounds of QE. It doesn't work. The banks aren't asking for liquidity but for some reason the Fed is giving it to them anyways. Stimulus is NOT the answer. Who the hell is the government going to give money to? People who can't afford their standard of living? That's a moral hazard. Companies that lose money? That's stupid and crazy. Companies that make money? Maybe, but companies that make money already get money. People that can afford their standard of living? Possibly, but that's a hard sell to the public (see, tax cuts). Interest rates that are low isn't an indication that the government has a blank check to create massive debt. There are many different reasons why that can happen. If you don't see the folly in that, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near debt, especially not debt that you want other people to help pay off. If a debt crisis comes, we won't see a long period of warning signs, it will be a sudden massive ballooning of the problem. | ||
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
November 03 2012 19:45 GMT
#23334
On November 04 2012 04:40 RvB wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 04:24 paralleluniverse wrote: On November 04 2012 04:01 johny23 wrote: On November 04 2012 03:50 paralleluniverse wrote: On November 04 2012 03:39 johny23 wrote: When the economic stakes are so high for the ENTIRE WORLD, no other issue matters. It's like a company who is on the verge of closing down and filing bankruptcy, yet they have a meeting discussing if workers should get 15 minute or 20 minute breaks. There's pro's for both. Pros for Obama: Will let the Fed continue low interest rates, QE, easy money policies and allow us to basically buy our own debt to push the financial disaster down the road( who knows for how long Japan did it for along time). Pros for Romney: By some huge stroke of luck if he actually tries to change things maybe it will work (I doubt it). But the other Pro to Romney is that the economy would crash a lot faster, allowing us to at least have hope for the future and start to rebuild. The crash will be a lot worst when it comes if we keep doing what we have (as I explained in previous post). Anyone who thinks we can continue down this path without having a correction knows nothing about economics or cycles of life. There are Ups and Downs in almost everything, that includes the economy. You can't have never ending growth and never ending debt( That's what the American economy has been based on for a long time now). We needed a crash in order to correct this so that we could rebuild. All the policies were doing now are to stop this natural correction, but it EVENTUALLY HAS TO HAPPEN. How can you argue that growth and debt can go on forever without a NATURAL correction? Are you an Austrian economist? This is a popular Austrian theory, just let the entire economy crash and hit rock bottom, and somehow, inflicting this massive pain will fix everything. It's like Germany's masochistic obsession that economic pain is the solution to the Eurozone 's woes, meanwhile unemployment in Spain and Greece hits 25%. Enough pain yet? But why should we believe any of it is true? What's so wrong with the economy that nothing short of destroying it, so that it can be rebuilt, can fix it? After all, the Great Depression wasn't fixed because people had suffered enough economic pain, it was WW2. There is no reason why we can't have endless growth and endless debt as long as babies are born, technology improves and people work. Maybe endless growth won't be so endless when all the resources on the planet are depleted., but no one expects that to happen anytime soon. Well, I highly doubt anyone here is able to understand the ramifications of everything that has happened and the possible consequences(MYSELF INCLUDED). My opinion is that, the system were on is not sustainable. We had QE, QE2, QE3, Operation Twist and etc. The Fed is now buying MBS's and our bonds. We've done all this and we've barely kept our head above water. I am seriously interested to here how you think this can go on forever without serious ramifications. Not to mention interest rates cannot go lower. Are you saying to quadruple down and do even more stimulus? I haven't even began to touch on the pro debt policies that other countries are starting to and have already enacted. My question to you is what are you proposing? You're saying we can do this forever? The Fed has always maintained that monetary policy is not a panacea and cannot solve the problem alone. So I don't see why you're so shocked to learn that QE1, 2 and 3 hasn't sparked a massive recovery. You're overestimating it's anticipated effects. Not so surprising since the best part about QE is that it keeps disproving the claims that hyperinflation is just around the corner. Any day now. No one is saying that QE will go on forever. The Fed isn't stupid, it wouldn't have done QE if they didn't have an exit strategy, and they do have an exit strategy, they can hold the debt until it mature or sell it off as the economy recovers. Yes, stimulus is the answer. Government should increase spending as households increase