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.
Nope. Not at all. The ratings agencies can only go by the GSEs' saying the loans met their lending standards. We have since found out that both the GSEs' lending standards were too lowand their "automated underwriting" system over-approved loans by 65%, with all that extra 65% being too high-risk that manual underwriting would have rejected.
That's more artificial interference, which ALWAYS has unintended negative consequences.
What NEEDS to happen is for the US to lower and even rid its glut of no/low-skill workers. That glut is depressing no/low-skill job wages.
As long as you are willing to be the first to be eliminated go ahead and advocate that.
That was Hitler's answer to Germany's problems.
Yes there will be negative unintended consequences to a massive increase in the minimum wage. But if we print money and hand it out to everyone and subsidize the creation of small businesses then those will be felt more by the top than the bottom and we will be putting people to work. Work is a good thing. I want it. I don't have it.
Supply Vs. demand for labor. We are in a demand limited economy, supply side economics wont do anything for it.
Quote:
Demand for labor is off so eliminate the workforce. (Paraphrase)
My gripe is the FED does not directly control wages, congress has a law that does directly do that. With too much debt and not enough income, the FED can't loan out enough money to drive wages higher. QE isn't doing it. We are on the edge of a slowdown. That scares the crap out of me.
That's what fiscal policy is for. QE is simply to make it easier for folks and businesses to gets loans.
Nope. Not at all. The ratings agencies can only go by the GSEs' saying the loans met their lending standards. We have since found out that both the GSEs' lending standards were too lowand their "automated underwriting" system over-approved loans by 65%, with all that extra 65% being too high-risk that manual underwriting would have rejected.
Nope. It's cute you still think if you lose a tooth and put it under your pillow, the tooth fairy will leave you some money.
You simply don't understand what happened and can't look past the articles you keep quoting over and over again. Keep trying as no one seems to agree with you, from both sides of the aisle. No one is buying the "gubmit" forced these financial institutions into doing illegal and shady dealings.
That's what fiscal policy is for. QE is simply to make it easier for folks and businesses to gets loans.
More than that it is to force loaning to happen when the market doesn't particularly want it to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Read up on fiscal vs monetary policy.
Passingly familiar with the theory.
What we've had is monetary policy only, we need less government spending. We need an alternative to conventional fiscal policy solutions.
Higher wages and smaller government.
Up the minimum wage a lot, we can print $1 trillion one time only. Use that to subsidize the creation of small businesses. Short term high inflation so up the rates to control that. More ability to take on debt so we get economic growth, and some form of protectionism. My favorite is to require everyone to pay US minimum wage or higher to export to the US. In that case we need less domestic inflation to stabilize things.
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.