|
|
On September 15 2012 15:25 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 15:14 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 15:03 aksfjh wrote:On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:29 Danglars wrote:And far away from Libya and Egypt, alarm comes at Bernanke's latest easing (QE).
Central bankers are “counterfeit money printers” and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should resign for messing up the U.S. economy so badly, Marc Faber, author of the Gloom, Doom and Boom, told CNBC on Friday.
He said Bernanke was one of the main proponents of an ultra-expansionist economic monetary policy that was to blame for the latest financial crisis.
“If I had messed up as badly as Bernanke I would for sure resign. The mandate of the Fed to boost asset prices and thereby create wealth is ludicrous — it doesn’t work that way. It’s a temporary boost followed by a crash,” Faber said.
Faber, who rose to prominence after predicting the 1987 financial crash report and dubbed "Dr Doom" for his negative predictions, said: “This unlimited QE (quantitative easing) , buying mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and continuing operation twist has the implication of simply having asset prices go up and the money flows down to the Mayfair economy,” Faber said.
A Mayfair economy is one which benefits the wealthier and better off in society. Faber said this latest round of QE would not help the “man on the street”.
“QE helps rich people whose asset prices go up and whose net worth then increases but it doesn’t flow to the man on the street who is faced with higher costs of living with price rises. You just have a small economy that is booming but the majority of the economy is damaged by QE,” he said.
Bernanke announced on Thursday that the Fed would buy $40 billion a month in MBS, giving the impression that this time around there would be no time limit to the program, which would only stop once a sustained uptick in employment is visible.
“The money printers are responsible for this crisis. If we continue with this expansionist monetary policy we won’t be facing a fiscal cliff it will be a fiscal grand canyon,” he added.
Mike Konczal, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute disagreed claiming that this latest round of QE — aggressive as it was — would expand the scope of Federal Reserve policy and was “great for main street”. Crucially, he said, it tackles the issue of employment which would underpin future wealth.
“If anything, monetary policy has been too tight in recent years. We’ve seen a collapse in GDP growth, no wage growth and huge rises in unemployment. Wealth is collapsing because of a collapse in the housing market and prolonged, mass unemployment ,” Konczal said.
Faber poured scorn on the notion that QE helps the economy, declaring that commentators like Konczal would have said the same in 2001 when low interest rates led to the biggest housing bubble in the United States. That in turn led to the financial crisis of 2008.
“If we have an economic crisis in the Western world it’s because the government makes up 50 percent or more of the economy. This is a cancer that is taking away people’s freedom,” he said.
source: cnbcYeah, but making credit freely available can't have a harmful effect on the economy, can it? The man famous for his financial crash prediction nailed a few other biggies, including China's rise and current problems with the dollar. Maybe he's right today. "Doom" is a good term for what he sees as only the rich benefiting from a rise in asset prices when those less well-to-do have to cope with the inflated cost of living. One QE too far? Deserving of Obama ridicule for helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around. ![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=aHJ) That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves. That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions. Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising. I don't think you even know what inflation is or does in a modern understanding of economics. You're just yelling at numbers and lines and shouting nonsense. You might as well be linking pictures of giant red boxes and complaining about the shade of red being used. How about you respond with an argument instead of resorting to ad hominems? On September 15 2012 15:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:29 Danglars wrote:And far away from Libya and Egypt, alarm comes at Bernanke's latest easing (QE).
Central bankers are “counterfeit money printers” and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should resign for messing up the U.S. economy so badly, Marc Faber, author of the Gloom, Doom and Boom, told CNBC on Friday.
He said Bernanke was one of the main proponents of an ultra-expansionist economic monetary policy that was to blame for the latest financial crisis.
“If I had messed up as badly as Bernanke I would for sure resign. The mandate of the Fed to boost asset prices and thereby create wealth is ludicrous — it doesn’t work that way. It’s a temporary boost followed by a crash,” Faber said.
Faber, who rose to prominence after predicting the 1987 financial crash report and dubbed "Dr Doom" for his negative predictions, said: “This unlimited QE (quantitative easing) , buying mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and continuing operation twist has the implication of simply having asset prices go up and the money flows down to the Mayfair economy,” Faber said.
A Mayfair economy is one which benefits the wealthier and better off in society. Faber said this latest round of QE would not help the “man on the street”.
“QE helps rich people whose asset prices go up and whose net worth then increases but it doesn’t flow to the man on the street who is faced with higher costs of living with price rises. You just have a small economy that is booming but the majority of the economy is damaged by QE,” he said.
Bernanke announced on Thursday that the Fed would buy $40 billion a month in MBS, giving the impression that this time around there would be no time limit to the program, which would only stop once a sustained uptick in employment is visible.
“The money printers are responsible for this crisis. If we continue with this expansionist monetary policy we won’t be facing a fiscal cliff it will be a fiscal grand canyon,” he added.
Mike Konczal, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute disagreed claiming that this latest round of QE — aggressive as it was — would expand the scope of Federal Reserve policy and was “great for main street”. Crucially, he said, it tackles the issue of employment which would underpin future wealth.
