Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Geez, so many of you guys are just completely clueless. You give me a $100K and I'll explain economics to you. I know that's not fucking happening but whatever. I know it's easy to talk shit to me, but why can you not put your money where your mouth is. I have the money to cover the bet. Pool your money together to give me for any bet you want to pick. I will even show you the money and prove that I will pay you.
Yeah, that's what I thought. I am about action. fuck this big mouth shit talking. Let's put money on it.
I'm sorry to those whom I have offended when I come across as arrogant. I just want these clowns to put up or shut up and it's that simple. None of these old shit talking punks have done jack shit with taking my bets because they know they'll lose.
coin
100 yen = 00.96 USD ($1.00)
500 yen = 04.80 USD ($5.00)
bank note
.1000 yen = 09.60 USD (.10.00)
.2000 yen = 19.15 USD (.20.00) (this is like the $2 U.S dollar)
.5000 yen = 47.89 USD (.50.00)
10000 yen = 95.80 USD (100.00)
Fiscal Policy is about decisions Congress makes with money it has, or doesn't have when it allows spending to go over it's budget. Monetary policy is the Fed buying or issuing bonds, to reduce or increase the money supply. Which in turn pressures interest rates to go higher or lower, depending on the objective. It hasn't been desired for higher rates, in 40 years, and then to curb inflation.
We haven't had inflation in 40 years, despite massive debt and money supply increases. The textbooks and Theorists have been saying big inflation is ''right around the corner'' since then.
That huge deficit is an accounting entry. That's it. The asset side of our balance sheet shows all the goods and services we bought with that money. The Right Wing always whines about deficits, yet they are the biggest spenders, by far.
chun train.. you're wrong that we don't have inflation. we do... its a slow motion inflation kinda of like what japan has with their currency.
Geez, so many of you guys are just completely clueless. You give me a $100K and I'll explain economics to you. I know that's not fucking happening but whatever. I know it's easy to talk shit to me, but why can you not put your money where your mouth is. I have the money to cover the bet. Pool your money together to give me for any bet you want to pick. I will even show you the money and prove that I will pay you.
Yeah, that's what I thought. I am about action. fuck this big mouth shit talking. Let's put money on it.
I'm sorry to those whom I have offended when I come across as arrogant. I just want these clowns to put up or shut up and it's that simple. None of these old shit talking punks have done jack shit with taking my bets.
blah blah blah! Let it go big shooter! Youre the only one who cares bout this crap! Why? To prove something to strangers? WE DONT BELIEVE YOUR INSECURITY RANTS! Go salt those fries luka boi!
the leftists, despite their rhetoric and slight of hand maneuvers that fool their brain-dead supporters,
will support the stock market
so in these perilous times, buy stock
that is a plan that will work until they really take over completely and the lupine arrayed as the ovine takes off the raiment and then everyone has to make an appointment just to go the grocery store
Do you know what it means when the Managing Director of the IMF warns of a "new Bretton Woods moment?" How about when the head of the BIS revels in the total surveillance power that digital currencies will afford the central bankers? Well, you're about to. Don't miss this info-packed edition of The Corbett Report podcast where James peels back the layers of the great currency reset onion and uncovers the New World (Monetary) Order.
That huge deficit is an accounting entry. That's it. The asset side of our balance sheet shows all the goods and services we bought with that money. The Right Wing always whines about deficits, yet they are the biggest spenders, by far.
Don't you think that 27 Trillion dollars is a rather large accounting entry? An accounting entry that keeps getting larger everyday.
Explain to me why it matters as anything more than a large number.
We bought goods and services with that money. We have the largest economy in the World. Many Economists think we should borrow MORE than we have been, while interest rates are super low. And by the way, your Economics textbooks from the 1970's and 1980's said it was impossible to have a large deficit and low interest rates. They got it wrong. They assumed money supply and deficit spending caused inflation. It doesn't, unless economic capacity, output, reaches a peak level. The old ''too much money chasing too few goods'' argument. They didn't understand that oil inflation was a seperate component to the complete inflation picture. Supress OPEC's influence, as we did, and inflation almost disappeared, in spite of huge money printing and deficits.
Explain to me why it matters as anything more than a large number.
We bought goods and services with that money. We have the largest economy in the World. Many Economists think we should borrow MORE than we have been, while interest rates are super low. And by the way, your Economics textbooks from the 1970's and 1980's said it was impossible to have a large deficit and low interest rates. They got it wrong. They assumed money supply and deficit spending caused inflation. It doesn't, unless economic capacity, output, reaches a peak level. The old ''too much money chasing too few goods'' argument. They didn't understand that oil inflation was a seperate component to the complete inflation picture. Supress OPEC's influence, as we did, and inflation almost disappeared, in spite of huge money printing and deficits.
I don't understand macroeconomics as well as you do. But intuitively running up large debt seems like a bad idea. And I can point to a lot of instances where countries experienced meltdowns when national debt as a % of GDP got high. It's around 100% of GDP here in the USA right now, net of debt the government owes itself. We've never been that high before except during World War II.
"The Great Krugtron," IS-LM, the velocity of money, etc...
.
The guy (Michael Snyder) who wrote the piece presented in the opening post has been writing this sort of ridiculous nonsense for at least ten years. He's always trying to get his stuff into reputable blogs and journals, mostly without success (and for good reason). The fact that he's been continually wrong all the while never seems to dissuade him from posting the same hyperinflationary warnings over and over. It seems that perhaps his main goal is to sell books on end times preparation and Christian prophecy. Apparently all this hyperinflation stuff would not trouble us if we would all just repent and accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
Has it really been 4 years since the Krugtron forecast a trump-provoked global collapse? Daayyuumm! Time flies!
