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.
Apparently YOU don't know what inflation is.
Money - no matter HOW much of there is - sitting in a vault does NOT "cause inflation".
Too much money IN CIRCULATION can cause inflation - but increasing the amount of money sitting in a vault somewhere does NOT magically cause inflation. That money has to get out INTO CIRCULATION to even have a CHANCE of creating inflation (and even then it's not an AUTOMATIC thing).
Geeze!
Ken
And yet on another thread you claim QE2 actually did have an impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
QE2 didn't happen because there was a "double dip". QE2 happened because the RECOVERY was still weak.
Ken
How does money sitting in a valult improve the economy, but not cause inflation?
This what I mean with you liberals, you just constantly flip flop on your arguments, and you arent even embarassed to do so.
And the government tweaks the way we count GDP over the years to aid this...
So the Democrat way of comparing debt to GDP would naturally be deceptive in a favorable way.
Obama's latest tweak to GDP will add 3% growth!
You don't think it's appropriate to add new technological aspects to the growth of the economy? So I suppose the $3.6 BILLION the US generated back in 2008 as it's share of the packaged software industry should not have been counted as part of the economy? - and that the MILLIONS (over 3 million) of Americans employed in that sector should not be counted as part of the economy? Because if we had never "tweaked" the GDP counting process back in 1999 we would have been leaving that entire sector out of the economy all this time. When it becomes apparent that formerly insignificant sector of the economy has slowly morphed into a statistically significant entity, then the BLS adds it into their GDP numbers (and does so RETROACTIVELY)
The new sectors of the economy now being counted in the GDP are REAL - R&D spending is REAL, the other new categories being counted are REAL. If you don't INCLUDE them you don't have the REAL size of the US economy. Don't you think the GDP numbers should be as accurate as possible? Do you really think we should leave out whole sectors of the economy when counting GDP? That all the folks working in R&D (for example) should not be included? - that somehow they don't exist?
Really?
REALLY?
Furthermore, you seem to think that these new categories are going somehow suddenly bump the GDP growth rates to make the GDP growth seem "bigger" this quarter over last quarter. That's not going to happen AT ALL (as I mentioned - it's added in RETROACTIVELY) - meaning the data is being added in to PAST years as well to reflect the gradual growth of those industries. In the case of the film royalties aspect, it's going to adjust the size of the US economy by some degree back to 1929 - which means the GDP growth rate for this quarter or last quarter or any one particular quarter is not going to suddenly take a big jump over any previous quarter. Same thing is true with R&D spending. The adjustments won't suddenly make the economy under Obama look 3% bigger than it did under Bush because the GDP under Bush will be adjusted upward too, as will the GDP under Clinton, and under Bush 41 and under Reagan, etc, etc, etc - and since the quarterly GDP numbers simply show growth (or decline) from one quarter to the next quarter, the change in any single quarterly GDP number will be insignificant because previous quarters will have been adjusted upwards as well - with that total 3% GDP increase affect being peanut-buttered across DECADES (across nearly an entire CENTURY in regards to the film business aspects) so there's won't suddenly be any big jump in the quarterly GDP numbers.
So much for your claim that "Democrat way of comparing debt to GDP would naturally be deceptive in a favorable way". As mentioned, first off it will affect the total GDP under EVERY President since 1929 - NOT just Obama. Secondly, since that 3% net gain is going to be spread out across nearly 100 years, the quarterly GDP numbers announced numbers won't show any appreciable gain at all - so your claims that it's just being done to make Democrats "look good" is pure nonsense. Yours is just yet another case where you wingnuts criticize something that you CLEARLY don't even understand.
Exactly. He is either not thinking and bought a silly lie or deliberately lying.
Obama has a hand in creating the worst deficit ever in US history by far and brags about the deficit slowly going back to levels that 6 years ago he said were unacceptable and criminal. You can almost bet that arjay applauded when Obama ripped Bush a new one for 500 Billion deficits now several years later arjay is thumping his just over Obama having similar deficits...
Slowly? You call the deficit decline over the past 2 years SLOW? It's the BIGGEST decline in the deficit in HISTORY!!!!!
What has Obama done to support this decline? Support the biggest QE trickle down money creation policy in US history. If these artificially historic low interest rates rise to recent norms, our deficit rises back up to 1 Trillion in servicing this debt. I am sure the next president will find it impossible to hold these rates down forever and perhaps it will be Hillary getting blamed for this mess - since she is a democrat maybe the media will report the problem more fairly???
What has he done?
Well for one thing, he's increased tax revenue - the MAJOR reason the deficit has DECLINED.
Regarding "artificial" interest rates - there's no such thing as "artificially" low - that's been explained many many times. The FED (NOT the President) sets rates at what it feels is appropriate. That's the way it's worked for well over a CENTURY now. Nothing new in that regard at all.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 04-30-2014 at 10:33 AM..