“If anything, monetary policy has been too tight in recent years. We’ve seen a collapse in GDP growth, no wage growth and huge rises in unemployment. Wealth is collapsing because of a collapse in the housing market and prolonged, mass unemployment ,” Konczal said.
Faber poured scorn on the notion that QE helps the economy, declaring that commentators like Konczal would have said the same in 2001 when low interest rates led to the biggest housing bubble in the United States. That in turn led to the financial crisis of 2008.
“If we have an economic crisis in the Western world it’s because the government makes up 50 percent or more of the economy. This is a cancer that is taking away people’s freedom,” he said.
source: cnbcYeah, but making credit freely available can't have a harmful effect on the economy, can it? The man famous for his financial crash prediction nailed a few other biggies, including China's rise and current problems with the dollar. Maybe he's right today. "Doom" is a good term for what he sees as only the rich benefiting from a rise in asset prices when those less well-to-do have to cope with the inflated cost of living. One QE too far? Deserving of Obama ridicule for helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around. That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves. That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions. Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising. lol 1% is huge? Yes, food and fuel is impacted by global events that are outside of the control of the Fed, so they are generally not caused by loose Fed policy and do not reflect economic fundamentals, that's one reason why they are usually stripped out of CPI. But the graph includes both CPI with food and fuel and without food and fuel, so that you can see that these are temporary fluctuations and that removing food and fuel accurately tracks core, underlying inflation. 1% inflation is too low. The Fed targets 2% inflation. This is a symmetric target, i.e, the Fed will use approximately as much effort to bring 1% inflation up to 2% inflation than it does to bring 3% inflation down to 2% inflation. The Australian central bank targets inflation in a 2%-3% range. Price stability does not mean 0% inflation. 0% inflation is bad, because it does not offer a buffer against deflation, it means that the Fed will more easily hit the ZLB in the case of a severe economic shock (like now) and it encourages hording money instead of investing money to promote economic growth. You misunderstand what that graph is showing. It's showing the rate of change from year to year. That means when it's at 2%, inflation was 2% higher than the year before. That doesn't mean inflation is 2% overall (when you're comparing to a dollar value in say 1950); it's even higher than that. So for the rate of inflation to increase by 1% every year is huge. I fully understand what my graph means. Yes, 2% increase year on year, for example, means that the price of things are increase at an exponentially increasing level. This is just like saying that US deficit is $1 trillion dollar is HUGE. One trillion, that's a HUGE NUMBER. O.M.G. But this is just for shock value, it says nothing about the economic fundamentals. The economic effect of the deficit is measured relative to the $16 trillion GDP, so you can't just say "$1 trillion. HUGE NUMBER." Likewise, the economic effect of high prices is measured relative to the price level a year ago, you can't just took say "Exponential increase. Huge." You can try and argue that 1% inflation (or a $1 trillion deficit) has a large economic effect. But that's not what you're doing. You're not talking about economic effect. You saying: "Look. Big number. LOOOOK. It's HUGE. We're screwed."
I'm just saying that the Fed is printing out money and handing it over to the big banks, which in turn use it to buy treasury bonds. This is all happening at the expense of the average American who has to deal with the consequences (the inflation). Arguing over how "HUGE" it is is pointless. I'm just advocating stopping the Fed from continuing this terrible terrible policy that benefits a wealthy minority at the expense of the rest of the country.
|
On September 15 2012 15:14 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 15:03 aksfjh wrote:On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:29 Danglars wrote:And far away from Libya and Egypt, alarm comes at Bernanke's latest easing (QE).
Central bankers are “counterfeit money printers” and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should resign for messing up the U.S. economy so badly, Marc Faber, author of the Gloom, Doom and Boom, told CNBC on Friday.
He said Bernanke was one of the main proponents of an ultra-expansionist economic monetary policy that was to blame for the latest financial crisis.
“If I had messed up as badly as Bernanke I would for sure resign. The mandate of the Fed to boost asset prices and thereby create wealth is ludicrous — it doesn’t work that way. It’s a temporary boost followed by a crash,” Faber said.
Faber, who rose to prominence after predicting the 1987 financial crash report and dubbed "Dr Doom" for his negative predictions, said: “This unlimited QE (quantitative easing) , buying mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and continuing operation twist has the implication of simply having asset prices go up and the money flows down to the Mayfair economy,” Faber said.
A Mayfair economy is one which benefits the wealthier and better off in society. Faber said this latest round of QE would not help the “man on the street”.
“QE helps rich people whose asset prices go up and whose net worth then increases but it doesn’t flow to the man on the street who is faced with higher costs of living with price rises. You just have a small economy that is booming but the majority of the economy is damaged by QE,” he said.
Bernanke announced on Thursday that the Fed would buy $40 billion a month in MBS, giving the impression that this time around there would be no time limit to the program, which would only stop once a sustained uptick in employment is visible.
“The money printers are responsible for this crisis. If we continue with this expansionist monetary policy we won’t be facing a fiscal cliff it will be a fiscal grand canyon,” he added.
