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.
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."
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.
I disagree. I'm fully against it but not anti-Hispanic at all. I just feel as a legal Russian immigrant that it's unjustified for people to come here without going through the process. If the process rejects them, that just means we don't need them and they'd be a cumulative drain of our resources. It's like cutting the line in the store or amusement park - you're holding up everyone else, the process has to adjust itself, and it's a dick move in general.
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.
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.
It's not about the capital that is available it's about the risk it creates if you loan it all out again. That's one of the main causes of this crisis. Keep as little idle capital as you can to survive and invest the rest to make profit. Banks need to solve their solvency first before they can invest that capital again this will make the financial sector and the economy as a whole a lot more stable than it was before. anyway this is getting way off topic I'll quit posting about it.
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.
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."
The "market" creates bubbles, not the Fed.
The fed had a direct role in the creation of the housing bubble due to their excessive credit expansion policies following the 2001 recession. If you don't believe me, don't ask me to drudge up evidence for you please, believe what you want.
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.
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.
It's not about the capital that is available it's about the risk it creates if you loan it all out again. That's one of the main causes of this crisis. Keep as little idle capital as you can to survive and invest the rest to make profit. Banks need to solve their solvency first before they can invest that capital again this will make the financial sector and the economy as a whole a lot more stable than it was before. anyway this is getting way off topic I'll quit posting about it.
Yes, my fault for getting this off topic. Only time will tell the outcomes. I'll stop posting about it too
On November 04 2012 04:59 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's not really possible to say "I don't want people illegally entering the country" without it being interpreted as "I don't want hispanics entering the country." And that's because hispanics are mostly the one's illegally entering the country.
So how is that strawman?
Something like racial profiling affects all hispanics, including legal ones. Five states other than Arizona have passed such laws which invite racial profiling.
No, the extrapolation of 'all illegal immigrant policies are racist' isn't necessarily fair. But there certainly are laws that are against illegal immigration and are racist and they are occurring right now. American citizens also demand privacy from government intrusion and some of these laws violate civil liberties. That's just how it is. Conservatives should be very concerned about these laws because many of them grant government the power to invade your privacy.
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.
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."
The "market" creates bubbles, not the Fed.
That is incorrect. The Fed creates the bubbles by their policy. They created the dot.com bubble, they created the housing bubble, right now their working on a bond bubble. This is the way the ultra rich gain more and more market share. Remember that the Fed is accountable to NO ONE. Greenspan admitted this in an interview. The shareholders of the Fed are secret. It was convened in secret and by the worlds richest people. This is a very old playbook but it works because people are becoming more and more dependent on government programs and government programs are dependent on cheap debt.
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.
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."
The "market" creates bubbles, not the Fed.
The fed had a direct role in the creation of the housing bubble due to their excessive credit expansion policies following the 2001 recession. This is standard consensus among economists and should be well known by now. If you don't believe me, don't ask me to drudge up evidence for you please, believe what you want.
The Fed doesn't believe it created a housing bubble.
Here's Bernanke defending himself against that charge at 51:53:
I'm not sure if it did or not, but there is no consensus.
Perhaps consensus is too strong a word. Obviously I would not expect the federal reserve to be very critical of themselves. In either case, it's certainly a very well accepted theory among many economists.
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.
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."
The "market" creates bubbles, not the Fed.
The fed had a direct role in the creation of the housing bubble due to their excessive credit expansion policies following the 2001 recession. This is standard consensus among economists and should be well known by now. If you don't believe me, don't ask me to drudge up evidence for you please, believe what you want.
The Fed doesn't believe it created a housing bubble.
Here's Bernanke defending himself against that charge at 51:53:
I'm not sure if it did or not, but there is no consensus.
This just in. Some organization doesnt believe it was the cause of a bad thing, more news at 11. If economics believe the fed was responsible for the housing bubble i'll take there word over that of the fed. That said rich people controlling the fed for market share is going a wee bit to far into tinfoil territory
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.
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."
The "market" creates bubbles, not the Fed.
That is incorrect. The Fed creates the bubbles by their policy. They created the dot.com bubble, they created the housing bubble, right now their working on a bond bubble. This is the way the ultra rich gain more and more market share. Remember that the Fed is accountable to NO ONE. Greenspan admitted this in an interview. The shareholders of the Fed are secret. It was convened in secret and by the worlds richest people. This is a very old playbook but it works because people are becoming more and more dependent on government programs and government programs are dependent on cheap debt.
The Fed doesn't have secret shareholders. If they're so secret how do you know they exist?
The Fed also wasn't created in secret. It was created by an act of Congress, signed by Hoover.
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.
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."
The "market" creates bubbles, not the Fed.