savings and pays off debt, because if no one spends, there's no demand. No, borrowing money isn't evil. Interest rates are at historic lows, basically negative real interest rates, because investors and companies have so much idle capital that they are willing to pay the government to take their money. Put it this way: If the market isn't signaling to the government, "shut up and take my money", then why are the yields on government bonds so low? Solvency is actually a huge part of the reason why. In Europe atleast banks have to up their equity by law and Basel III. Well anyway the equity a bank has to hold is based on their risk weighted assets and for government bonds rated highly ( US, Germany, Netherlands etc.) you don't have to hold any equity. So basically banks have money that they can't really use since it would increase their risk weighted assets and that would in turn decrease their solvency so they buy bonds to get atleast some return on their money. Add to this that the US still has an underlying economy and that nobody believes they will default very soon you get low interest rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-weighted_asset http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III I don't disagree. Banks have to hold more capital so that they can more easily absorb losses. But this is basically an excess of idle capital. Money that can and should be used to help the economy and put idle workers back to work. | ||
johny23
United States175 Posts
November 03 2012 19:47 GMT
#23335
On November 04 2012 04:38 paralleluniverse wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 04:11 johny23 wrote: On November 04 2012 03:57 paralleluniverse wrote: On November 04 2012 03:52 jdseemoreglass wrote: There is no reason why we can't have endless growth and endless debt as long as babies are born, technology improves and people work. If this is really what you believe, then you must think there are millions of Austrian economists out there. Keynes himself would say this notion is nuts. The economy has been growing since the beginning of economies, there's no reason we should expect it to stop in the near future, unless we hit some sort of physical constraint. Obviously, growth can't continue at extremely high rates, for example China's growth, which is in the ballpark of 10%, will slow to that of other advanced economies as it's catchup growth eventually fades. Also this isn't some crazy idea that I just made up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_growth_model#Long_run_implicationsl When I mean endless debt, I don't mean infinite debt, I mean a finite amount of debt that continues to roll over, which is also basically what has been happening since the start of economies. I am not disagreeing with what you're saying. However, I disagree with your time frame(even you admit at some point we would peak out if for no other reason then physical resources), as I think we are starting to hit that plateau of growth that we are not ready to push past for multiple reasons. I point to all the extreme measure we're taking to try and push ourselves over this hump and from what I see it's not working to well. Even if you want me to concede and say the economy is slightly improving (which I disagree with) it took so much debt, so many "QE's' and so many pro debt policies just to get this slight improvement. The diminishing returns should be enough alone to show you we've hit a plateau. I am not saying the world CAN NEVER grow past the level it has now, I am simply stating it's not going to happen without a fairly substantial correction first. It's just what I see, I am no genius. Your argument seems to be that we've done so much, yet we're still stuck in a slow economy. You need to note that the output gap is about $1 trillion a year. While it would have been higher without the stimulus, we shouldn't expect spending $787 billion once off, and buying $40 billion in MBS each month as QE3 does, to be enough to close it. ![]() I fully understand your opinion and how you've come to your conclusions. I think we both clearly understand each other and am fairly certain neither of us will change our opinion. Only time will tell now. Just to be clear, I don't think QE's directly cause hyperinflation, because its more of an event. Hyperinflation really has nothing to do with numbers or how much we "print" its more of a confidence based issue. Meaning it happens once confidence is or almost is completely lost in a currency. I also think the forces of deflation are currently massive, but obviously the FED will be fighting against that. Thanks for your input. Like I said only time will truly reveal what's going to happen. | ||
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
November 03 2012 19:51 GMT
#23336