Mike Konczal, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute disagreed claiming that this latest round of QE — aggressive as it was — would expand the scope of Federal Reserve policy and was “great for main street”. Crucially, he said, it tackles the issue of employment which would underpin future wealth.
“If anything, monetary policy has been too tight in recent years. We’ve seen a collapse in GDP growth, no wage growth and huge rises in unemployment. Wealth is collapsing because of a collapse in the housing market and prolonged, mass unemployment ,” Konczal said.
Faber poured scorn on the notion that QE helps the economy, declaring that commentators like Konczal would have said the same in 2001 when low interest rates led to the biggest housing bubble in the United States. That in turn led to the financial crisis of 2008.
“If we have an economic crisis in the Western world it’s because the government makes up 50 percent or more of the economy. This is a cancer that is taking away people’s freedom,” he said.
source: cnbcYeah, but making credit freely available can't have a harmful effect on the economy, can it? The man famous for his financial crash prediction nailed a few other biggies, including China's rise and current problems with the dollar. Maybe he's right today. "Doom" is a good term for what he sees as only the rich benefiting from a rise in asset prices when those less well-to-do have to cope with the inflated cost of living. One QE too far? Deserving of Obama ridicule for helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around. That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves. That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions. Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising. I don't think you even know what inflation is or does in a modern understanding of economics. You're just yelling at numbers and lines and shouting nonsense. You might as well be linking pictures of giant red boxes and complaining about the shade of red being used. How about you respond with an argument instead of resorting to ad hominems? Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 15:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:29 Danglars wrote:And far away from Libya and Egypt, alarm comes at Bernanke's latest easing (QE).
Central bankers are “counterfeit money printers” and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should resign for messing up the U.S. economy so badly, Marc Faber, author of the Gloom, Doom and Boom, told CNBC on Friday.
He said Bernanke was one of the main proponents of an ultra-expansionist economic monetary policy that was to blame for the latest financial crisis.
“If I had messed up as badly as Bernanke I would for sure resign. The mandate of the Fed to boost asset prices and thereby create wealth is ludicrous — it doesn’t work that way. It’s a temporary boost followed by a crash,” Faber said.
Faber, who rose to prominence after predicting the 1987 financial crash report and dubbed "Dr Doom" for his negative predictions, said: “This unlimited QE (quantitative easing) , buying mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and continuing operation twist has the implication of simply having asset prices go up and the money flows down to the Mayfair economy,” Faber said.
A Mayfair economy is one which benefits the wealthier and better off in society. Faber said this latest round of QE would not help the “man on the street”.
“QE helps rich people whose asset prices go up and whose net worth then increases but it doesn’t flow to the man on the street who is faced with higher costs of living with price rises. You just have a small economy that is booming but the majority of the economy is damaged by QE,” he said.
Bernanke announced on Thursday that the Fed would buy $40 billion a month in MBS, giving the impression that this time around there would be no time limit to the program, which would only stop once a sustained uptick in employment is visible.
“The money printers are responsible for this crisis. If we continue with this expansionist monetary policy we won’t be facing a fiscal cliff it will be a fiscal grand canyon,” he added.
Mike Konczal, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute disagreed claiming that this latest round of QE — aggressive as it was — would expand the scope of Federal Reserve policy and was “great for main street”. Crucially, he said, it tackles the issue of employment which would underpin future wealth.
“If anything, monetary policy has been too tight in recent years. We’ve seen a collapse in GDP growth, no wage growth and huge rises in unemployment. Wealth is collapsing because of a collapse in the housing market and prolonged, mass unemployment ,” Konczal said.
Faber poured scorn on the notion that QE helps the economy, declaring that commentators like Konczal would have said the same in 2001 when low interest rates led to the biggest housing bubble in the United States. That in turn led to the financial crisis of 2008.
“If we have an economic crisis in the Western world it’s because the government makes up 50 percent or more of the economy. This is a cancer that is taking away people’s freedom,” he said.
source: cnbcYeah, but making credit freely available can't have a harmful effect on the economy, can it? The man famous for his financial crash prediction nailed a few other biggies, including China's rise and current problems with the dollar. Maybe he's right today. "Doom" is a good term for what he sees as only the rich benefiting from a rise in asset prices when those less well-to-do have to cope with the inflated cost of living. One QE too far? Deserving of Obama ridicule for helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around. That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves. That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions. Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising. lol 1% is huge? Yes, food and fuel is impacted by global events that are outside of the control of the Fed, so they are generally not caused by loose Fed policy and do not reflect economic fundamentals, that's one reason why they are usually stripped out of CPI. But the graph includes both CPI with food and fuel and without food and fuel, so that you can see that these are temporary fluctuations and that removing food and fuel accurately tracks core, underlying inflation. 1% inflation is too low. The Fed targets 2% inflation. This is a symmetric target, i.e, the Fed will use approximately as much effort to bring 1% inflation up to 2% inflation than it does to bring 3% inflation down to 2% inflation. The Australian central bank targets inflation in a 2%-3% range. Price stability does not mean 0% inflation. 0% inflation is bad, because it does not offer a buffer against deflation, it means that the Fed will more easily hit the ZLB in the case of a severe economic shock (like now) and it encourages hording money instead of investing money to promote economic growth. You misunderstand what that graph is showing. It's showing the rate of change from year to year. That means when it's at 2%, inflation was 2% higher than the year before. That doesn't mean inflation is 2% overall (when you're comparing to a dollar value in say 1950); it's even higher than that. So for the rate of inflation to increase by 1% every year is huge.