That is incorrect. The Fed creates the bubbles by their policy. They created the dot.com bubble, they created the housing bubble, right now their working on a bond bubble. This is the way the ultra rich gain more and more market share. Remember that the Fed is accountable to NO ONE. Greenspan admitted this in an interview. The shareholders of the Fed are secret. It was convened in secret and by the worlds richest people. This is a very old playbook but it works because people are becoming more and more dependent on government programs and government programs are dependent on cheap debt.
The Fed doesn't have secret shareholders. If they're so secret how do you know they exist?
The Fed also wasn't created in secret. It was created by an act of Congress, signed by Hoover.
SECRET congress.
And this is getting into International Banking Conspiracy crap...
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.
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.
It's not about the capital that is available it's about the risk it creates if you loan it all out again. That's one of the main causes of this crisis. Keep as little idle capital as you can to survive and invest the rest to make profit. Banks need to solve their solvency first before they can invest that capital again this will make the financial sector and the economy as a whole a lot more stable than it was before. anyway this is getting way off topic I'll quit posting about it.
I'm talking about what government should do with that money after the bank has handed it over. Bank solvency isn't related to this.
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.
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."
"It's not really possible to say "I don't want people illegally entering the country" without it being interpreted as "I don't want hispanics entering the country." And that's because hispanics are mostly the one's illegally entering the country."
I disagree, you can talk about illegal immigration without having the current negative tone behind it. You can say whatever you want about what people should think, fact is they don't see it the way you do. You're also looking at it from your own narrow perspective which doesn't apply to what I was getting at. Try looking at it from other people's perspectives. It also isn't crazy to think the legal hispanic population in Arizona feels attacked given SB 1070. You say criticizing illegal immigration has nothing to do at all with hispanics/latinos, but this is from your point of view, a large majority of hispanics/latino citizens voting disagree with you, and given the tone surrounding the debate nationally I don't blame them.
President Bush example of how to speak and not alienate
Being hispanic this isn't attacking or offensive, it's a reasonable thing to want to secure our borders.
Rove said in a speech at Harding University on Tuesday night that the party needs to avoid language that alienates Hispanic voters if it is going to grow and thrive. Rove said it's possible for the GOP to welcome Hispanic voters while still pushing for stronger borders and immigration reform.
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.
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."
The "market" creates bubbles, not the Fed.
That is incorrect. The Fed creates the bubbles by their policy. They created the dot.com bubble, they created the housing bubble, right now their working on a bond bubble. This is the way the ultra rich gain more and more market share. Remember that the Fed is accountable to NO ONE. Greenspan admitted this in an interview. The shareholders of the Fed are secret. It was convened in secret and by the worlds richest people. This is a very old playbook but it works because people are becoming more and more dependent on government programs and government programs are dependent on cheap debt.
The Fed doesn't have secret shareholders. If they're so secret how do you know they exist?
The Fed also wasn't created in secret. It was created by an act of Congress, signed by Hoover.
SECRET congress.
And this is getting into International Banking Conspiracy crap...
The problem is people that talk about conspiracy's and people that deny them both over hype them. I mean seriously how hard is it to believe at the very least that some very powerful people manipulate markets, fiat currency and other things to earn an unwarranted, immoral or even illegal profit. You really think that the system was created (or at the very least wasn't manipulated over time to benefit a select few of people?) The more amazing argument thing would be if that WASN'T the case.
The people that act like "conspiracy's" are such a big deal and impossible are just as crazy as people that believe EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.
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.
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.
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?
Your quotes prove nothing. Bernanke's speech shifts the goal posts by saying that QE had a meaningful effect but doesn't compare it to the initial goals or the theoretical effects it was supposed to have.
Monetary policy cannot do much about long-run growth, all we can try to do is to try to smooth out periods where the economy is depressed because of lack of demand. Because of the financial crisis, the economy has been slow to reach back to its potential and we are trying to provide additional support so that the recovery can bring the economy back to its potential. But in the medium and long term monetary policy cannot do anything to make the economy healthier or growth faster, except to keep inflation low, which are committed to doing.
I couldn't find a full transcript from his House testimony in July but that's where I would go. Monetary policy can't solve the problem AT ALL, if we agree the essential problem is an unhealthy economy and slow growth.
But you're getting squirrelly on stimulus. The government stimulates the economy by either providing new projects or supporting those in place. Doing that stuff you're saying might be good for society but it doesn't support the economy in and of itself. It goes back to Bernanke's quote - you're suggesting it to smooth out standards of living in tough times but it does nothing to generate growth. You're trying to have it both ways by initially arguing that stimulus is necessary for growth because it will spur demand.
The government should not invest in projects designed to create growth until it can expect a return above and beyond the cost of capital. Can it do that right now? Possibly, but the US government does not and should not serve as the world's biggest investment bank. Low interest rates are not an excuse that the government should spend on every project it sees. Low interest rates indicate that it will be easier to find profitable opportunities, but IMO the government should leave that to private individuals. If you think otherwise, we can have that discussion but it's a difference of opinion.
