Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your characterizations of the current environment are highly suspect.
There being virtually no inflation at the present time, this is currently not a concern. The suggestion is made however that the large run-up in the monetary base (as opposed to the money supply) could pose inflationary problems at some point. But all those excess reserves can be tuned into not excess reserves at the stroke of a pen.
Obviously you would have no clue at all as to that, which is how you managed to get it so completely wrong.
Yada, yada, yada. Tell it to the freepers, zero-hedgers, and other tin-foil hatters. Consensus inflation projections for 2014 are below 2%. Long-term is barely above 2%.
Well except for the 44 of 48 months in Reagan's first term when the unemployment rate was higher than it is today. Didn't get below the 7.0% mark until late 1986.
Why on earth would the government want to pay down the debt? There were reasons why all those who hold our debt purchased it to begin with. Those reasons still apply. These people do not want to sell their debt holdings. When these securities mature, the great majority of them simply rolls a maturing note over into a brand new one. We are having exactly no problems servicing the debt we have. There is nothing to justify your oddball fears.
At least we agree here. Too bad you decided to turn to sleazy, cliche` insults.
They keep selling "low rates" as a stimulus. After years of watching it not stimulate, you would think people would begin to question it. My taxes were raised because of the "low rate" stimulus. All I am doing is telling you what happened. Pension funds fell short due to low yields and now they raised taxes...
...Ok then, i'll jut go spend that money that the state taxed away from me due to low fixed income rates. I'll also pass that on to Bill Gross if I see him . Maybe I'll even spend that 75 cents a month my money market is earning.
You're the last person who should be complaining about paying taxes for low/ZIRP!—not only did you cheer for it (fiscal/monetary joint venture), you directly benefited from it via rebounding home equity!
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwynedd1
Makes me glad I was mostly in equity with the except of junk bonds. Problem is I know a lot of people who were going to spend their fixed income returns aren't. That is to say , little growth n the effective money supply. But this myth , I am sure , will never die.
Oh yeah, low/ZIRP also rebounded your equity portfolio.
So far the liquid savers spent ~$2.5 Trillion in 'taxes' because of low/ZIRP. It's only fair that you cough-up your share of taxes. BTW gwynedd1, if your junk bonds were currently free/doing well, would you still be irking about low/ZIRP?
You're the last person who should be complaining about paying taxes for low/ZIRP!—not only did you cheer for it (fiscal/monetary joint venture), you directly benefited from it via rebounding home equity!
I think your psychological profile of me is approximately 100% off. Seeing as we got zero fiscal stimulus directly in the hands labor and capital what policy is it that I have seen come my way? Seeing as I have decried the growth of bank credit which parasitically finances no industry what of your inane, straw man arguments is it that you are trying to say I represent? Why can't you ever get it right? What is it that you fail to understand? What is your policy exactly? Mine is not to punish labor and industry and if yours isn't that, I presume you are some sort of Marxist or Royalist...?
Until ya do, get lost. Tired of your straw men.
Quote:
Oh yeah, low/ZIRP also rebounded your equity portfolio.
Oh yeah, the material economy is irrelevant to finances especially mine, and now I will be a wealthier man who can buy a hot dog instead of one of the poorest who can live in a castle. If you paid attention to a single shred of what I have said , you would know this.
Quote:
So far the liquid savers spent ~$2.5 Trillion in 'taxes' because of low/ZIRP. It's only fair that you cough-up your share of taxes. BTW gwynedd1, if your junk bonds were currently free/doing well, would you still be irking about low/ZIRP?
Liquid savers should get hammered with lack of demand. Nothing is saved. Equity fiance has skin in the game and represents the real economy , but I bet on stupid polices and cashed in. I rarely go wrong bettering people are stupid. You pay.
If low rates aren't spurring growth, what on Earth makes you think high rates will?
If anything, that means rates are still too high.
DSOs - do you own any equities?
I own lots of equity, but I suspect the basic premise of how you think the money system works vastly differs from mine. So of course you would think that. If I thought it worked as you do I would think the same thing.
Your characterizations of the current environment are highly suspect.
If you had and argument to make you would. Therefore I conclude you do not.
There being virtually no inflation at the present time, this is currently not a concern. The suggestion is made however that the large run-up in the monetary base (as opposed to the money supply) could pose inflationary problems at some point. But all those excess reserves can be tuned into not excess reserves at the stroke of a pen.