Again, you just don't know what you're talking about. Inflation is measured by the change from year to year. Measuring from some arbitrary date bitching about "prices" being higher doesn't have any grounds to stand on. For most people, wages are renegotiated every quarter, 6 months, or yearly and are meant to account for both performance gains and inflation. Prices on loans work in much the same way, taking into account inflation. The economy is constantly in motion and nobody realistically sits on money or earnings without investing it, and that's how it should be.
|
On September 15 2012 15:14 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 15:03 aksfjh wrote:On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:29 Danglars wrote:And far away from Libya and Egypt, alarm comes at Bernanke's latest easing (QE).
Central bankers are “counterfeit money printers” and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should resign for messing up the U.S. economy so badly, Marc Faber, author of the Gloom, Doom and Boom, told CNBC on Friday.
He said Bernanke was one of the main proponents of an ultra-expansionist economic monetary policy that was to blame for the latest financial crisis.
“If I had messed up as badly as Bernanke I would for sure resign. The mandate of the Fed to boost asset prices and thereby create wealth is ludicrous — it doesn’t work that way. It’s a temporary boost followed by a crash,” Faber said.
Faber, who rose to prominence after predicting the 1987 financial crash report and dubbed "Dr Doom" for his negative predictions, said: “This unlimited QE (quantitative easing) , buying mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and continuing operation twist has the implication of simply having asset prices go up and the money flows down to the Mayfair economy,” Faber said.
A Mayfair economy is one which benefits the wealthier and better off in society. Faber said this latest round of QE would not help the “man on the street”.
“QE helps rich people whose asset prices go up and whose net worth then increases but it doesn’t flow to the man on the street who is faced with higher costs of living with price rises. You just have a small economy that is booming but the majority of the economy is damaged by QE,” he said.
Bernanke announced on Thursday that the Fed would buy $40 billion a month in MBS, giving the impression that this time around there would be no time limit to the program, which would only stop once a sustained uptick in employment is visible.
“The money printers are responsible for this crisis. If we continue with this expansionist monetary policy we won’t be facing a fiscal cliff it will be a fiscal grand canyon,” he added.
Mike Konczal, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute disagreed claiming that this latest round of QE — aggressive as it was — would expand the scope of Federal Reserve policy and was “great for main street”. Crucially, he said, it tackles the issue of employment which would underpin future wealth.
“If anything, monetary policy has been too tight in recent years. We’ve seen a collapse in GDP growth, no wage growth and huge rises in unemployment. Wealth is collapsing because of a collapse in the housing market and prolonged, mass unemployment ,” Konczal said.
Faber poured scorn on the notion that QE helps the economy, declaring that commentators like Konczal would have said the same in 2001 when low interest rates led to the biggest housing bubble in the United States. That in turn led to the financial crisis of 2008.
“If we have an economic crisis in the Western world it’s because the government makes up 50 percent or more of the economy. This is a cancer that is taking away people’s freedom,” he said.
source: cnbcYeah, but making credit freely available can't have a harmful effect on the economy, can it? The man famous for his financial crash prediction nailed a few other biggies, including China's rise and current problems with the dollar. Maybe he's right today. "Doom" is a good term for what he sees as only the rich benefiting from a rise in asset prices when those less well-to-do have to cope with the inflated cost of living. One QE too far? Deserving of Obama ridicule for helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around. That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves. That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions. Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising. I don't think you even know what inflation is or does in a modern understanding of economics. You're just yelling at numbers and lines and shouting nonsense. You might as well be linking pictures of giant red boxes and complaining about the shade of red being used. How about you respond with an argument instead of resorting to ad hominems? Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 15:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:29 Danglars wrote:And far away from Libya and Egypt, alarm comes at Bernanke's latest easing (QE).
Central bankers are “counterfeit money printers” and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should resign for messing up the U.S. economy so badly, Marc Faber, author of the Gloom, Doom and Boom, told CNBC on Friday.
He said Bernanke was one of the main proponents of an ultra-expansionist economic monetary policy that was to blame for the latest financial crisis.
“If I had messed up as badly as Bernanke I would for sure resign. The mandate of the Fed to boost asset prices and thereby create wealth is ludicrous — it doesn’t work that way. It’s a temporary boost followed by a crash,” Faber said.
Faber, who rose to prominence after predicting the 1987 financial crash report and dubbed "Dr Doom" for his negative predictions, said: “This unlimited QE (quantitative easing) , buying mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and continuing operation twist has the implication of simply having asset prices go up and the money flows down to the Mayfair economy,” Faber said.