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.
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."
The "market" creates bubbles, not the Fed.
That is incorrect. The Fed creates the bubbles by their policy. They created the dot.com bubble, they created the housing bubble, right now their working on a bond bubble. This is the way the ultra rich gain more and more market share. Remember that the Fed is accountable to NO ONE. Greenspan admitted this in an interview. The shareholders of the Fed are secret. It was convened in secret and by the worlds richest people. This is a very old playbook but it works because people are becoming more and more dependent on government programs and government programs are dependent on cheap debt.
The Fed doesn't have secret shareholders. If they're so secret how do you know they exist?
The Fed also wasn't created in secret. It was created by an act of Congress, signed by Hoover.
SECRET congress.
And this is getting into International Banking Conspiracy crap...
The problem is people that talk about conspiracy's and people that deny them both over hype them. I mean seriously how hard is it to believe at the very least that some very powerful people manipulate markets, fiat currency and other things to earn an unwarranted, immoral or even illegal profit. You really think that the system was created (or at the very least manipulated over time to benefit a select few of people?) The more amazing argument thing would be if that WASN'T the case.
The people that act like "conspiracy's" are such a big deal and impossible are just as crazy as people that believe EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.
Wow. Everything about what you just said is exactly how conspiracy theorists talk. Like did you really just say "The more amazing argument thing would be if that WASN'T the case."
The steps Republicans are taking to try to prevent people from voting are getting absolutely insane.
A last-minute directive issued by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted could invalidate legal provisional ballots. Ohio is widely viewed as the most critical state for both presidential campaigns and — with some polls showing a close race — the 11th-hour move could swing the entire election.
The directive, issued Friday, lays out the requirements for submitting a provisional ballot. The directive includes a form which puts the burden on the voter to correctly record the form of ID provided to election officials. Husted also instructed election officials that if the form is not filled out correctly by a voter, the ballot should not be counted.
According to a lawsuit filed late Friday by voting rights advocates, this is “contrary to a court decision on provisional ballots a week ago and contrary to statements made by attorneys for Husted at an Oct. 24 court hearing.”
Indeed, it also appears directly contrary to Ohio law.
The number of measures this guy has pursued that are clearly and unquestionably aimed at preventing people from voting Democrat is simply mind-boggling.
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.
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."
The "market" creates bubbles, not the Fed.
That is incorrect. The Fed creates the bubbles by their policy. They created the dot.com bubble, they created the housing bubble, right now their working on a bond bubble. This is the way the ultra rich gain more and more market share. Remember that the Fed is accountable to NO ONE. Greenspan admitted this in an interview. The shareholders of the Fed are secret. It was convened in secret and by the worlds richest people. This is a very old playbook but it works because people are becoming more and more dependent on government programs and government programs are dependent on cheap debt.
The Fed doesn't have secret shareholders. If they're so secret how do you know they exist?
The Fed also wasn't created in secret. It was created by an act of Congress, signed by Hoover.
SECRET congress.
And this is getting into International Banking Conspiracy crap...
The problem is people that talk about conspiracy's and people that deny them both over hype them. I mean seriously how hard is it to believe at the very least that some very powerful people manipulate markets, fiat currency and other things to earn an unwarranted, immoral or even illegal profit. You really think that the system was created (or at the very least manipulated over time to benefit a select few of people?) The more amazing argument thing would be if that WASN'T the case.
The people that act like "conspiracy's" are such a big deal and impossible are just as crazy as people that believe EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.
Wow. Everything about what you just said is exactly how conspiracy theorists talk.
Congrats on separating from the sheeple.
Do you live in paradise or something? By what you're saying, I gather you think it highly unlikely that people would abuse or manipulate a system for their own gain. LOL.... You seriously made me laugh at loud. I can't believe this is even a conversation that needs to be had. Jesus...
A last-minute directive issued by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted could invalidate legal provisional ballots. Ohio is widely viewed as the most critical state for both presidential campaigns and — with some polls showing a close race — the 11th-hour move could swing the entire election.
The directive, issued Friday, lays out the requirements for submitting a provisional ballot. The directive includes a form which puts the burden on the voter to correctly record the form of ID provided to election officials. Husted also instructed election officials that if the form is not filled out correctly by a voter, the ballot should not be counted.
According to a lawsuit filed late Friday by voting rights advocates, this is “contrary to a court decision on provisional ballots a week ago and contrary to statements made by attorneys for Husted at an Oct. 24 court hearing.”
Indeed, it also appears directly contrary to Ohio law.
The number of measures this guy has pursued that are clearly and unquestionably aimed at preventing people from voting Democrat is simply mind-boggling.
Regardless of everything else how is it possible to change something regarding the election 5 days before its being held? The people wonder why you have International observers wanting to keep an eye on this.
EPT