On November 04 2012 04:30 jdseemoreglass wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 04:27 DoubleReed wrote: On November 04 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote: Illegal immigrants can't vote, or at least shouldn't be able to. Criticizing illegal immigration has nothing at all to do with hispanics/latinos. It's a straw man to extrapolate illegal immigration policies to racism, and a despicable extrapolation at that. Uhm, a lot of illegal immigation policies involve Racial Profiling. By definition that's racist. It's not correct at all to say "a lot of illegal immigration policies involve Racial Profiling." It's just factually inaccurate. Oh, well, then how about 'the ones that are racist are racist." And honestly, from what I've seen, the people who are seriously against illegal immigration are anti-hispanic. There's obviously going to be a rather serious correlation there. Something like the Arizona law, which very much was built for racial profiling, kind of like 'Stop & Frisk' laws. Yea, that's racist. | ||
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
November 03 2012 19:59 GMT
#23337
| ||
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
November 03 2012 19:59 GMT
#23338
With Asians supplanting Latinos as the new number one growing minority it probably won't increase in magnitude as a hot topic anytime soon. | ||
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
November 03 2012 20:03 GMT
#23339
On November 04 2012 03:40 ZeaL. wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 03:37 Risen wrote: On November 04 2012 03:30 Adila wrote: If Romney loses, I'd blame the far-right in the Republican party that forced him to morph into severe conservative Mitt. I'd also blame them for driving away any of the more pragmatic Republicans from running this year. The Republican primary was a huge joke. This is the reason. Not the media, not Romney as a flawed candidate. It's the idiots in the party itself. The Republican party will evolve (hopefully) and be back in 2016. I dunno man. The game plan seems to be "when in doubt, shift to the right". only for the idiots in the party | ||
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
November 03 2012 20:05 GMT
#23340
On November 04 2012 04:45 coverpunch wrote: Show nested quote + On November 04 2012 04:24 paralleluniverse wrote: On November 04 2012 04:01 johny23 wrote: On November 04 2012 03:50 paralleluniverse wrote: On November 04 2012 03:39 johny23 wrote: When the economic stakes are so high for the ENTIRE WORLD, no other issue matters. It's like a company who is on the verge of closing down and filing bankruptcy, yet they have a meeting discussing if workers should get 15 minute or 20 minute breaks. There's pro's for both. Pros for Obama: Will let the Fed continue low interest rates, QE, easy money policies and allow us to basically buy our own debt to push the financial disaster down the road( who knows for how long Japan did it for along time). Pros for Romney: By some huge stroke of luck if he actually tries to change things maybe it will work (I doubt it). But the other Pro to Romney is that the economy would crash a lot faster, allowing us to at least have hope for the future and start to rebuild. The crash will be a lot worst when it comes if we keep doing what we have (as I explained in previous post). Anyone who thinks we can continue down this path without having a correction knows nothing about economics or cycles of life. There are Ups and Downs in almost everything, that includes the economy. You can't have never ending growth and never ending debt( That's what the American economy has been based on for a long time now). We needed a crash in order to correct this so that we could rebuild. All the policies were doing now are to stop this natural correction, but it EVENTUALLY HAS TO HAPPEN. How can you argue that growth and debt can go on forever without a NATURAL correction? Are you an Austrian economist? This is a popular Austrian theory, just let the entire economy crash and hit rock bottom, and somehow, inflicting this massive pain will fix everything. It's like Germany's masochistic obsession that economic pain is the solution to the Eurozone 's woes, meanwhile unemployment in Spain and Greece hits 25%. Enough pain yet? But why should we believe any of it is true? What's so wrong with the economy that nothing short of destroying it, so that it can be rebuilt, can fix it? After all, the Great Depression wasn't fixed because people had suffered enough economic pain, it was WW2. There is no reason why we can't have endless growth and endless debt as long as babies are born, technology improves and people work. Maybe endless growth won't be so endless when all the resources on the planet are depleted., but no one expects that to happen anytime soon. Well, I highly doubt anyone here is able to understand the ramifications of everything that has happened and the possible consequences(MYSELF INCLUDED). My opinion is that, the system were on is not sustainable. We had QE, QE2, QE3, Operation Twist and etc. The Fed is now buying MBS's and our bonds. We've done all this and we've barely kept our head above water. I am seriously interested to here how you think this can go on forever without serious ramifications. Not to mention interest rates cannot go lower. Are you saying to quadruple down and do even more stimulus? I haven't even began to touch on the pro debt policies that other countries are starting to and have already enacted. My