A Mayfair economy is one which benefits the wealthier and better off in society. Faber said this latest round of QE would not help the “man on the street”.
“QE helps rich people whose asset prices go up and whose net worth then increases but it doesn’t flow to the man on the street who is faced with higher costs of living with price rises. You just have a small economy that is booming but the majority of the economy is damaged by QE,” he said.
Bernanke announced on Thursday that the Fed would buy $40 billion a month in MBS, giving the impression that this time around there would be no time limit to the program, which would only stop once a sustained uptick in employment is visible.
“The money printers are responsible for this crisis. If we continue with this expansionist monetary policy we won’t be facing a fiscal cliff it will be a fiscal grand canyon,” he added.
Mike Konczal, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute disagreed claiming that this latest round of QE — aggressive as it was — would expand the scope of Federal Reserve policy and was “great for main street”. Crucially, he said, it tackles the issue of employment which would underpin future wealth.
“If anything, monetary policy has been too tight in recent years. We’ve seen a collapse in GDP growth, no wage growth and huge rises in unemployment. Wealth is collapsing because of a collapse in the housing market and prolonged, mass unemployment ,” Konczal said.
Faber poured scorn on the notion that QE helps the economy, declaring that commentators like Konczal would have said the same in 2001 when low interest rates led to the biggest housing bubble in the United States. That in turn led to the financial crisis of 2008.
“If we have an economic crisis in the Western world it’s because the government makes up 50 percent or more of the economy. This is a cancer that is taking away people’s freedom,” he said.
source: cnbcYeah, but making credit freely available can't have a harmful effect on the economy, can it? The man famous for his financial crash prediction nailed a few other biggies, including China's rise and current problems with the dollar. Maybe he's right today. "Doom" is a good term for what he sees as only the rich benefiting from a rise in asset prices when those less well-to-do have to cope with the inflated cost of living. One QE too far? Deserving of Obama ridicule for helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around. That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves. That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions. Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising. lol 1% is huge? Yes, food and fuel is impacted by global events that are outside of the control of the Fed, so they are generally not caused by loose Fed policy and do not reflect economic fundamentals, that's one reason why they are usually stripped out of CPI. But the graph includes both CPI with food and fuel and without food and fuel, so that you can see that these are temporary fluctuations and that removing food and fuel accurately tracks core, underlying inflation. 1% inflation is too low. The Fed targets 2% inflation. This is a symmetric target, i.e, the Fed will use approximately as much effort to bring 1% inflation up to 2% inflation than it does to bring 3% inflation down to 2% inflation. The Australian central bank targets inflation in a 2%-3% range. Price stability does not mean 0% inflation. 0% inflation is bad, because it does not offer a buffer against deflation, it means that the Fed will more easily hit the ZLB in the case of a severe economic shock (like now) and it encourages hording money instead of investing money to promote economic growth. You misunderstand what that graph is showing. It's showing the rate of change from year to year. That means when it's at 2%, inflation was 2% higher than the year before. That doesn't mean inflation is 2% overall (when you're comparing to a dollar value in say 1950); it's even higher than that. So for the rate of inflation to increase by 1% every year is huge.
I sincerely don't think you understand inflation. Inflation is in itself a rise in prices. If the inflation rate is at 2% for a year, it doesn't mean that "inflation [is] 2% higher than the year before". It means prices (i.e. the CPI) are 2% higher than the year before.
|
On September 15 2012 15:29 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 15:25 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:14 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 15:03 aksfjh wrote:On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:29 Danglars wrote:And far away from Libya and Egypt, alarm comes at Bernanke's latest easing (QE). [quote] source: cnbcYeah, but making credit freely available can't have a harmful effect on the economy, can it? The man famous for his financial crash prediction nailed a few other biggies, including China's rise and current problems with the dollar. Maybe he's right today. "Doom" is a good term for what he sees as only the rich benefiting from a rise in asset prices when those less well-to-do have to cope with the inflated cost of living. One QE too far? Deserving of Obama ridicule for helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around. That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves. That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions. Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising. I don't think you even know what inflation is or does in a modern understanding of economics. You're just yelling at numbers and lines and shouting nonsense. You might as well be linking pictures of giant red boxes and complaining about the shade of red being used. How about you respond with an argument instead of resorting to ad hominems? On September 15 2012 15:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 15 2012 12:29 Danglars wrote:And far away from Libya and Egypt, alarm comes at Bernanke's latest easing (QE). [quote] source: cnbcYeah, but making credit freely available can't have a harmful effect on the economy, can it? The man famous for his financial crash prediction nailed a few other biggies, including China's rise and current problems with the dollar. Maybe he's right today. "Doom" is a good term for what he sees as only the rich benefiting from a rise in asset prices when those less well-to-do have to cope with the inflated cost of living. One QE too far? Deserving of Obama ridicule for helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around. That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves. That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions. Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising. lol 1% is huge? Yes, food and fuel is impacted by global events that are outside of the control of the Fed, so they are generally not caused by loose Fed policy and do not reflect economic fundamentals, that's one reason why they are usually stripped out of CPI. But the graph includes both CPI with food and fuel and without food and fuel, so that you can see that these are temporary fluctuations and that removing food and fuel accurately tracks core, underlying inflation. 1% inflation is too low. The Fed targets 2% inflation. This is a symmetric target, i.e, the Fed will use approximately as much effort to bring 1% inflation up to 2% inflation than it does to bring 3% inflation down to 2% inflation. The Australian central bank targets inflation in a 2%-3% range. Price stability does not mean 0% inflation. 0% inflation is bad, because it does not offer a buffer against deflation, it means that the Fed will more easily hit the ZLB in the case of a severe economic shock (like now) and it encourages hording money instead of investing money to promote economic growth. You misunderstand what that graph is showing. It's showing the rate of change from year to year. That means when it's at 2%, inflation was 2% higher than the year before. That doesn't mean inflation is 2% overall (when you're comparing to a dollar value in say 1950); it's even higher than that. So for the rate of inflation to increase by 1% every year is huge. I fully understand what my graph means. Yes, 2% increase year on year, for example, means that the price of things are increase at an exponentially increasing level. This is just like saying that US deficit is $1 trillion dollar is HUGE. One trillion, that's a HUGE NUMBER. O.M.G. But this is just for shock value, it says nothing about the economic fundamentals. The economic effect of the deficit is measured relative to the $16 trillion GDP, so you can't just say "$1 trillion. HUGE NUMBER." Likewise, the economic effect of high prices is measured relative to the price level a year ago, you can't just took say "Exponential increase. Huge." You can try and argue that 1% inflation (or a $1 trillion deficit) has a large economic effect. But that's not what you're doing. You're not talking about economic effect. You saying: "Look. Big number. LOOOOK. It's HUGE. We're screwed." I'm just saying that the Fed is printing out money and handing it over to the big banks, which in turn use it to buy treasury bonds. This is all happening at the expense of the average American who has to deal with the consequences (the inflation). Arguing over how "HUGE" it is is pointless. I'm just advocating stopping the Fed from continuing this terrible terrible policy that benefits a wealthy minority at the expense of the rest of the country.
Cranks have been predicting hyperinflation for years ever since the Fed has been doing QE and they've been proved completely wrong. You say that arguing about how huge it is, is pointless, but that's exactly what you've been doing in the last several posts.
Inflation is stable, it's below the Fed's target, the Fed has even said that it's low. And despite this, you've decided to join the ranks of these cranks, pedaling their debunked nonsense about hyperinflation. 2% core inflation is not hyperinflation. Where is the hyperinflation?
When someone has been prove so completely wrong about these things, they should take some time out to reflect on why they're wrong and why there is no hyperinflation, and why inflation is below target. And you should do the same.
As for benefiting the rich:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=506#10114
|
On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change.
Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error.
By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change.
|
On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Measures
Of course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment.
|
On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment.
The way the unemployment rate works is that it only takes into account people actually looking for work and not those who have given up for one reason or another (often because they couldnt find work). Its one of reasons that the rate can drop .2% when we gain 70k jobs but hold steady when we create 120k.
|
On September 15 2012 16:25 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The way the unemployment rate works is that it only takes into account people actually looking for work and not those who have given up for one reason or another (often because they couldnt find work). Its one of reasons that the rate can drop .2% when we gain 70k jobs but hold steady when we create 120k.
I know how the unemployment rate works, thanks. U3 is the internationally recognized definition of unemployment, so if you work for even 1 hour a week you're employed.
I'm also aware of the concept of maximum employment and the NAIRU, and that these unemployment measures are highly correlated. Taken together, these 2 facts imply that looking at U6 is mostly unnecessary.
|
On September 15 2012 09:58 Defacer wrote:
Despite the tragic attack in recent days, you have to give credit to Obama for overthrowing Gaddafi. He probably saved tens of thousands of innocent Lybian civilians, and so far there have been only four (?) US casualties.
You also have to give him credit for giving the Muslim Brotherhood power who are causing this big mess. I agree Gaddafi was a terrible man but he also got rid of Mubarak our best ally for years and as Mubarak said handed the country over to the Muslim brotherhood and you can see it spreading. If Obama doesn't see what is going on, the middle east will somehow find a way to get worse. God help them if he gets a second term.
|
On September 15 2012 23:38 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 09:58 Defacer wrote:
Despite the tragic attack in recent days, you have to give credit to Obama for overthrowing Gaddafi. He probably saved tens of thousands of innocent Lybian civilians, and so far there have been only four (?) US casualties.
You also have to give him credit for giving the Muslim Brotherhood power who are causing this big mess. I agree Gaddafi was a terrible man but he also got rid of Mubarak our best ally for years and as Mubarak said handed the country over to the Muslim brotherhood and you can see it spreading. If Obama doesn't see what is going on, the middle east will somehow find a way to get worse. God help them if he gets a second term.
