Fiscal Cliff

[Michael]

I would not call things that no longer exist stable. Feudalism collapsed, the Chinese communist are nothing but communist in name only. Feudalism, serfdom and slavery could not adapt to technology making slaves and serfs obsolete or worse money holders. Communist could not adapt to the fact that humans are not hive mind superorganisms like ants. Our present economy and society will have to change again to something new if technology continues to progress and all human labors can be replaced: then if we play our cards right we can be free of all labors, we can "work" purely for gratification without the need to labor to necessities, prosperity and freedoms farther above us today then we are above 18th century slaves! If we play our cards wrong we will all die violently Terminator style.

Which do you think will lead to such a paradise? Peaceful voluntarism as the Libertarians propose, where Law and Property rights are paramount. Or Statism, where threat of force is the norm? Where the State sells Bonds on your children's labor to .... you know, pay for all the 'Social Justice' they violently enforce.....for our own good?

 

[Michael]

I answered that question. You just didn’t like the answer. Your question is a false choice, a false dilemma – one of those many illogical arguments you love so much Michael.

Actually you didn't answer it, not that it matters. You've made it clear, you support our having an unelected banker running our economy instead of us, the free citizens doing so. You've made it clear that you care for us free people so much that you also support using violence against us....for 'The Common Good' and 'Social Justice' and 'The Good of the Nation' and all the other nonsensical phrases used as emotional triggers and pass themselves off as rational discourse these days.

 

[joepistole]

Actually you didn't answer it, not that it matters. You've made it clear, you support our having an unelected banker running our economy instead of us, the free citizens doing so. You've made it clear that you care for us free people so much that you also support using violence against us....for 'The Common Good' and 'Social Justice' and 'The Good of the Nation' and all the other nonsensical phrases used as emotional triggers and pass themselves off as rational discourse these days.

LOL, that is an absolute LIE Michael, and yet another straw man, but then you are used to it. Without lies and illogical arguments, you can't make a case for your Libertarianism.

 

[joepistole]

There is a difference between trying to STIMULATE a sluggish economy (i.e. the QEs printing thin-air money) and having an adequate currency volume for commerce (buying and selling) to function. I am not now inserting a "new qualification." My text you quoted in your post 216 clearly stated that if the newly created money was at the "rate necessary for commerce," then it could not be called "thin-air money" but if it was being created at 85 billion per month it had to be called "thin air money" as that is much greater than the growth rate of commerce (measured as ~GDP growth).

Unfortunately for you Billy T your words speak for themselves. A, you didn’t. B, you have no evidence that the Fed has created money that was not necessary for commerce. C, your machinations about the money supply are not evident in the money supply numbers published monthly by the Federal Reserve. One of the things you don’t understand Billy T is that the program to purchase MBS is just one Fed program. Money goes into and out of the Fed every day. What is important to the money supply is the net of those transactions on the money supply.

You like Michael are fixated by headlines and ignoring the important stuff. You cannot create credible economic forecasts only using data you read in the headlines. A credible forecast needs comprehensive and real data in addition to a familiarity with the data.

I see little point in me telling you that the Fed is in a box and cannot become a net seller of assets without destroying the economy (sending it into recession) it has been supporting by the QEs. To avoid that the Fed will continue to GROW its balance sheet assets until the dollar falls rapidly in value from being in excess supply.

Your underlying assumption here is that the Fed’s current expansionary monetary policy is and will always be needed. And that is simply an untrue assumption. Fed interventions, like what we have witnessed recently over the course of the last 4 years are temporary, lasting only long enough to restore confidence in the market place.

Fed intervention has been necessary because the markets suffered an enormous loss of confidence with the derivative scandal followed in promptly by an irrational Republican congress that nearly put a bullet in the nation’s economy in 2008 and again in 2011 and then again in 2013 with their threats and actions to thwart a stimulus package and to cause a national debt default. If Republicans in congress start behaving, we could see confidence return to the markets and the function now served by Fed purchases could be replaced by private investment. And there is some evidence Republicans in Congress are changing their tune, a week ago they backed off their threats to send the nation into a default. That is a sea change event. If Republicans in Congress behave, this could be a banner year for markets and the economy. And frankly, it is no longer in the interests of Republicans to put blow a huge hole in the nation’s economy, President Obama won the election and won’t be up for reelection whereas they will be up for reelection in two years.

