Quantitative Easing
- Thread starter cosmictraveler
- Start date
CPI-U includes food and energy. You must be thinking of Core CPI - which doesn't appear on your graph. Try spending 30 seconds on Wikipedia next time.
The Congress delegated responsiblity for maintaining the money supply to the Federal Reserve, and thank God for that favor to the nation. Can you imagine Congress controlling the money supply? We see what they have done with fiscal policy. We should all be thanking God Congress long ago delegated that authority.
I want knowledgeable responsible people controlling the money supply - that excludes Congress.
Aren't we catty today?
I knew you'd say that. How about this: Do you want to elect your representatives or maybe someone else should pick them for you? Hows that sound? Good.
That aside, Greenspan kept interest rates low while he was running the Federal Reserve. Some genius. Give people free money as we export our GDP to China. Well, now we're all f*cked but it was a fun time getting here. Face it, Greenspan is a tool, a f*cking moronic turd who took a job with a hedge fund the first chance he got.
Oh, Oh, thank the Gods Joe. Geeee where would we be without Greenturd.
Did you ever think that the reason people ARE so f*cking clueless and elect morons to CONgress is directly related to never having had the responsibility of dealing with public moneys, or even knowing what money IS? Where is comes from? Did you know that 25% of welfare recipients don't know it's your tax that is paying them. People are THAT f*cking ignorant. AND YET, I'd much rather we educate the general public and let them collectively decide how much tax is levied and how it is spent over some well connected turds helping out their mates' wives with free millions.
Also of note: No one has went to prison yet Joe. Why not? What does that tell you? S&L sent thousands to prison. GFC is 1000X worse and not a single person (minus Madoff).
Whatever... I hope that pill popper Christian wingnut Bachman is elected. Just so I can laugh when you find no difference between her policies, Bushes or Obama's. Which, as it stands, there is none.
I prefer to elect my own representatives thank you. But unfortuntaely those I want to win sometimes do not. There is this little issue we have in this country it's special interest money that has and continues to control our election process. And with the recent ruling by the Republican supremes, that is likely to get worse, not better.
Aside from that, there is little doubt that Congress has not made a mess of our fiscal policy. Were it not for the actions of the Fed, this little recession would have been much worse - you know, like a Great Depression.
Now you are mixing and matching, trade policy is outside the purview of the Federal Reserve.
Additionally, while I was never a fan of Greenspan, he did not give people free money. That may be a popular notion in right wing circles, but it is like much of the information in right wing circles just plain false. And it was not low interest rates that precipitated globalization, nor were low interest rates a cause of the Banking Crisis of 2008. The banking crisis had everything to do with deregulation (repeal of Glass-Stegal) and the over leveraging of banks due to speculation in the unregulated derivative markets. I know that is a bit more complex than just blaming the Fed, but it is the truth of the matter. Unfortunately, it is not something that plays well in right wing circles.
Well you have made a bunch of outlandish allegations here, with zero support for any of it. Oh, I am never suprised at how ignorant and ill informed most people are these days. The right wing never ceases to amaze and scare me with the amount of misinformation and ill reasoning people are capable of on an almost daily basis.
I would much rather have a well informed, educuated, and uncorrupted electorate making decisions for the greater good of the nation and humanity than what we current have in Congress.
Well the reason no one has gone to prison over the Banking Crisis of 2008 is because special interest money in Washington used their money and influence to legalize what they subsequently did to cause the crisis. As I have repeatedly said, if you really want real change in Washington, then you/we really need to change the way we elect public officials. And we need to remove the power of special interest money from our politics.
I may vote for Bachman in the primary election.
If Bachman were to win, I think she would not be able to govern. She has said many things that will make it impossible for her to govern effectively if, God forbid, she were to be elected. She is the dumbest politician, aside from Plain, I have ever seen.For you Joe. Maybe that's what you don't get. For millions and millions of other Americans, particularly University grads taking jobs at McDonalds, it IS a Great Depression.
Yeah, traders and bankers would have been wiped out. BUT, right now, in 2011, we would be fine. Sure, no GoldmanSux or Bank of America, they'd be gone. But so what? Iceland survived and so would we. Compared to Revolutionary War, WWI and WWII and the Civil War this would have been NOTHING.