You also have to give the Muslim Brotherhood credit for suppressing the protests and still supporting our interests in israel.
|
On September 15 2012 23:45 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 23:38 CajunMan wrote:On September 15 2012 09:58 Defacer wrote:
Despite the tragic attack in recent days, you have to give credit to Obama for overthrowing Gaddafi. He probably saved tens of thousands of innocent Lybian civilians, and so far there have been only four (?) US casualties.
You also have to give him credit for giving the Muslim Brotherhood power who are causing this big mess. I agree Gaddafi was a terrible man but he also got rid of Mubarak our best ally for years and as Mubarak said handed the country over to the Muslim brotherhood and you can see it spreading. If Obama doesn't see what is going on, the middle east will somehow find a way to get worse. God help them if he gets a second term. You also have to give the Muslim Brotherhood credit for suppressing the protests and still supporting our interests in israel.
BUT THEIR PARTY PLATFORM HAS SHIT ABOUT STONING WOMEN
AND THEY HAVE A SECRET AGENDA FOR GLOBAL JIHAD
AND STUFF
But seriously, this Morsi guy is pretty good. I think he's taken a lot of good positions on tricky issues.
|
See thats the thing about Democracy, the people there voted them into power. So what that its not the guy you like. stop saying its all horrible when you did the exact thing that you so boldly preach. Bring democracy to the world.
|
On September 15 2012 23:45 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 23:38 CajunMan wrote:On September 15 2012 09:58 Defacer wrote:
Despite the tragic attack in recent days, you have to give credit to Obama for overthrowing Gaddafi. He probably saved tens of thousands of innocent Lybian civilians, and so far there have been only four (?) US casualties.
You also have to give him credit for giving the Muslim Brotherhood power who are causing this big mess. I agree Gaddafi was a terrible man but he also got rid of Mubarak our best ally for years and as Mubarak said handed the country over to the Muslim brotherhood and you can see it spreading. If Obama doesn't see what is going on, the middle east will somehow find a way to get worse. God help them if he gets a second term. You also have to give the Muslim Brotherhood credit for suppressing the protests and still supporting our interests in israel.
Where?
I hope you don't mean stopping them from murdering everyone in the embassy then saying don't do it again while there people in the street are rallying them in the first place.
On September 15 2012 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
BUT THEIR PARTY PLATFORM HAS SHIT ABOUT STONING WOMEN
AND THEY HAVE A SECRET AGENDA FOR GLOBAL JIHAD
AND STUFF
But seriously, this Morsi guy is pretty good. I think he's taken a lot of good positions on tricky issues.
"Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."
Yes
|
On September 15 2012 23:38 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 09:58 Defacer wrote:
Despite the tragic attack in recent days, you have to give credit to Obama for overthrowing Gaddafi. He probably saved tens of thousands of innocent Lybian civilians, and so far there have been only four (?) US casualties.
You also have to give him credit for giving the Muslim Brotherhood power who are causing this big mess. I agree Gaddafi was a terrible man but he also got rid of Mubarak our best ally for years and as Mubarak said handed the country over to the Muslim brotherhood and you can see it spreading. If Obama doesn't see what is going on, the middle east will somehow find a way to get worse. God help them if he gets a second term.
"He" didn't get rid of Mubarak. The Egyptians got rid of Mubarak.
|
On September 16 2012 00:09 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 23:45 Praetorial wrote:On September 15 2012 23:38 CajunMan wrote:On September 15 2012 09:58 Defacer wrote:
Despite the tragic attack in recent days, you have to give credit to Obama for overthrowing Gaddafi. He probably saved tens of thousands of innocent Lybian civilians, and so far there have been only four (?) US casualties.
You also have to give him credit for giving the Muslim Brotherhood power who are causing this big mess. I agree Gaddafi was a terrible man but he also got rid of Mubarak our best ally for years and as Mubarak said handed the country over to the Muslim brotherhood and you can see it spreading. If Obama doesn't see what is going on, the middle east will somehow find a way to get worse. God help them if he gets a second term. You also have to give the Muslim Brotherhood credit for suppressing the protests and still supporting our interests in israel. Where? Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
BUT THEIR PARTY PLATFORM HAS SHIT ABOUT STONING WOMEN
AND THEY HAVE A SECRET AGENDA FOR GLOBAL JIHAD
AND STUFF
But seriously, this Morsi guy is pretty good. I think he's taken a lot of good positions on tricky issues. "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations." Yes
Quotes the Qur'an--->bad person possibly terrorist. Nice logic there my friend.
Say what you will, he's implemented democracy, put the military in its place, cleared the protests out of Cairo(open google news fro heaven's sake), and secured the Egypt-Israel border like Mubarak did.
|
On September 16 2012 00:14 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:09 CajunMan wrote:On September 15 2012 23:45 Praetorial wrote:On September 15 2012 23:38 CajunMan wrote:On September 15 2012 09:58 Defacer wrote:
Despite the tragic attack in recent days, you have to give credit to Obama for overthrowing Gaddafi. He probably saved tens of thousands of innocent Lybian civilians, and so far there have been only four (?) US casualties.
