Great Economy and Negative Rates

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

that's the plan my man

U da man for saying trumpy da man!

BAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the so-called professor....
is that the one who claimed to have the biggest or shortest penis and is a member of the said penis club?

sure....

No, no, no, no... you're thinking of StandinStraight, who is forever memorialized in two of my signature lines. I hate to admit the guy was from Pittsburgh. COG aka CuteOldGuy was from Houston, I believe. Both were self-proclaimed professors, but that's where the similarity ends. COG may have taught somewhere once, but he exaggerated his credentials. StandinStraight was 100% full of shit, a complete troll. Used mangled grammar, couldn't spell or think straight. God help us if any of our "institutions of higher learning" are ever staffed with idiots like him!

[nevergaveitathought]

COG and Cap't Midnight went round and round

and never the twain did meet

harbored wounds, suckled and nursed, remain indeed

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

No, no, no, no... you're thinking of StandinStraight, who is forever memorialized in two of my signature lines. I hate to admit the guy was from Pittsburgh. COG aka CuteOldGuy was from Houston, I believe. Both were self-proclaimed professors, but that's where the similarity ends. COG may have taught somewhere once, but he exaggerated his credentials. StandinStraight was 100% full of shit, a complete troll. Used mangled grammar, couldn't spell or think straight. God help us if any of our "institutions of higher learning" are ever staffed with idiots like him!

i didn't know which one claimed to be the so-called professor.... quite few passed this way claiming to be one.

didn't mystic claim to be a so-called professor too????

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the economy, and the stock market as well, turned on a dime the very second trump was inaugurated

the economy improved, sans tax relief and regulation reform,

Obama's growth numbers the first three years of his second term, and Trumps first three years. We won't know Trump's year 4 number for another 11 months.

Obama
1.8
2.5
2.9


Trump
2.4
2.9
2.3

Turned on a dime? Trump is doing the same GDP growth numbers that Obama did. The tax cuts have increased stock buy backs and increased the deficit BACK TO 1 TRILLION plus.

When Obama came into office Wall Street was going broke. When Trump came into office Wall street was profitable again. How fast the eccie repubtards forget.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Hey Captain, nice of you to drop in. You do know your stuff! You are talking about COG, the last two letters stood for old guy. Someone posted that it was he%lth reasons that he doesnt't post anymore. Not sure what the rules are with medical stuff. So, I am not going to say too much on that.

no. he just doesn't post here anymore. said he wasn't back in the day.



https://www.eccie.net/member.php?u=27570


been awhile since he posted in the Wichita forums



https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...74&postcount=8


his last activity was just 16 days ago


https://www.eccie.net/member.php?u=27570


just so yous know you can look this stuff up first ..

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Obama's growth numbers the first three years of his second term, and Trumps first three years. We won't know Trump's year 4 number for another 11 months.

Obama
1.8
2.5
2.9


Trump
2.4
2.9
2.3

Turned on a dime? Trump is doing the same GDP growth numbers that Obama did. The tax cuts have increased stock buy backs and increased the deficit BACK TO 1 TRILLION plus.

When Obama came into office Wall Street was going broke. When Trump came into office Wall street was profitable again. How fast the eccie repubtards forget.

there were no tax cuts when it turned on a dime

all there was was a massive sigh of relief

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Turned on a dime? Trump is doing the same GDP growth numbers that Obama did...

No, he's not.

The economy DID pick up nicely - GDP growth rose from 1.6% in 2016 to 2.4% in 2017 and 2.9% in 2018.

2.9% growth is nearly double the rate of odumbo's last year. People noticed the difference, in their employment options and their paychecks.

The data are the data. Stop twisting and deflecting.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by lustylad

The link says CDS were invented back in 1994. Again, my question is - if CDS were the proximate cause of the 2008 recession (your argument, not mine), how is everything Bush and Cheney's fault?

I did not blame all of the wall street meltdown on Bush and Cheney. I stated what the condition of the banking system and Wall street was when they left office. Republican's in general did not believe in regulations for Wall Street. They did not want a Dodd/Frank type of bill on the books at the time. Greedy bankers participating in unlawful behavior had more to do with the Wall Street meltdown than Bush and Cheney.

[nevergaveitathought]

the community reinvestment act and its attendant fear of the cries of racism (read government ala barney frank)

coupled with greed (ala the big banks and wall street, they didn't want to be stuck with these things )

allowed bundles of mortgages (filled with very iffy ones at that) to be sold as solid investments, when they weren't

when government skews markets, trouble brews

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by lustylad

The data are the data. Stop twisting and deflecting.

