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.
More Krugman-esque tomfoolery. Enjoy your debt slavery.
LOL! Perhaps another graduate of the Montana Mountains School of Economics? Debt is a tool. Like chainsaws and fire extinguishers. Very useful in their defined roles. Potentially dangerous in the hands of cranially-challenged nutcases and whackjobs.
Apples to oranges, your response is typical statist pap.
Nice apocalyptic propeller-beanie, dude. By the way, it's not CNBC or NPR that you'll need to worry about here. It's stuff like MA, MS, and PhD that are the sort of alphabetical buzzwords that will cause problems for you and your heterodox organic percepting. Those are the people who will really make you look foolish.
There is evidence that QE did have an effect on the economy also. The question is "was there a better way?"
Clearly it had an effect. Much of the limited growth that did occur in the recovery's middle years was traceable to the effects of QE. There was of course a better way which would have been to couple expansionary fiscal policy with expansionary monetary policy. But that option was closed off once Republicans took control of the House in 2011 and Congress simply dropped out of any effort t boost the economy. The Fed alone does not have any quiver full of arrows. QE was the next best thing it had available at the time.
I don't like more taxes, but I do like more money so that our people can stay healthy, productive, excel and move us all forward.
Well, we could cut all taxes to zero and simply borrow in order to pay for everything we want or need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
i.e. more central money creation. Sure we can create more debt and send that to all the world.
Actually, they have been coming here, begging us to allow them to invest in our country and economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
But we should also reconsider the central creation of new money without debt.
I'm a little iffy on how that's supposed to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Our President Lincoln felt this was a viable solution:
He was talking about unpleasant fall-out from the so-called free-banking era (circa 1835-1860)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
So did Henry Ford and Thomas Edison:
Not people whose advice on economics I would ever have asked for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Currently reading:
One of the alternatives under consideration in early 2009 was nationalization of the banking system. It would most likely have been quick and effective, but there are major problems in ever trying to reprivatize in an orderly manner. In the end, those overhang issues argued for trying to patch the exiting private system first. And as that worked, the will or impetus to do more has faded.
Or we were just the last nation standing after WW2 aside from the USSR. What happened once the world got back on it's feet and started gaining on our standard of living?
Obviously it is much more complex than the government being in the way or not.
It was the US government that set Europe and Japan back on their feet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Good thing you weren't around mid to late 19th century; a civil war and quite a few booms/bust.
Almost continuous depression. The price of already outdated commodity currency standards and the absence of an effective central banking system.
You are by significant margins under-qualified to the levels of QE expertise you would like to claim. QE increases bank liquidity and expands the monetary base. That's it. That's as far as the Fed can carry the ball. Anything else will have to be done by banks.
I haven't claimed expertise, as you seem to be doing. But you have prompted me to investigate further, to see if I missed something.
All along the claim I've been making is that the *effect* of QE has been to bail out the banks and inflate assets. I've not learned anything new. Across a broad range of expert assessments, these are the primary effects. There are surely a few trickle down effects, but primarily this move has benefited the wealthy. I've never said that the Fed shouldn't have done it, and I realize that congress are the ones that need to do something that would benefit the masses. Which since 2010 has been impossible.
I haven't claimed expertise, as you seem to be doing. But you have prompted me to investigate further, to see if I missed something.
All along the claim I've been making is that the *effect* of QE has been to bail out the banks and inflate assets. I've not learned anything new. Across a broad range of expert assessments, these are the primary effects. There are surely a few trickle down effects, but primarily this move has benefited the wealthy. I've never said that the Fed shouldn't have done it, and I realize that congress are the ones that need to do something that would benefit the masses. Which since 2010 has been impossible.
Also lower interest rates. Makes borrowing easier, but reduces private sector interest payments.
Also lower interest rates. Makes borrowing easier, but reduces private sector interest payments.
Interests rates were already low and would have stayed that way anyhow. It hasn't spurred investment because a few tenths of a percentage point on loans isn't enough to overcome the fact that *demand* is systemically screwed for a long time to come.
Interests rates were already low and would have stayed that way anyhow. It hasn't spurred investment because a few tenths of a percentage point on loans isn't enough to overcome the fact that *demand* is systemically screwed for a long time to come.
I agree that low rates have not spurred enough investment mostly because the demand is not there. But it has to help, not hinder borrowing. As in RE and housing. Just not enough.
All along the claim I've been making is that the *effect* of QE has been to bail out the banks and inflate assets.
Out of dire necessity, banks were effectively bailed out during the recession proper -- late 2007 through mid 2009. Some choose to call this QE1, but the QE that's drawn all the debate was that done once fiscal stimulus expired at the end of 2010 and was not renewed by the political party opposed to economic recovery in the first place. The Fed's mission is to maximize employment, while assuring stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. That's all that QE was about.
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.