Agreed?
But, yes, the traders and bankers would have been wiped out. I suppose for someone IN the system, it must seem like the world would have ended. So, for such a person, bailing their arsses out probably did seem like a good idea.
You're hypothesizing when you say it would have been much worse. We can not know that. It might have been much better. It might get much worse. It might lead to much much much worse. We just can't know. I do know this much. It would not have been anything like the Great Depression. Back then most people returned to farms to work them. That obviously isn't an option now is it? I also know civilization would NOT have collapsed. That's just asinine and scare mongering. You sound like a right wingnut when you make these unfounded, zero evidence, over-the-top hyperbole statements. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what Bush said!
Unless you can provide some "evidence" of what would have 100% happened then it's idle speculation.
Can you?
It's not just the Fed's fault. But it's partly their fault. AND, I don't want a central reserve. It's that simple.
Ever wonder why they named it the "Federal" Reserve Joe? The name was choosen to confuse the general public into thinking it was always a part of the government. Do you think that is a good way to inaugurate an institution? That doesn't seem a little dishonest? It's no different than the "Patriot Act". It plays on people's sense of Nationalism to garnish the public's support.
So, again, you come off sounding like a right wingnut in your total adoration for a Federal Reserve monetary system.
I'm not "right wing" Joe. You seem to be programmed into thinking there is a right and there is a left. There is NOT a right nor a left. They are both the same.
Obama is no different than George Bush, in my and many other's opinion. The only difference is in your head. Obama hasn't done anything to seriously reform the financial system, to pull back from war, to take us in a new direction, nothing. He's no different than Bush. Other than distracting people with his healthcare reform - which is a joke. I haven't seen any new Medical Schools opened. There's a boom in babyboomers needing care and no where near enough physicians.
OMG, you finally agree the reason why Obama hasn't taken the lead on this is because he's in the pocket of "special interest/GoldmanSux and BJ Morgan"!
Finally!!
It's about time Joe. Geesh.... I guess that means you're a Right WingNut?
So, you going to vote Ron Paul? Do you really want "real change"? But, we know that isn't what American's really want now is it? They want a big fat milk filled teet and someone to pat their back while rocking their ugly fat arses to sleep.
Did you know that Bush Jr. signed into law the date we leave Iraq? That date is now coming due. I noticed Obama is working up a solution for that deadline though - the Obama solution, that the US troupes will remain. His worry now is he doesn't want it to "affect the election cycle". IOWs, the only platform Obama ran on, leaving Iraq, was just more bullshit. Ron Paul has over 60% support from troupes overseas. They know he's the only person who will see that they are returned home and not used for the few well-connected elite to maintain their business interests overseas. You know, the same people who you mistakenly trust to run the Fed.
I agree Bachman is a douche bag. With her "headaches", "pills" and BF Jesus, one has to wonder why these people continue to get into public office. Surely people can not be this retarded?
One last point: there seems to be two fundamental differences in the way with which we're approaching society. For me it's a question of responsibility, which should rest in the hands of the people. For you it seems to be a question of social stability. Which you think is best served by a small educated unelected elite. At least that's how you sound to me.
Why I wonder?
You may think you're doing society a favor by supporting welfare safety nets and putting our monetary system (basically the nation's wealth) into the hands of a few unelected (and thus well-connected) individuals. But, take a look outside your window. We have a broken financial system gamed by the wealthy and society has been rotting for decades. Regardless of which party is in power.
It's impossible to make rational decisions/votes if you don't see and feel the consequences. The Fed has been masking those consequences for decades, and now it's going to all come crashing in. We're not going back to the "good old days". That time is gone. There is no perfect society and we shouldn't be so scared of change.
Perhaps those of us getting fat off the system, are in for a surprise?
I hope so
And, we will see
PS: Has Obama reinstated Glass-Stegal? Under which POTUS was Glass-Stegal repealed?
