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.
Reducing interest rates is the primary tool used to stimulate the economy:
Rates are cut during every recession, even if we dated this chart back to when the data starts in the 1950s. Rates then rise as the economy grows again. So by your reasoning, interest rates have propped up the economy not only since 2001, from 1990-1995, 1985-1987, 1981-1982, 1976-1978, 2009-2011, and pretty much during every recession and first couple years of recovery (with the exception of the 1983-1984 recovery period, when rates actually increased).
Actually, according to the chart you provided, it has also been cut in non-recessionary periods. However, is your point to argue against what encouraged lending? What do you think did?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
So because you responded to someone elses posting, your statements claiming they are more "effective" is meaningless?
I believe that someone was you. I wasn't thinking Food Stamps, you were.
Actually, according to the chart you provided, it has also been cut in non-recessionary periods. However, is your point to argue against what encouraged lending? What do you think did?
Please point out a mid-cycle rate cut that was on the same magnitude as one during a recession. The ONLY one that existed in the past 30 years was the drop during the 1985-1986 soft landing. If we backtrack even further, the only other occurrence was in 1967-1968 under similar circumstances.
The point was to counter your argument that the economy was propped up by interest rate cuts after 2001, nothing was out of the ordinary in terms of cutting rates during a recession and early recovery period, then raised back to the target range of 5%.
your response didnt make sense the first time, nor the 2nd.. YOU are the one who said they caused a bubble. The fact that the recessions didnt take place in the years you are listing, proves you were wrong.. Economic growth is NOT a bubble..
No, policies such as relaxed leveraging and reduced interest rate cuts promoted credit markets while killing the incentives to save. Such promotions led to bubble.
Now when you say, economic growth is not a bubble, are you implying that economic growth and economic bubbles are mutually exclusive?
Quote:
Wrong again. The leveraging was not a factor because the leveraging was GUARANTEED by the government.
How so?
Quote:
They could have gone 10000:1 if they are backed by guarantees..
Really? Let me see what kind of guarantees Lehman Brothers, AIG and like provided before they were given the power to leverage over 30:1, much less 10000:1.
Quote:
Lets not even discuss the fact that you now think a 3% liquidity is "insane", but liberals complain because 5% down on homes is "excessive".. the liberal humor continues
Are you also claiming that a part of the reform was to prevent 0% and subprime mortgage?
Quote:
Accounting must be a major challenge for you. Again, one can increase the leverage if they have guarantees assigned to them.
Well, while I look forward to the data you should be providing as asked above, I must admit, accounting is a major challenge. I'm no accountant, and even they can find it challenging or else they wouldn't be needed.
Quote:
More evidence you dont have a clue what the hell you are talking about. Had the proposals been implemented, they would have been less of a "tool".. The reforms were held up in committee, and since you claim to be so knowledgeable on the subject, you would know this..
Prove it, complete with a link. It will also help if the evidence you must have can demonstrate the similarities and dissimilarities from the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.
Quote:
I cant believe you even quoted that as part of your support for them. Did they provide stability in the capital and secondary housing market? Really, thats your claim now? Wow, you are jumping all over the place
Is that the reform you're talking about, that never made it out of the housing committee? And what stability are you talking about?
Quote:
Democrats wanted to increase the leverage even further
Prove it.
Quote:
There was no need for the cuts on the Democratic plans because they wanted to again, increase the leverage.. Something you just above said was bad.. now you are saying it was good because Democrats supported it..
I see why you're running around all over the place. You're concluding GSEs when I'm talking about major banks doing the lending.
Quote:
Because if the government wasnt guaranteing the loans, and the loans were created based upon the standards of each bank, rather than one central standard nationwide, then each bank would have been turning down loans rather than trying to meet the GSE standards so you can get a guarantee.. And without those guarantees, those bad loans wouldnt have been able to be packaged and sold..
How long had the government been guaranteeing loans, again? And why did that suddenly become an issue? And which clause in the reform you speak of, would have restricted such guarantees?
Quote:
Are you still lying about what other posters believe because I never made that claim..
When you walk like a duck, quack like one... but why don't you tell me more about this reform, your analysis and where your conclusions come from beyond jotting down a sentence, if you don't want to be seen in the wrong light?
Quote:
Such videos are good for proving you are wrong and dont mind flip flopping...