Verses you telling me that the Fed can easily switch to being a net seller of assets, so lets stop with these conflicting claims.

Wake me up when in fact the Fed is a net seller of assets on its books and is pulling money out of circulation - if an when that ever happens, then I will admit that doing that is more than just a theoretically possible concept.

Does the Fed ever need to be a net seller of assets? I don’t know that it does. It will need to tighten up the money supply at some point in the future and that future may be as early as next year when we are expected to approach full employment. And as previously demonstrated, the Fed has drafted plans to reverse its program of asset purchases when the economy no longer needs that assistance and the Fed has speculated that time might be early next year or late this year.

The Fed does not create monetary policy based on newsprint headlines, nor should they. The Fed has and continues to use key economic data to make and manage monetary policy (e.g. money supply numbers, unemployment data, inflation data, GDP, etc.). There is no evidence inflation is out of control or will be out of control at some future point in time. If inflation should rise, I have every confidence the Bernanke Fed will take appropriate actions to contain it. At the moment there is no data to suggest that the US money supply is growing Zimbabwe style as you have asserted.

 

[Michael]

LOL, that is an absolute LIE Michael, and yet another straw man, but then you are used to it. Without lies and illogical arguments, you can't make a case for your Libertarianism.

No, that is not a lie. You have made yourself extremely clear. Social stability is much more important than Civil Liberty. You stand 110% behind our UNELECTED Central Bankers. YOU more than supported the bailing out and continued maintenance of the To Big Too Fail Banks, you're practically their cheerleader. You're very supportive of inflation. As far as you are concerned the Central Banks SAVED our economy. They didn't CAUSE the Great Depression, they just so happened to be there when it happened. Greenspans ulta low interest rates didn't cause the current Depression we're in, no, he saved us.

It's like some sort of religious mantra with you.

That IS your position Joe. It's why you supported Obama. He and Bush Jr (whom you also supported his monetary policies regarding bailing out the crooked banks) had your undying support and love and for whom you are eternally grateful to. Nevermind if three generations of Americans will pay for it with their lost prosperity. Screw them.


You've made yourself 110% clear, a Central Banker has never had a better friend than in joepistole.

 

[joepistole]

No, that is not a lie. You have made yourself extremely clear. Social stability is much more important than Civil Liberty. You stand 110% behind our UNELECTED Central Bankers.

If it is not a lie, then prove it. Where did I say social stability was more important than civil liberty? Read my last post and show me where I make that statement. You cannot, because I never wrote that. I said you were trying to push a false dilemma fallacy and you are pushing your usual round of straw man arguments.

If your Libertarianism were as good as you want it to be you would not have to lie, rewrite the English dictionary, and find it necessary to use a host of illogical arguments in an effort to advance your agenda. Our central bankers are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate with a majority vote and can be rejected with a single vote.

YOU more than supported the bailing out and continued maintenance of the To Big Too Fail Banks, you're practically their cheerleader. You're very supportive of inflation. As far as you are concerned the Central Banks SAVED our economy. They didn't CAUSE the Great Depression, they just so happened to be there when it happened. Greenspans ulta low interest rates didn't cause the current Depression we're in, no, he saved us.

I did and do support the actions the Fed has taken since to prevent another Great Depression. The Fed in conjunction with the stimulus package and auto bailout passed by a Democratic Congress did save the economy from the Great Depression 2.0. That is a matter of fact. But as for the rest of your post it is your usual round of lies and illogical argument.

Additionally, we are not currently in a “depression”. This is you yet again taking untoward liberties with the truth. The economy has been growing for the last 3 years, which is inconsistent with a “depression”. Additionally, the National Bureau of Economic Research found that The Great Recession began in Q4 2007 and ended in Q4 of 2009.

As for Greenspan, his interest rates were not that low for starters. And he and the Fed did not deregulate the financial markets, nor did he or the Fed create the toxic assets (i.e. derivative securities) that caused the crisis. That too is a matter of fact.