Last edited:
The discussion was not about jobs, it was about how the Congress of this nation has mismanaged the finances of the country. Considering that the Republican congress before Obama put two wars and the biggest expansion in entitlements since the creation of Medicare on the national credit card and at the same time substancially reduced the nation's revenues/taxes for a decade; thereby more than doubling the national debt and committing the nation to multibillion dollar deficits for decades to come, I think my case has been made.
As for unemployment, the nation has had troubles with employment for more than a decade. The George II administration created less jobs than any other president in recent history. He only managed to create new jobs by expanding government payrolls.
It is a great depression, depending on your skills. If you are a poli sci major, you probably are working at McDonalds flipping burgers. On the other hand if you are a business major or computer science major, you probably have multiple job offers.
If the government did not provide loans to the banks, yes they would have gone under and taking with them the retirement assets, pensions, and bank accounts of a lot of average Americans and businesses.
Additionally it would have done wonders for the national debt. Because the United States government insured bank deposits in this country up to 100k dollars (at that time). If you were a business owner with more than that amount in the bank, sorry you only got 100k of insurance. Can you imagine what that would have done to the economy? A lot of people would not have gotten paid including state on local government workers.
What you seem to be asking is this, if you put a loaded gun to your heart and pull the trigger, will it kill you? Yeah, it will kill you. There is plenty of proof and reason. It's just that you have no interest in seeing it.
What occured in 2009 is virtually what happened in the Great Depression. Except this time, the Federal Reserve and Congress did what they should have done.
I gathered you don't want the Federal Reserve.
But that does not make the Federal Reserve responsible even in the least for the Banking Crisis of 2008. The Fed had nothing to do with the repeal of Glass-Stegal and the exceptional risks banks took upon themselves.Do you have any credible proof of this claim? And in the end it is really not germane.
LOL. Yeah I suppose that it why so many arch conservatives/Tea Partiers like to stick the liberal label on me. Since George II there is a segement of the conservative movement that no longer wants to bear the Republican/conservative mantel. So they invent new names and think that will shield them from the shame of the George II administration.
Wither you want to admit it, there is a right and left wing in American politics. And the branch you are clinging to is the right wing branch...the Paul/Libertarian branch. Please note, Ron Paul is running for president under the conservative/Republican banner.
Again, your opinion and the opinion of those like you does not make it so. Your refusal to see the evidence does not mean it does not exist. There was this little piece of legislation that Obama signed into law called Dodd-Franks that has seriously restructured the banking system in this country. You can tell it reforms the banking system, because the banking system and its lobbyists have been wailing about it almost from the start and are using the Republican Party to prevent the appointment of an effective leader to enforce the new law.
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_f...Street_Reform_comprehensive_summary_Final.pdf
And with respect to Iraq, George II only got serious about getting out of Iraq when Obama started to push the issue. And like it or not, we are scheduled to be out of Iraq by the end of this year and out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014. That is change.
Unlike George II, Obama has not gone around looking for countries to invade. And he has finally, after 8 years of George II fumbling, killed Bin Ladin and many other al-Qaeda leaders.
And while healthcare reform is not what it shoul have been, it is more than any other president has been able to deliver. And according the the conservative CBO, it does shave billions off the nation's deficit. And contrary to your claim, American medical schools are expanding their enrollements for the first time in nearly 30 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/education/29iht-riedmedus.html
OMG, you finally agree the reason why Obama hasn't taken the lead on this is because he's in the pocket of "special interest/GoldmanSux and BJ Morgan"!
Finally!!
It's about time Joe. Geesh.... I guess that means you're a Right WingNut?
No I did not say Obama was in the pocket of the special interests. I said the special interests controlled Washington. There is a difference. Of all the politicians in Washinton, I would say that Obama is one of the few least influenced by the power of special interests.
If Obama were in the pocket of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, he would not have signed Franks-Dodd.
I might vote for Paul in the primaries, but I doub it. The bottom line is Paul doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination. He is just as crazy as Bachmann. But this I will say of Paul, I think he is a man of principal. I cannot say the same for Bachmann. But that won't help him as he drives the nation off the clift, should he get that opportunity.