You also have to give him credit for giving the Muslim Brotherhood power who are causing this big mess. I agree Gaddafi was a terrible man but he also got rid of Mubarak our best ally for years and as Mubarak said handed the country over to the Muslim brotherhood and you can see it spreading. If Obama doesn't see what is going on, the middle east will somehow find a way to get worse. God help them if he gets a second term. You also have to give the Muslim Brotherhood credit for suppressing the protests and still supporting our interests in israel. Where? On September 15 2012 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
BUT THEIR PARTY PLATFORM HAS SHIT ABOUT STONING WOMEN
AND THEY HAVE A SECRET AGENDA FOR GLOBAL JIHAD
AND STUFF
But seriously, this Morsi guy is pretty good. I think he's taken a lot of good positions on tricky issues. "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations." Yes Quotes the Qur'an--->bad person possibly terrorist. Nice logic there my friend. Say what you will, he's implemented democracy, put the military in its place, cleared the protests out of Cairo(open google news fro heaven's sake), and secured the Egypt-Israel border like Mubarak did.
You understand what Jihad is right? That is the Muslim Brotherhoods slogan not me making shit up.
Also he didn't implement democracy in fact he wasn't even suppose to be a candidate probably until they realized the voters were stupid enough to elect him.
On September 16 2012 00:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 23:38 CajunMan wrote:On September 15 2012 09:58 Defacer wrote:
Despite the tragic attack in recent days, you have to give credit to Obama for overthrowing Gaddafi. He probably saved tens of thousands of innocent Lybian civilians, and so far there have been only four (?) US casualties.
You also have to give him credit for giving the Muslim Brotherhood power who are causing this big mess. I agree Gaddafi was a terrible man but he also got rid of Mubarak our best ally for years and as Mubarak said handed the country over to the Muslim brotherhood and you can see it spreading. If Obama doesn't see what is going on, the middle east will somehow find a way to get worse. God help them if he gets a second term. "He" didn't get rid of Mubarak. The Egyptians got rid of Mubarak.
Mubarak stepped down under international pressure most notably Obama.
|
On September 16 2012 00:19 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:13 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2012 23:38 CajunMan wrote:On September 15 2012 09:58 Defacer wrote:
Despite the tragic attack in recent days, you have to give credit to Obama for overthrowing Gaddafi. He probably saved tens of thousands of innocent Lybian civilians, and so far there have been only four (?) US casualties.
You also have to give him credit for giving the Muslim Brotherhood power who are causing this big mess. I agree Gaddafi was a terrible man but he also got rid of Mubarak our best ally for years and as Mubarak said handed the country over to the Muslim brotherhood and you can see it spreading. If Obama doesn't see what is going on, the middle east will somehow find a way to get worse. God help them if he gets a second term. "He" didn't get rid of Mubarak. The Egyptians got rid of Mubarak. Mubarak stepped down under international pressure most notably Obama.
No, he primarily stepped down because of the intensity of the protests and because the military asked him to step down.
|
On September 15 2012 23:38 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 09:58 Defacer wrote:
Despite the tragic attack in recent days, you have to give credit to Obama for overthrowing Gaddafi. He probably saved tens of thousands of innocent Lybian civilians, and so far there have been only four (?) US casualties.
You also have to give him credit for giving the Muslim Brotherhood power who are causing this big mess. I agree Gaddafi was a terrible man but he also got rid of Mubarak our best ally for years and as Mubarak said handed the country over to the Muslim brotherhood and you can see it spreading. If Obama doesn't see what is going on, the middle east will somehow find a way to get worse. God help them if he gets a second term.
Pfffttt.
Mubarak was facing a massive protest by Egyptians that wanted to overthrow their government, after seeing the success of Tunisia's rebellion -- triggered by the self-immolation of a grocery cart operator that had his cart and produce confiscated by police. Once the protests started not even the Egyptian military and police supported Mubarak.
So what is your suggestion, since you're a foreign policy hawk? Continue endorsing and propping up a despised dictator who has lost complete control over his country, while the rest of the Muslim world is watching? Send over the tens of thousands of 'security forces' necessary to suppress the protestors? Buy Egypt, by committing billions more in foreign aid that they need to just solve a fraction of their social and economic problems? Or just invade Egypt?
I'm sorry, but people that 'blame Obama' for -- what? -- not starting the World War necessary to 'protect' US interests OR not 'being tough enough' in the Middle East -- seem to have no memory of current events. They live in a political bubble that make-believes that Americans are so 'exceptional' they can -- nay, SHOULD! -- control what the entire world thinks and does, and if only a bigger, dumber, whiter, Christian American politician just flexed his muscles more, every Muslim in the world would magically like them again.
Good luck with that.
|
Obama has openly said that he does not consider Egypt an enemy or ally at this point (until they show how they react to this). That's pretty harsh diplomacy. But I guess these crazy hawks are never satisfied unless there's people dying. Psychopaths.
Defacer, America is the lone superpower. We have the chance to change the world for the better. Should we not try and do so?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
america's foreign policy aspirations are noble and only sometimes self serving. thats aabout as good as you can get really
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
