LiberalNut
Member
- Oct 22, 2010
- 741
- 49
- 16
Paulie, WTF is the bank gonna do with the money? Sit in a vault? Why the fuck would the bank do that?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Paulie, WTF is the bank gonna do with the money? Sit in a vault? Why the fuck would the bank do that?
Where do you think the Fed is getting the 600 billion for QE2?
From the same place that all money comes from these days Paulie and has since 1975.
We could get down to the nitty gritty of theories of money but that isn't very useful in this context. If in the end you are saying that it's all illusory, all of it, I'll end up agreeing. Money, in the end, is nothing. It's a fantasy. Real wealth is real property. Goods and services. What the fed is trying to do is spur the production of goods and services.
you can't pull a trillion dollars out of your ass and say it has value!
Boy, I wish I knew anyone who could pull money out of their ass. You're spewing bullshit.
Oh, one of those idiots who thinks the Federal Reserve doesn't create money out of thin air.
It's amazing to me that people who don't even understand how the Fed's open market operations work have the audacity to get involved in debates like this.
Fitz, why are you arguing with this idiot?
What part of them REDEEMING bonds are you failing to understand?
You see the BONDS represent DEBT.
They have RETIRED that debt by paying them off.
Was money created?
Not really since the money was created when the BOND was originally sold.
What they're doing now is turning that dpotential cash locked into the form of an IOU into liquid asset that the former bond holder will them either spend or reinvest.
What is utility? Utility is mostly the positive feelings we get from something.
Oh, I see, you conjure utility value by redifining utility. How typical. Not buying it bud. In the words of the immortal El Rushbo...words mean things.
the main reason why people are buying right now is because they believe that the government is debasing the currency.
But, as you say, the price of gold has been rising for a decade. During that period, the fed has eased and tightened. I'm not saying irrational fear has no effect. What I'm saying is that irrational fear isn't a good thing to set policy by.
The question at hand is whether or not the increase in liquidity will be inflationary. Now we have to stop acting as though the supply of money is the only thing that effects prices. It is not.
When you can show me a time in the Fed's history that they got that part right without causing enormous collateral damage elsewhere in the economy, we'll talk.Why trust them?
Why trust anyone? The fed will do what they do in actual inflationary environments. The will increase rates by the means at their disposal.
I actually agree but not because I fear an inflation boogieman. The balance sheets of banks aren't the problem. The problem is that the masses don't have the purchasing power to consume the output capacity of industry. We are at the Keynesian below full employment equilibrium. This place we are in now, the classical economist and all their reborn brethren (monetarists, austrians, supply-siders) insist can't exist. But look around. It exists right in front of your face.
We should be improving the balance sheets of consumers, not banks. In the short term, stimulate through government spending. In the long term, redistribute wealth.
What's your plan?
The problem is that he is creating the conditions for significant inflation in the future.
I tell ya what, why don't we fix future problems in the future and fix problems that exist now, well, now?
why should we have any confidence in the Fed?
Why should you have confidence in anyone? The fed will do what it does. In inflationary environments, the fed raises rates.
without causing enormous collateral damage
Hyperbolic rhetoric. You wanna see collateral damage? Have a look at the UK in the 80s when the monetarists held sway and their central bank stopped manipulating rates. Does the fed screw up every single time it tries to "fine tune"? YES! And they always will. That's why we shouldn't base policy on prognostications about the future, which none of us can actually see. We should deal with today's problems today.
TRILLIONS so far have not done a damn thing
But you're wrong. Great Depression II was turned into a medium sized downturn. An economy that was shedding 800,000 private sector jobs a month was turned into one creating them at about 150,000 a month. Why do I support Keynesian policies? Cause they work!
I don't want to live in a society where the economy is only as good as how much we take from the haves and give to the have nots.
Then you want to live in the gilded age followed by a Great Depression followed by another gilded age and so on ad infinitum. You've been sold the ideology of the super rich based on hate speech and lies.
That isn't freedom.
Living out in the woods, away from all this society bullshit is freedom. Within society, your freedom will be limited. The only questions to be answered if you choose to live within society is who is going to be empowered to make decisions for the flock, who is going to do the labor, what that labor will be put to and who will benefit from that labor. I say our public policy institutions must play a role. You want to give all the power to plutocrats, though you don't comprehend that this is what you are advocating.
Exactly.Toro said:But the Fed is not allowing market prices to clear. They are using bigger and bigger stimuli and getting smaller and smaller results. Excess monetary creation contributed to the Tech Bubble and to the even bigger Housing Bubble, along with a Credit Bubble, whereas the 2003-07 recovery was the weakest on record since the Great Depression. Bigger stimulus, smaller results. They are doing the same things on a more massive scale than they have done for the past decade, which has created massive distortions in the economy. Why should we have any confidence they are going to get it right this time? It might work, but the Fed has given us little reason to believe in its methods.
Because they essentially HAVE been so they can ride out the instability your dimestore messiah's economic 'experts' have created.Paulie, WTF is the bank gonna do with the money? Sit in a vault? Why the fuck would the bank do that?
We could get down to the nitty gritty of theories of money but that isn't very useful in this context
Money, in the end, is nothing. It's a fantasy. Real wealth is real property. Goods and services. What the fed is trying to do is spur the production of goods and services.
I would argue that the GD wouldn't have recovered in the manner it did without WW2.
You're wrong. GDP reached pre-depression levels in 1936. However, I'm not gonna overlook the effect of the most massive government spending in human history, WWII. I mean you do realize that WWII was exactly that, right?
It's nice to be adding jobs, but at the cost of killing millions of people?
Gotta agree with you there. Much better to spend the money on infrastructure rather than tanks that literally were pushed into the ocean after the war.
It's the same fucking thing over and over since the Roman Empire.
The Roman empire, which was based on slavery and imperialism, is definately something to be avoided. I would argue that our resemblance to that empire is not as close as many neophytes suggest.
Enough is enough.
Riiiiight, and as you admitted, you have no plan. We should do nothing then? I think not.