Where is your proof that most of the troops support Ron Paul? I would like to know the source of that claim. It sounds rather specious. Obama is looking for ways to cut spending, that includes the money spent on the wars. But he does feel obligated to withdraw in a maner that will not cause us to be back there in the near future (e.g. WW I).
No you have it wrong. If I advocated as you claim, then why have I repeatedly argued for the removal of special interest money from our political system - you know the money that is paid to special interests to influence our elections and buy legislation that favors the monied few.
You claim to be advocating responsiblity, fine there is nothing wrong with that. That is in essence what capitalism does, it makes people accountable. But what you don't see is that it also has weaknesses. And can lead to abuses. And the other thing you cannot see is the lessons of history. We should learn from our past mistakes and not just mindlessly repeat them.
You seem to forget why the nation's founding fathers created a House and a Senate. We want a democracy. But we don't want mob rule either - remember the French Revolution, guillotines, mass executions?
What we want, what I want is a system that serves the interests of the governed, a system that promotes opportunity and competiton. Social stability is important, but it is a symptom - not a cure.
Above all I am a pragmatist, I am for what works. I am not for what has been proven not to work and has no rational basis for working.
It's impossible to make rational decisions/votes if you don't see and feel the consequences. The Fed has been masking those consequences for decades, and now it's going to all come crashing in. We're not going back to the "good old days". That time is gone. There is no perfect society and we shouldn't be so scared of change.
Perhaps those of us getting fat off the system, are in for a surprise?
I hope so
And, we will see
It is impossible to make rational decisions if you don't have a good understanding of the facts and history. And I am certianly not advocating that people be protected from making poor decisions. That is you creating a straw man.
I am a father, and as a father you come to a point with your children where they need to make their own mistakes. Because that is how we learn. But just because a crowd wants to run like lemmings and jump into the sea, that we have to follow.
No there is no perfect society, but we can and should learn from our previous mistakes.
No, as perviously mentioned Obama has signed into law Franks-Dodd which is designed to prevent systemic risk (similar to Glass-Stegal) and creates a blue print for dismanteling any "too big to fail" failures in the future.
Last edited:
Let me make sure I have this correct: You really think Dodd-Franks that has seriously restructured the banking system in this country? That's funny because most economists I have heard talk about it say it's weak and does little (and has pretty much already been circumvented).
In short, it does very little. The Banks are even bigger than there were. If Obama were serious he'd have broken them up. But, he's in their pocket and so of course he did next to nothing. If Glass-Stegal worked so well for so long, why not return to it? Oh, but that wouldn't due would it?
You watch when we do NOT pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Because we are not going to. We will maintain tens of thousands of military "advisers" and "trainers" and bases there forever. Or until the oil is gone. Or Iran and the oil is gone.
See, now, I should be "Liberal" or "Progressive" for wanting a complete pull back. But, somehow you want to label me Right Wing? That makes no sense. These labels make no sense. Which I was trying to convey to you.
I see the Greeks got more money. Not that it matters. As long as Greece remains in the EU they will hemorrhage jobs to Germany. It does them no favors to be in the EU. It just doesn't work for Greeks. Now, according to your logic, or so it seems, Greece must never leave the EU. Because such radical change is unthinkable. Whereas I on the other hand, think they should. Just as I think we can do better without a Central Bank. Which, it looks like a number of States are coming to a similar conclusion.
So? When can we call it a day? When will you agree the current system is never going to fix the problem (it IS the problem).
One more year? Two? Three? When? Or is it as I suspect, we get used to a new norm. One with a thinning of the middle class, with more and more poor.
I have one more question. I really wonder if you wouldn't have sided with the King during the revolutionary war. I'm nearly 100% positive that maintaining the centuries old statuesque would have suited you more so than taking a chance on mob rule. I mean, the elite were wealthy, had a long successful history, were educated, etc.... everything you would want in an unelected ruling elite.
A special report on international banking
In short, it does very little. The Banks are even bigger than there were. If Obama were serious he'd have broken them up. But, he's in their pocket and so of course he did next to nothing. If Glass-Stegal worked so well for so long, why not return to it? Oh, but that wouldn't due would it?