question to you is what are you proposing? You're saying we can do this forever? The Fed has always maintained that monetary policy is not a panacea and cannot solve the problem alone. So I don't see why you're so shocked to learn that QE1, 2 and 3 hasn't sparked a massive recovery. You're overestimating it's anticipated effects. Not so surprising since the best part about QE is that it keeps disproving the claims that hyperinflation is just around the corner. Any day now. No one is saying that QE will go on forever. The Fed isn't stupid, it wouldn't have done QE if they didn't have an exit strategy, and they do have an exit strategy, they can hold the debt until it mature or sell it off as the economy recovers. Yes, stimulus is the answer. Government should increase spending as households increase savings and pays off debt, because if no one spends, there's no demand. No, borrowing money isn't evil. Interest rates are at historic lows, basically negative real interest rates, because investors and companies have so much idle capital that they are willing to pay the government to take their money. Put it this way: If the market isn't signaling to the government, "shut up and take my money", then why are the yields on government bonds so low? This is quite a series of mischaracterizations. Ben Bernanke has been insistent that quantitative easing was a necessary and vital policy to stave off disaster and kick off growth, and he's been forced to admit subsequently after each round that its effect has been smaller than he thought and MUCH smaller than economic theory has suggested. Which he already knows because he spent the 90s criticizing Japan for doing too many rounds of QE. It doesn't work. The banks aren't asking for liquidity but for some reason the Fed is giving it to them anyways. Stimulus is NOT the answer. Who the hell is the government going to give money to? People who can't afford their standard of living? That's a moral hazard. Companies that lose money? That's stupid and crazy. Companies that make money? Maybe, but companies that make money already get money. People that can afford their standard of living? Possibly, but that's a hard sell to the public (see, tax cuts). Interest rates that are low isn't an indication that the government has a blank check to create massive debt. There are many different reasons why that can happen. If you don't see the folly in that, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near debt, especially not debt that you want other people to help pay off. If a debt crisis comes, we won't see a long period of warning signs, it will be a sudden massive ballooning of the problem. Your post is a compete mischaracterization of everything. It's not even just about being wrong on the economics, you're completely wrong on what Ben Bernanke has publicly said. You claim the Fed admits that the effect of QE is much smaller than believed. But this is not true. Here's Bernanke's Jackson Hole speech earlier this year where he argues that the Fed's QE program has had a positive and significant impact. How effective are balance sheet policies? After nearly four years of experience with large-scale asset purchases, a substantial body of empirical work on their effects has emerged. Generally, this research finds that the Federal Reserve's large-scale purchases have significantly lowered long-term Treasury yields. For example, studies have found that the $1.7 trillion in purchases of Treasury and agency securities under the first LSAP program reduced the yield on 10-year Treasury securities by between 40 and 110 basis points. The $600 billion in Treasury purchases under the second LSAP program has been credited with lowering 10-year yields by an additional 15 to 45 basis points.12 Three studies considering the cumulative influence of all the Federal Reserve's asset purchases, including those made under the MEP, found total effects between 80 and 120 basis points on the 10-year Treasury yield.13 These effects are economically meaningful. Importantly, the effects of LSAPs do not appear to be confined to longer-term Treasury yields. Notably, LSAPs have been found to be associated with significant declines in the yields on both corporate bonds and MBS.14 The first purchase program, in particular, has been linked to substantial reductions in MBS yields and retail mortgage rates. LSAPs also appear to have boosted stock prices, presumably both by lowering discount rates and by improving the economic outlook; it is probably not a coincidence that the sustained recovery in U.S. equity prices began in March 2009, shortly after the FOMC's decision to greatly expand securities purchases. This effect is potentially important because stock values affect both consumption and investment decisions. While there is substantial evidence that the Federal Reserve's asset purchases have lowered longer-term yields and eased broader financial conditions, obtaining precise estimates of the effects of these operations on the broader economy is inherently difficult, as the counterfactual--how the economy would have performed in the absence of the Federal Reserve's actions--cannot