Hot damn! another Krugtron post! One thing that a friend I worked with way back in the mid-'70s noted in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis was that Krugman, quite possibly the most well-known IYI economist in the land, was right about the inflation issue and invoked the old IS-LM models from long ago -- but which were valid when viewing this issue. My friend at the time was managing fixed-income portfolios for a large institution, so naturally was most interested in getting the forecasts correct.
He said ten years ago that the the fact Paul Krugman said something cannot be presented as prima facie evidence that it's wrong, even though that is the way one would normally bet. (I said, "OK, I am sooooo going to steal that line!")
Around that time, I posted this in the "Diamonds and Tuxedos" section, which was where such discussions took place, since the Political Forum hadn't been created yet:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
In my opinion, the route from QE2 to general price inflation may be somewhere between curcuitous and nonexistant, especially in an environment of continuing deleveraging with all the deflationary pressures that implies. But the route to bubble formation is not so indirect
The point is that the mechanism by which QE2 works, and how the other interventions we have seen work, were not inflationary then (with respect to consumer price inflation), and aren't now.
Just because something shows up on a Fed chart as a big spike in M2, M3, MZM, or any other monetary aggregate you might be able to think up, doesn't mean it is going to be lent or spent into the system in such fashion that inflation will necessarily arise.
If "money" just sits there in reserves somewhere in the financial system or at the Fed, it isn't going to drive inflation if it isn't active. I have sometimes spoken in terms of "demanded money" -- that is, "money" that has been borrowed or pulled from less liquid accounts in order to hold "at the ready" with an expectation of spending it soon.
As you no doubt have seen in numerous graphs put out by the Fed and others, the velocity of money has fallen precipitously since the financial crisis, and there's nothing on the horizon to suggest that it's going to significantly increase anytime soon.
I hope Michael Snyder is just as clueless about Christian prophecy as he is about the monetary system. Otherwise, we may be in a heap of trouble, for that might mean that the end times are nigh -- and ardent believers will soon be swept up in The Rapture!
Hot damn! another Krugtron post! One thing that a friend I worked with way back in the mid-'70s noted in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis was that Krugman, quite possibly the most well-known IYI economist in the land, was right about the inflation issue and invoked the old IS-LM models from long ago -- but which were valid when viewing this issue. My friend at the time was managing fixed-income portfolios for a large institution, so naturally was most interested in getting the forecasts correct.
He said ten years ago that the the fact Paul Krugman said something cannot be presented as prima facie evidence that it's wrong, even though that is the way one would normally bet. (I said, "OK, I am sooooo going to steal that line!")
I'm not versed enough in economics to fully understand this, but it's hilarious! I had to Google IYI. It means "intellectual yet idiot."
You hear Krugman on television or read his column in the New York Times, and when he opines on topics having nothing to do with economics he sounds like an idiot a lot of the time. He's highly partisan and almost always takes the position of the Democratic Party. I kind of get the impression he's even changed some of his beliefs about trade, which he knows a lot about, so they'll follow the party line more closely. Anyway it's comforting to know many economists think he's full of shit too.
The point is that the mechanism by which QE2 works, and how the other interventions we have seen work, were not inflationary then (with respect to consumer price inflation), and aren't now.
Just because something shows up on a Fed chart as a big spike in M2, M3, MZM, or any other monetary aggregate you might be able to think up, doesn't mean it is going to be lent or spent into the system in such fashion that inflation will necessarily arise.
If "money" just sits there in reserves somewhere in the financial system or at the Fed, it isn't going to drive inflation if it isn't active. I have sometimes spoken in terms of "demanded money" -- that is, "money" that has been borrowed or pulled from less liquid accounts in order to hold "at the ready" with an expectation of spending it soon.
This is probably an incredibly stupid question, but where does the Fed get the money to buy government securities? I've read that banks have to hold reserves on deposit with the Fed, and the Fed can replace those cash reserves with treasury securities. So now the Fed has cash, that it could spend to buy bonds. Is that's what's going on? I don't think it can be, because the Fed owns something like 5 trillion in government debt, up from 2.6 trillion at the start of the year, and total deposits at all banks are only 16 trillion, only some small part of which would constitute reserves. Does the Fed have to unwind the QE at some point? And if so what do you think might happen?
From 10 years ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
And one thing that has not been widely reported is that policymakers seem to be in a full-on panic over whether there's a looming collapse in demand for U.S. Treasury issuance. All you would have to see is one undersubscribed Treasury auction in order to generate panic on a par with that of the financial crisis of 2008. The IMF recently estimated that the world's wealthier nations will come to the credit markets for about $11 trillion of new issuance in 2011. Where will the demand come from? Are we just going to become virtually committed to monetizing trillions of dollars more debt?
And when and how will an exit strategy be implemented? I don't believe for a minute that we can just hang out there year after year with an expanding, multi-trillion dollar Federal Reserve balance sheet. It would destabilize the monetary system as never before.
I'm afraid this isn't going to end well.
OK, so say foreigners lose confidence in the dollar. The Chinese and the Saudis and other foreigners lose their appetite for U.S. government debt. How does this end? Do we end up with inflation? Massive devaluation of the currency? We can't repay our debt so default like Argentina? Or is something like that even plausible in the USA, given that we're so huge compared to other countries and given that the dollar is the world's reserve currency?
1:09:00