One more time, they are tailor made for you. They only make for amusement for me, like those election time ads.
Quote:
One second lower cash reserves are bad, the next they are good because Democrats said they were good. You cant even keep your own postings straight anymore.
Again, no point repeating and complicating a discussion. Just respond to this whole post by detailing the reform you speak of, your analysis of it and I will be up for a debate with you.
Private sector up 83,000. Seems to be slowing, even the Repubs are starting to realize we must invest in jobs in areas that do not exist right now. May be time to have a WPA type program to rebuild Infrastructure until innovation can create the future jobs. The Country is in trouble and need the Repubs to engage in trying to resolve some problems, rather than perpetuating them.
WAP would be awesome.
Until LaFawnda breaks a nail and sues the crap out of everybody.
Please point out a mid-cycle rate cut that was on the same magnitude as one during a recession. The ONLY one that existed in the past 30 years was the drop during the 1985-1986 soft landing. If we backtrack even further, the only other occurrence was in 1967-1968 under similar circumstances.
The point was to counter your argument that the economy was propped up by interest rate cuts after 2001, nothing was out of the ordinary in terms of cutting rates during a recession and early recovery period, then raised back to the target range of 5%.
Oh, so now we're down to "magnitude". And where is your counter point that provides your view on what led to this lending debacle, encouraging lending/credit markets and making savings a terrible idea?
Ok, let's review the Republican view of the solution: cut the budget, Medicare and the debt. None of those solutions have increased employment in an low demand economic environment.
Correction: The Democrats cut Medicare in the healthcare reform bill.
Your second sentence implies the events of the first happened. Please illustrate when the Republicans cut Medicare, cut the debt, and cut the budget, and the result thereafter on employment.
No, policies such as relaxed leveraging and reduced interest rate cuts promoted credit markets while killing the incentives to save. Such promotions led to bubble.Now when you say, economic growth is not a bubble, are you implying that economic growth and economic bubbles are mutually exclusive?How so?Really? Let me see what kind of guarantees Lehman Brothers, AIG and like provided before they were given the power to leverage over 30:1, much less 10000:1.
Are you also claiming that a part of the reform was to prevent 0% and subprime mortgage?Well, while I look forward to the data you should be providing as asked above, I must admit, accounting is a major challenge. I'm no accountant, and even they can find it challenging or else they wouldn't be needed.Prove it, complete with a link. It will also help if the evidence you must have can demonstrate the similarities and dissimilarities from the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.Is that the reform you're talking about, that never made it out of the housing committee? And what stability are you talking about?Prove it.I see why you're running around all over the place. You're concluding GSEs when I'm talking about major banks doing the lending. How long had the government been guaranteeing loans, again? And why did that suddenly become an issue? And which clause in the reform you speak of, would have restricted such guarantees?When you walk like a duck, quack like one... but why don't you tell me more about this reform, your analysis and where your conclusions come from beyond jotting down a sentence, if you don't want to be seen in the wrong light?One more time, they are tailor made for you. They only make for amusement for me, like those election time ads.
Again, no point repeating and complicating a discussion. Just respond to this whole post by detailing the reform you speak of, your analysis of it and I will be up for a debate with you.
Spin, spin, spin all you like - the NEWS of the day is the horrible jobs numbers from today and other indicators that the obama recovery....IS NOT ONE.
Correction: The Democrats cut Medicare in the healthcare reform bill.
Your second sentence implies the events of the first happened. Please illustrate when the Republicans cut Medicare, cut the debt, and cut the budget, and the result thereafter on employment.
Reducing cost is always about cutting something. If that something is fraud or overpayment recovery, why would you be complaining about it? If that something is about simplifying code and consequently striving for cost reductions, why would you be complaining? Fiscal conservativeness shouldn't be a lip service. It is why I prefer the word, fiscal responsibility. Being responsible comes with challenges, being a conservative only requires a closed mind, and especially from the realities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Spin, spin, spin all you like - the NEWS of the day is the horrible jobs numbers from today and other indicators that the obama recovery....IS NOT ONE.
The least you could have done to demonstrate your capacity out of habit, would have been to pick a one-liner post of mine that wasn't really anything serious. What a waste of space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
So sorry to tell you, but it is a FACT that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue. So did the Reagan tax cuts.
Such facts from your world do not exist in mine.
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.