You watch when we do NOT pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Because we are not going to. We will maintain tens of thousands of military "advisers" and "trainers" and bases there forever. Or until the oil is gone. Or Iran and the oil is gone.
See, now, I should be "Liberal" or "Progressive" for wanting a complete pull back. But, somehow you want to label me Right Wing? That makes no sense. These labels make no sense. Which I was trying to convey to you.
I see the Greeks got more money. Not that it matters. As long as Greece remains in the EU they will hemorrhage jobs to Germany. It does them no favors to be in the EU. It just doesn't work for Greeks. Now, according to your logic, or so it seems, Greece must never leave the EU. Because such radical change is unthinkable. Whereas I on the other hand, think they should. Just as I think we can do better without a Central Bank. Which, it looks like a number of States are coming to a similar conclusion.
So? When can we call it a day? When will you agree the current system is never going to fix the problem (it IS the problem).
One more year? Two? Three? When? Or is it as I suspect, we get used to a new norm. One with a thinning of the middle class, with more and more poor.
I have one more question. I really wonder if you wouldn't have sided with the King during the revolutionary war. I'm nearly 100% positive that maintaining the centuries old statuesque would have suited you more so than taking a chance on mob rule. I mean, the elite were wealthy, had a long successful history, were educated, etc.... everything you would want in an unelected ruling elite.
A special report on international banking
Not very impressive Michael. You are referencing an unsigned article in a conservative journal. Schumpeter by the way was a failed bankrupt lawyer and banker. But for some reason a icon in the so called Austrian school.
As with any piece of legislation the measure of it's success depends heavily on how it is enforced. If it is not enforced, it will fail. We have seen what failure to enforce law leads to (e.g. George II administration).
It does very little if you believe the conspriacy theorists and the right wing blogoshere. But if it does so little as you claim, just why is it the industry is fighting the legislation tooth and nail? And if it is as you claim, why have bank stocks underperformed the maket this year? I think the banking industry and Wall Street have a very different view of Franks-Dodd than you have my friend.
Additionally, it is not about being big. It is about procedures to dismantel a "too big to fail" bank if they should fail in the future and it is about minimizing systemic risk. I was against the repeal of Glass-Stegal.
But there are those who make the arguement that Glass-Stegal makes US banks less competitive. Franks-Dodd attempts to make US banks competitive and still address the issue of integrity. Franks-Dodd gets rid of the notion of too big to fail. Because if those banks fail, they get dismanteled under Franks-Dodd. That gets back to the notion of accountability.
OK, we will watch.
OK.
Greece has a lot of problems. They lied to get into the EU. Now they are an EU liability. I really don't care about Greece. It is a European problem and they need to fix it.
I don't know what you mean in your reference to the "current system". That is a rather broad statement...an overly broad statement.
Our system of government may not survive, especially if the Tea Partiers run it into the ground. My stance is our future is ours. If we make bad decisions, we will suffer. If we make good decisions, we will prosper. It is that simple. And we should learn from our mistakes. We should not endlessly repeat them.
I find it interesting Michael, that I have been advocating some very profound change for a long time. And it seems to go over your head. The most profound thing we can do to change things in this country is to change the way we elect our officials/representatives - remove special interest money from our political process and hold our elected representatives to a code of ethics that ensures they are working for the public good and in the interests of those they are supposed to be serving...you know "we the people".
What you are advocating does nothing to change the power structure. In fact it enhances the power of the few, the elite that you have been complaining about. You know there is a reason why the multibillionaires, the Koch brothers fund Republican/Tea Party/Libertarian movement in the US?
I think you know the answer. It was a Republican congress that passed the repeal and a Democrat president who signed it into law.
But is that really germane to your arguement about the Federal Reserve? I think not. If you want real change, change the way we elect our public officials as I have been and will continue to advocate. That is real change.
I'm more than happy with cutting out special interests. Except, it won't matter. Politicians need money to run for office and "special interests" will always be there to provide that money.
Unless we do away with the first amendment.
I suggest we go back the system where the #1 majority votes is the POTUS and the #2 is the VicePOTUS. Also, we can reinstate the house at 1 member per 50000 (instead of the cap it's at now). We can divulge more and more local responsibility to direct democracy.