It's like some sort of religious mantra with you.

Yeah, unfortunately for you, facts, and reason are a mantra for me.

That IS your position Joe. It's why you supported Obama. He and Bush Jr (whom you also supported his monetary policies regarding bailing out the crooked banks) had your undying support and love and for whom you are eternally grateful to. Nevermind if three generations of Americans will pay for it with their lost prosperity. Screw them.

While it is true that I supported President Obama and continue to support President Obama, it is totally and provably false that I ever supported George II, period. I have been a vociferous opponent of George II in this forum for almost a decade.

Unfortunately Michael, you have never been able to make a cogent argument for you Libertarian ideology, so you are reduced to lies, and host of illogical arguments like the ones you used in this post.

You've made yourself 110% clear, a Central Banker has never had a better friend than in joepistole.

Those using facts and reason will always have a friend in joespistole.

 

[Billy T]

... you have no evidence that the Fed has created money that was not necessary for commerce. roflmao: See chart below) ... Money goes into and out of the Fed every day. What is important to the money supply is the net of those transactions on the money supply.

You like Michael are fixated by headlines and ignoring the important stuff. You cannot create credible economic forecasts only using data you read in the headlines....

The fact is that the NET action of the Fed has been the production of thin-air money far, far in excess of the needs of commerce as a stimulus trying to keep the economy from slipping back into recession. FACTS, not "headlines"

QE1 & 2 added 1.4+0.5 trillion but total now is 3.01 Trillion dollars of new thin-air money! How did commerce (buying and selling) ever get along before that 3.01 trillion addition?
QE3 adds 1 trillion more each year until unemployment = 6.5% or inflation >2.5% which is what comes first, IMHO.
(Unless the Fed realizes that production of a trillion thin-air dollars annually is the road to Zimbabwe style currency and ends QE3.)

...Fed intervention has been necessary because the markets suffered an enormous loss of confidence with the derivative scandal followed in promptly by an irrational Republican congress that nearly put a bullet in the nation’s economy in 2008 and again in 2011 and then again in 2013 with their threats and actions to thwart a stimulus package and to cause a national debt default. ...

It is convenient to blame the Republicans, and they are PART of the US´s problem
but that hardly explains why production of thin air money is a GLOBAL activity now.

All the major powers, except China, are driving the value of their currency down in a "currency war" trying to boost their exports. Not realizing that some one must increase their imports for someone else to increase their exports. The net effect of this is that the value of savings, (the foundation of all investment) is being destroyed and also by depressing interest paid on saving to historic low levels, the incentive to save and invest is being eroded.
IMHO these global "currency war" activities*, not just Republicans, are a major / main source of the world´s GLOBAL problems.

Again, when the Fed turns its thin-air money production, illustrated in the above chart, around and sells (in net) assets to remove some of the thin-air money it has produced (3.01 trillion now) send me a PM. I will not hold my breath waiting for it as I don´t expect the Fed to ever reverse course nor unemployment rate to fall to 6.5% before the dollar collapses. (Not then either as US and EU will be sliding into depression soon after dollar collapses.)

* It is ironic - The 1930s depression was made worse and longer lasting by "sound money" policies. The coming depression will be even worse and longer lasting because of the current "weak money" policies. As the quick recovery from the 1920 collapse (and many earlier "panics") shows, the best policy is for the government to do nothing - lets the economy heal itself.

 

[pjdude1219]

No, that is not a lie. You have made yourself extremely clear. Social stability is much more important than Civil Liberty. You stand 110% behind our UNELECTED Central Bankers. YOU more than supported the bailing out and continued maintenance of the To Big Too Fail Banks, you're practically their cheerleader. You're very supportive of inflation. As far as you are concerned the Central Banks SAVED our economy. They didn't CAUSE the Great Depression, they just so happened to be there when it happened. Greenspans ulta low interest rates didn't cause the current Depression we're in, no, he saved us.

It's like some sort of religious mantra with you.