NO inflation? If inflation was measured the same way that it was back in 1990, the inflation rate would be about 5 percent right now. If inflation was measured the same way that it was back in 1980, the inflation rate would be about 9 percent right now. But instead, we are expected to believe that the inflation rate is hovering around 2 percent. Well, anyone that goes to the supermarket or fills up their vehicle with gasoline knows that prices are going up a lot faster than that.
Well except for the 44 of 48 months in Reagan's first term when the unemployment rate was higher than it is today. Didn't get below the 7.0% mark until late 1986.
Again with the fantasy statistics. The true rate of unemployment is 16% not 7% and furthermore the people who were employed in Reagans time had real jobs, not Mc jobs and greeters at Wal-Mart.
Things are much worse now than in the 80's.
Why on earth would the government want to pay down the debt? There were reasons why all those who hold our debt purchased it to begin with. Those reasons still apply. These people do not want to sell their debt holdings. When these securities mature, the great majority of them simply rolls a maturing note over into a brand new one. We are having exactly no problems servicing the debt we have. There is nothing to justify your oddball fears
Why would the government want to pay down debt? Gee I don’t know, maybe because it is rapidly reaching the point where they will not be able to service it. Maybe because it is ravaging the economy. Maybe because it is expanding at an unsustainable rate. You are either living in fantasy or you are so ignorant that you cannot understand the simple physics of actions and reactions. In any case you are a waste of my time, so go watch CNN and continue to drink the government Kool-Aid which is fabricated for the fools..
I keep hearing from the conspiracy side that the debt is "ravaging the economy" or similar. How is that true exactly?
The increased debt has been taken out in response to the bad economy. This precludes a cause-effect relationship of that nature.
It seems a lot of people see "high debt" + "bad economy" and just assume there is some relationship. Worse are those who compare the national debt to a credit card loan.
I keep hearing from the conspiracy side that the debt is "ravaging the economy" or similar. How is that true exactly?
The increased debt has been taken out in response to the bad economy. This precludes a cause-effect relationship of that nature.
It seems a lot of people see "high debt" + "bad economy" and just assume there is some relationship. Worse are those who compare the national debt to a credit card loan.
The national debt functions as our money. Kinda hard to pay it off....
But the conspiracy culture like Zeitgiesters know about the debt-money paradox. They usually miss the part about the rebates to the Treasury that are published quarterly. They also fail to recognize that credit issued for widgets is the money system functioning as intended. The problem is when its aimed at FIRE sector, legislatively created assets which are nothing but ponzi schemes.
Looks like we just dispute over the Fed which I regard as more placebo in the aggregate especially when they try not to have any surprises.
Pension funds fell short due to low yields and now they raised taxes. What do you want me to do? pretend the books that say low rates are easy money are right?
Low rates equate to easy money. Unless, of course, your labor/voter-backed municipality got hoodwinked into borrowing money with no protection from future interest rate drops. I trust you follow what I'm saying gwynedd1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Liquid savers should get hammered with lack of demand. Nothing is saved. Equity fiance has skin in the game and represents the real economy...
This is your problem gwynedd1!--you call dumping debts (aka deleveraging) on the USGovt/virtual taxpayer skin-in-the-game! Also, the financial apparatus (think FIRE sector) has you mesmerized into thinking the economy is suffering from 'slack in demand', when the real problem is a 'slack in VALUE'!
This is my angst with your economic stance: you ostracize/denigrate/BLAME liquid savers for causing slack in demand. Well, liquid savers do participate—they pay taxes on their interest income to compensate for so-called under-consuming. Then when VALUE surfaces (correcting recessions), they participate in a different way; they buy/invest/indulge in stuff that doesn't require bubble-tactics to retain VALUE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
But the conspiracy culture like Zeitgiesters know about the debt-money paradox. They usually miss the part about the rebates to the Treasury that are published quarterly.
Those rebates are not mandatory. The left hand/right hand bullsh*t will become crystal clear when/if the FED decides NOT to return the customary rebates to the Treasury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Looks like we just dispute over the Fed which I regard as more placebo in the aggregate especially when they try not to have any surprises.
Good point. The FED needs to throw more curve balls to the financial apparatus; maybe even a soft screwball to wake them from their chronic stupor.
Uhh, the rebates are definitely mandatory. By law the Fed returns all income to the Treasury after costs and a statutory 6% dividend paid to member banks. The Fed does not decide what income it can retain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
TAG: Colluding debtors are NOT precious cargo