Gee, it's almost back to where it was when Obama took office.
Is it a great feat of financial management to double deficit spending in your first year of office and then slowly reduce it?
The 2009 budget (where the deficit doubled) was the last budget of the BUSH administration (budget year runs from October to September). So it wasn't simply "Obama's first year", it was BUSH'S last year. When it comes to deficits/surpluses, the transition year is always credited (or blamed) on the outgoing President, since his administration was the one who developed the budget and put it in place.
Furthermore it wasn't SLOWLY reduced. It's the Fastest deficit reduction in HISTORY.
The deficit GREW quickly in large part because of the DRASTIC decrease in tax revenues in 2008/2009 (as is ALWAYS the case when the country enters a recession) then SHRUNK quickly afterwards because those tax revenues bounced back as the country recovered.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 04-30-2014 at 10:21 AM..
We have talked about it before here on CD, and it is true people think the opposite is true. Why? Because they are told the opposite is true. People are being manipulated like never before.
Tax revenues increased because more people are working and the economy is improving. That has very little to do with things like "the stimulus" despite left wing kooks claiming otherwise.
The 2009 budget (where the deficit doubled) was the last budget of the BUSH administration (budget year runs from October to September). So it wasn't simply "Obama's first year", it was BUSH'S last year. When it comes to deficits/surpluses, the transition year is always credited (or blamed) on the outgoing President, since his administration was the one who developed the budget and put it in place.
Furthermore it wasn't SLOWLY reduced. It's the Fastest deficit reduction in HISTORY.
Ken
its the fastest reduction because its the highest increase
And most of the 2009 budgets were signed into law by Obama, who also added the porkulus bill, and the stimulus.
You know this, so I dont know why you continue to plead ignorant or pretend we're too dumb to know that as well.
And yet on another thread you claim QE2 actually did have an impact.
How does money sitting in a valult improve the economy, but not cause inflation?
This what I mean with you liberals, you just constantly flip flop on your arguments, and you arent even embarassed to do so.
Money sitting in the vault helps the banks that are in trouble. It is a bank bailout. It does not cause inflation because it doesn't actually enter the economy. That's why this form of printing is not inflationary. Demand causes inflation. Money supply is only one variable in the money velocity equation.
Don't cling to "liberals" when you run out of things to say.
That 80 Billion per month, or 960 Billion for a year is money created out of thin air, which further devalues the dollar ... or ... "inflation " !!!!
Furthermore, because that money winds up in vaults and not in general circulation, the economy suffers the inflation, but not the benefit of the created money..
Your statement is proof that you ought not to engage in conversations that have anything to do with economics, math, or bloody common sense.
No, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Inflation occurs whether there is a constant level of currency or expanding level of currency. Inflation is a natural response to macroeconomic demand.
Your statement makes no sense at all. Inflation is the raising of prices. How would money sitting in bank vaults cause prices to rise?? It has no effect on demand at all.
Inflation of 3+% is a thing of the past. Our economy is too developed to expand at that rate going forward. Inflation will probably hover between 1-2% with the added boost the Fed is giving it. We have secretly fighting deflation, which is much worse than inflation. Governments will do anything to prevent deflation.
Do you Obamabots realize that when the debt skyrocketed in the last 2 years of Bush Presidency, the Democrats controlled the House and Senate and passed the budget giving us this debt? Do you realize that when we got our highest debt ever, the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency? Do you realize that since the repubs took control of just the House in 2010, the debt has fallen dramatically since?
Did your Leftists brainwashers (Professors) explain that we have a separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches? Did you realize the President is not a Dictator (not even your announted one).
Because from what I'm reading, it doesn't seem you have an understanding of the basics of our govt. to understand the proven facts above.
You are making excuses for Obama. I can't figure out if you are lying to yourself, because you don't know how the system works or if you are lying to everyone.
Obama is responsible for the QE Trickle Down on his watch that has held down interest rates:
#1 Bernanke didn't start the trickle down until AFTER Obama won and he met with Obama and his team.
#2 Obama then decided to renew Bernanke's appointment, not only while Bernanke was in the middle of performing Trickle Down, but WHILE Bernanke pledged to do the most aggressive QE Trickle Down policy in US History if he was reappointed. Obama was therefore supporting QE Trickle Down - while actually speaking out against Trickle Down to the cheers of his ignorant masses.
#3 Obama than appointed Yellen who is a known supporter of QE Trickle Down and was pledging to continue Trickle Down to support the stock market if necessary.
Obama puts into power Trickle Down supporters that promote Trickle Down in their confirmation hearings and then you want to claim that Obama is not responsible for Trickle Down policies? Sheer idiocy.
P.S. Yes, it is quite something that every time they "tweak" how they calculate GDP and therefore debt to GDP ratio it is done in a manner to improve the image. Then the sheep can thump their chests over manipulated numbers and show how smart they are by comparing apples to oranges over the decades.
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.