All sorts of things can be tried.
My point about Glass-Stegal is they're the same party. It's just a bunch of hand waving IMO. It's like the "Republic" of North Korea. Bull shit. Take Obama for example. He'd make Cheney blush.
We should have let the banks fail. Now a generation will have to pay the price.
Unless we do away with the first amendment.
I suggest we go back the system where the #1 majority votes is the POTUS and the #2 is the VicePOTUS. Also, we can reinstate the house at 1 member per 50000 (instead of the cap it's at now). We can divulge more and more local responsibility to direct democracy.
All sorts of things can be tried.
My point about Glass-Stegal is they're the same party. It's just a bunch of hand waving IMO. It's like the "Republic" of North Korea. Bull shit. Take Obama for example. He'd make Cheney blush.
We should have let the banks fail. Now a generation will have to pay the price.
Also, Banks stocks may well be down because they have a lot of bad debt and due to the Fed's incompetence and blowing the housing bubble to cover the tech bubble - everyone is tapped out.
Secondly, I don't think they are fighting anything tooth and nail. As I have read it, they're more than enough loop holes you could drive a bank through. Even one too big to fail.
The fact is you are never going to legislate away greed. The Banks need to be broken up and sold off. WE run the world's banking system and we can make any rules we want for it. Or did you forget the USD is the reserve currency? It's not that our banks are not competitive enough, I can promise you that.
Secondly, I don't think they are fighting anything tooth and nail. As I have read it, they're more than enough loop holes you could drive a bank through. Even one too big to fail.
The fact is you are never going to legislate away greed. The Banks need to be broken up and sold off. WE run the world's banking system and we can make any rules we want for it. Or did you forget the USD is the reserve currency? It's not that our banks are not competitive enough, I can promise you that.
Let voters elect the Congresspeople.
Let Congress write bills.
Let people vote on the bills that Congress writes through the TV, newspapers, internet and other publications.
Send the bill to be rewritten if it doesn't meet approval by the voters.
This way they still have a job that they are elected to do and must vote on the final bill that the public votes on that passes their judgement.
Let Congress write bills.
Let people vote on the bills that Congress writes through the TV, newspapers, internet and other publications.
Send the bill to be rewritten if it doesn't meet approval by the voters.
This way they still have a job that they are elected to do and must vote on the final bill that the public votes on that passes their judgement.
Actually bad debt write-offs have been down. Bank loan portfolio's have improved considerably. Everything affecting the banks have been improving. The big overhead on bank stocks has been Franks-Dodd. And that has been well documented.
So you are just flat out wrong here.
That is because you are paying attention to the industry spin/attempts to repeal and change the bill. I suggest paying attention to the credible press. And as previously mentioned, as with any law, it all boils down to how well the law is enforced.
There has been a lot of conflict over who heads the new agency created by Franks-Dodd. That would not be the case if the legislation had no teeth as you claim.
You are mixing stuff up again Michael and delving back into the straw man. First, no one is trying or even proposing to legislate away greed. What I did propose is to take away the influence of special interest money from our political system and that can be done - move to a system of publicly financed elections. And you can impose a system of ethics on congress. Your arguement here amounts to this, you cannot legislate away murder. So why make it illegal.
You feel that the banks should be broken up and sold off, fine. Now make a rational case for it. How will that solve our problems? And just where did you get the notion that The United States runs the global banking system? That is just another of the wild conspiracy theories popular in your political circles. There is no rational evidence for that notion.
The US dollar is the world reserve currency. But that has more to do with the political, military, and commercial power of The United States than it does to the US banking system.
Sounds good, how about we also ensure that voters are well educated and well informed so they are able to make good decisions in the voting booth?
Then just send them to private schools like the rich people can afford to do, that way everyone will be on equal grounds not on a very one sided educational system that only favors the rich.
And who pays for that education? You already have Republicans/Tea Partiers wanting to defund education in this country. And then there is the other part, ensuring that voters are well informed. How are you going to ensure they are well informed. We live in an age of misinformation (e.g. Fox News, Clear Channel Communications, limbaugh, beck, levin,et al.).