That IS your position Joe. It's why you supported Obama. He and Bush Jr (whom you also supported his monetary policies regarding bailing out the crooked banks) had your undying support and love and for whom you are eternally grateful to. Nevermind if three generations of Americans will pay for it with their lost prosperity. Screw them.


You've made yourself 110% clear, a Central Banker has never had a better friend than in joepistole.

I see you've branched out from lying about ideologies to people's personal beliefs.

 

[Michael]

Where did I say social stability was more important than civil liberty?

See below

I did and do support the actions the Fed has taken since to prevent another Great Depression.

Right HERE in this very thread you make it clear that a small UNELECTED group of men whom form a legal Banking Cartel have YOUR SUPPORT over that of our Civil Liberty.

I don't care if it's because you think, in your head, the Central Bankers are HELPING us. It's really inconsequential to the position you have taken. You could as well be saying 'I did and do support the actions of the King and his advisory committee taken since to prevent another Great Depression.

See Joe, I really don't care WHO the unelected people are. I don't care if they're called Chairmen and not Kings. It doesn't matter to me.


Any group of people who have the Power to SAVE the Economy also have the power to Destroy it. They have the power to rig it in their favor. It's really f*cking common sense Joe. AND this is what YOU support and you have been very clear in your support. For you Social Stability (and you've posted graph after graph showing how you think the economy has been much more stable since having a Federal Reserve of Private Banks in control of our money - Never mind they causds the Great Depression, never mind they funded the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq and Afghanistan War, and caused bubble after bubble after bubble leading right up to the present Depression we're living through). You don't care, all that you care about is social stability. I happen to believe it's NOT stable. The loss of purchasing power shows it's anything but. That doesn't matter either. ALL that does matter is the position taken.


So, you see, YOU do value social stability more than civil liberty. If you didn't then you'd prefer the social instability that comes with a Depression as preferable to the loss of Civil Liberty. You know, like when the Founding Fathers led a Revolutionary War. Sure, there were plenty of people (like you) who preferred the social stability of the Kings Peace to the horrors of War. Lucky for us enough people thought Civil Liberty was MORE important.


See how it works Joe? Probably not.

While it is true that I supported President Obama and continue to support President Obama, it is totally and provably false that I ever supported George II, period. I have been a vociferous opponent of George II in this forum for almost a decade.

You stated explicitly that you supported GW Bush Jr bailing out the bad banks (by the way, he's Gerogie Junior, not 'The Second'). Of course you support Obama, he's as much of a warmonger and bank-bailer as Georgie Porggie.

So, one more time: You were more than supportive of GW Bush JR bailing out the banks.


You probably supported his wars of aggression too. I mean, you're right behind Obama when he orders drone strikes on innocent civilians in Pakistan and now Africa. Why the hell do you care which of your 'Civil Servants' is calling down the hellfire that rips the children from the arms of their mothers and fathers? You don't. If you did you would NOT have voted for Warmonger in Chief B. Obama II (He's The Second after his father's namesake). I have never once heard you make one serious critical thread of Obama. When he didn't close Gitmo, where were you? When he expanded Bush's Patriot Act, where were you? When he expanded the role of the TSA, where were YOU? No where. This so called War on Terror is going to last FOREVER. I hope you're used to the TSA because they are NEVER GOING TO GO AWAY. Not as long as we can afford them to be here 'Protecting us from Muslim Terrorists'. Yes, when the TSA was screening people at your last football match, that was because they were looking for Muslim Terrorists. And I have a Bridge to sell you too. They're here for us Joe. The so-called FREE American Citizen.

For you if Obama was a Republican you'd hate him. If GW Bush was tapped as a Democrat, then he couldn't ask for a more staunch supporter than you. If you really cared about Civil Liberties you'd have supported Ron Paul as he was the ONLY person with the record and the stance that he'd end too big to fail banks, close down the military bases over seas, and begin bringing home the troupes. Did you know more active military personal commit suicide than are killed by "Muslim Fundamentalists"? Think about that. Because there's going to be a LOT of depressed Americans who have jammed to music in tanks while blowing Muslims to bits and peaces moving back to the USA with no hope of finding gainful employment. Outside of the TSA that is.


Those are the facts, I hope you're now clear on them.