That's right the data is the data. This is accurate data. Obama's first three years, his second term. Trumps first three years. Trump dipped in his third year from the second year. So let's see in Jan 2021 what he does will he go up or down from 2.3 in an election year. As you stated in another post Trump only did 2.1 4th quarter 2019. You act like Obama never hit 2.9. But when Trump hits 2.9 the ecomomy is Booming.

Obama
1.8
2.5
2.9


Trump
2.4
2.9
2.3

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

That's right the data is the data. This is accurate data. Obama's first three years, his second term. Trumps first three years. Trump dipped in his third year from the second year. So let's see in Jan 2021 what he does will he go up or down from 2.3 in an election year. As you stated in another post Trump only did 2.1 4th quarter 2019. You act like Obama never hit 2.9. But when Trump hits 2.9 the ecomomy is Booming.

I never said the economy is booming. Nor did I deny any of odumbo's growth numbers. Why do you deny that GDP growth nearly doubled within 2 years after trump took office?

Are you hoping and praying for a recession? That's not a good look.

And if you really wanted to have an intelligent discussion, you would learn how to drill down and analyze what's beneath the overall GDP numbers. How much of last year's slowdown is due to tariffs and trade uncertainty? How much is due to labor shortages in today's tight job market? I could be wrong, but you don't seem as stupid as wtf. But like him, you seem incapable of putting aside your hyper-partisan biases enough to evaluate the GDP components objectively.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

COG and Cap't Midnight went round and round

and never the twain did meet

harbored wounds, suckled and nursed, remain indeed

LOL ... actually, I always thought COG seemed a decent sort, and was pretty funny at times. But, oh man, could he get exercised when anyone pointed out the sheer ridiculousness of the claims made by that little cult that went around for a few years touting a plan called the "Fair Tax."


Now, getting back to commentary on the actual thread title (which did, after all, make reference to the specter of negative interest rates):


Did anyone happen to read Ken Rogoff's 2016 book The Curse of Cash?

He argues that getting rid of large bills would benefit the economy in a variety of ways. For instance, criminals would supposedly have a more difficult time conducting illegal transactions. (Although I fail to see how it would be that much more difficult to simply tote larger suitcases full of 10s and 20s, rather than smaller bags carrying Benjamins.)


But, being the Harvard professor of public policy that he is, what he's really interested in above all else is being able to maintain enough policy space within which to impose negative rates, if so desired, on individuals and smaller savers.


Because all indications are that this idea has worked so well everywhere else.


For instance, sales of small safes shot through the roof in Japan several years ago when middle- and upper-middle-class savers didn't feel like having even a very small percentage of their hard-earned savings confiscated by the state or by the financial system. So they withdrew large amounts of cash and stuffed it under the proverbial mattress.



In Europe, according to many reports, households responded to the imposition of negative deposit rates by saving more, not less, although the intent was to stimulate consumption and thereby the economy. In fact, all indications are that the policy produced a set of results opposite of those intended.


Besides, although the Europeans and much of the rest of the world seem to want to go almost totally "cashless," who wants to do that here?


For instance, what if you know a young woman struggling with her budget -- and being a kind, generous sort, you want to help her out a bit? Do you want it to be extremely difficult for you to offer your assistance without leaving a "paper trail?"


(Not me!)



.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the community reinvestment act and its attendant fear of the cries of racism (read government ala barney frank)

coupled with greed (ala the big banks and wall street, they didn't want to be stuck with these things )

allowed bundles of mortgages (filled with very iffy ones at that) to be sold as solid investments, when they werent

Your second and third sentences or phrases, we are saying the same thing in a different way.

Now your first sentence is what i have a problem with. The gov did want to relax lending rules a little bit so that people who did not have 700 credit score or 20% down payment could still purchase a home. The government did not tell local lenders to make loans to people who were unemployed or underemployed. It did not tell the local lenders to stop doing credit checks and income verification checks. The local lenders were under pressure from Wall street banks to write mortgages. The local lender knew that they were not keeping the high risk loans they were writing. They knew that a wall street bank would buy the risky mortgage as soon as it was written. The banks were in bed with Moody's and Standard and Poors. The banks knew they were going to get a gift Triple AAA rating on all of their mortgage back securities. In return for the gift AAA rating, the bank would give the ratings company more business. A classic i scratch your back and you scratch mine. The AAA rating was the key. Investors don't buy things that are rated triple "CCC". Throw that in with everything else, the banks being deregulated with the Gram Act which was authored by Republican Phil Gram. Slick Willie Clinton signed off on it, but it was the republicans who wanted to deregulate the banks.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I could be wrong, but you don't seem as stupid as wtf. .

you're likely on firm ground here

other than in winning staring contests, now that's wtf's turf