be directly observed. If we are willing to take as a working assumption that the effects of easier financial conditions on the economy are similar to those observed historically, then econometric models can be used to estimate the effects of LSAPs on the economy. Model simulations conducted at the Federal Reserve generally find that the securities purchase programs have provided significant help for the economy. For example, a study using the Board's FRB/US model of the economy found that, as of 2012, the first two rounds of LSAPs may have raised the level of output by almost 3 percent and increased private payroll employment by more than 2 million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred.15 The Bank of England has used LSAPs in a manner similar to that of the Federal Reserve, so it is of interest that researchers have found the financial and macroeconomic effects of the British programs to be qualitatively similar to those in the United States.16 To be sure, these estimates of the macroeconomic effects of LSAPs should be treated with caution. It is likely that the crisis and the recession have attenuated some of the normal transmission channels of monetary policy relative to what is assumed in the models; for example, restrictive mortgage underwriting standards have reduced the effects of lower mortgage rates. Further, the estimated macroeconomic effects depend on uncertain estimates of the persistence of the effects of LSAPs on financial conditions.17 Overall, however, a balanced reading of the evidence supports the conclusion that central bank securities purchases have provided meaningful support to the economic recovery while mitigating deflationary risks. Source: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120831a.htm In fact you should read the whole speech. It's very informative. Then you claim that Bernanke was criticizing the Bank of Japan for doing QE. In fact, it was the opposite, he was arguing the BOJ should do QE and even more. Here's Bernanke's paper on the BOJ: http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/bernanke_paralysis.pdf And here's Krugman taking some quotes from the paper: In a hard-hitting 2000 paper titled “Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of Self-Induced Paralysis?” Bernanke declared that “far from being powerless, the Bank of Japan could achieve a great deal if it were willing to abandon its excessive caution and its defensive response to criticism.” He proceeded to lay out a number of actions the Bank of Japan could take. And he called on Japanese policy makers to act like F.D.R. and do whatever it took: “Japan is not in a Great Depression by any means, but its economy has operated below potential for nearly a decade. Nor is it by any means clear that recovery is imminent. Policy options exist that could greatly reduce these losses. Why isn’t more happening? To this outsider, at least, Japanese monetary policy seems paralyzed, with a paralysis that is largely self-induced. Most striking is the apparent unwillingness of the monetary authorities to experiment, to try anything that isn’t absolutely guaranteed to work. Perhaps it’s time for some Rooseveltian resolve in Japan.” Bernanke had some specific proposals that could serve as advice for the Fed today. One set of options would have it take a larger role in financial markets. Short-term interest rates may be zero, unable to go lower, but longer-term rates aren’t. So the Fed, which typically buys only short-term U.S. government debt, could expand its portfolio, buying long-term government debt, bonds backed by home mortgages and so on, in an effort to drive down the interest rates on these assets. This is the strategy that has come to be known, unhelpfully, as quantitative easing. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/chairman-bernanke-should-listen-to-professor-bernanke.html Stimulus works by paying people or companies to do things. Like paying them to build a bridge, fix pot holes in the road, give money to the states to rehire the hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs that have been lost, mostly teachers, etc. You've completely mischaracterized how stimulus works. You're statement on interest rates makes no sense. You said there are many reasons why they're low now. Yes, there are. But can you name them? And why shouldn't the government invest now. There will never be a better time. Should the government invest when interest rates are high, rather than when they are low? | ||
| ||
![]() StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • Berry_CruncH762 StarCraft: Brood War• rockletztv ![]() • Hupsaiya ![]() • IndyKCrew ![]() • AfreecaTV YouTube • intothetv ![]() • Kozan • sooper7s • LaughNgamezSOOP • Laughngamez YouTube • Migwel ![]() League of Legends Other Games |
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs TriGGeR
Cure vs SHIN
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Bunny
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Rogue
ByuN vs SKillous
SC Evo Complete
[BSL 2025] Weekly
PiG Sty Festival
MaxPax vs Classic
Dark vs Maru
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|