Federal reserve vice chairman says low interest rates will be bad for US economy

[Indeependent]

HINT: Most people are NOT on the receiving end of those rolled up numbers.

Can you prove it?
Because $1.9 trillion is an awful lot of money.

And can YOU prove who's getting it?
Didn't think so.
The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets smaller and the poor get poorer.

And can YOU prove who's getting it?

Millions more employed, trillions in additional compensation.
Looks like lots of people are getting it.

The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets smaller and the poor get poorer.

The rich earning lots of wages and salary now?

Millions more employed...You must LOVE Obama.
Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.
But as a Globalist you probably have no problem with that.

Once again in reaction to your enthusiasm that EVERYONE is getting a significant Piece of the Action...
And can YOU prove who's getting it?
Didn't think so.

...You must LOVE Obama.

Obama sucks.

Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.

If that were the case, most new jobs $9.00 an hour and no raises for middle class or poor, the increase in compensation would be much, much less than $1.9 trillion since 2009.

Have someone take you out of the Nursing Home and for a tour of all the neighborhoods in Chicago where thousands of coffee pumpers are buying homes with Jumbo Mortgages.

 

[Indeependent]

HINT: Most people are NOT on the receiving end of those rolled up numbers.

Can you prove it?
Because $1.9 trillion is an awful lot of money.

And can YOU prove who's getting it?
Didn't think so.
The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets smaller and the poor get poorer.

And can YOU prove who's getting it?

Millions more employed, trillions in additional compensation.
Looks like lots of people are getting it.

The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets smaller and the poor get poorer.

The rich earning lots of wages and salary now?

Millions more employed...You must LOVE Obama.
Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.
But as a Globalist you probably have no problem with that.

Once again in reaction to your enthusiasm that EVERYONE is getting a significant Piece of the Action...
And can YOU prove who's getting it?
Didn't think so.

...You must LOVE Obama.

Obama sucks.

Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.

If that were the case, most new jobs $9.00 an hour and no raises for middle class or poor, the increase in compensation would be much, much less than $1.9 trillion since 2009.

Tell me EXACTLY how Obama sucks if EVERYONE is making MORE money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you prove it?
Because $1.9 trillion is an awful lot of money.

And can YOU prove who's getting it?
Didn't think so.
The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets smaller and the poor get poorer.

And can YOU prove who's getting it?

Millions more employed, trillions in additional compensation.
Looks like lots of people are getting it.

The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets smaller and the poor get poorer.

The rich earning lots of wages and salary now?

Millions more employed...You must LOVE Obama.
Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.
But as a Globalist you probably have no problem with that.

Once again in reaction to your enthusiasm that EVERYONE is getting a significant Piece of the Action...
And can YOU prove who's getting it?
Didn't think so.

...You must LOVE Obama.

Obama sucks.

Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.

If that were the case, most new jobs $9.00 an hour and no raises for middle class or poor, the increase in compensation would be much, much less than $1.9 trillion since 2009.

Have someone take you out of the Nursing Home and for a tour of all the neighborhoods in Chicago where thousands of coffee pumpers are buying homes with Jumbo Mortgages.

If you get some facts about the $1.9 trillion in added comp, get back to me, moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you prove it?
Because $1.9 trillion is an awful lot of money.

And can YOU prove who's getting it?
Didn't think so.
The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets smaller and the poor get poorer.

And can YOU prove who's getting it?

Millions more employed, trillions in additional compensation.
Looks like lots of people are getting it.

The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets smaller and the poor get poorer.

The rich earning lots of wages and salary now?

Millions more employed...You must LOVE Obama.
Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.
But as a Globalist you probably have no problem with that.

Once again in reaction to your enthusiasm that EVERYONE is getting a significant Piece of the Action...
And can YOU prove who's getting it?
Didn't think so.

...You must LOVE Obama.

Obama sucks.

Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.

If that were the case, most new jobs $9.00 an hour and no raises for middle class or poor, the increase in compensation would be much, much less than $1.9 trillion since 2009.

Tell me EXACTLY how Obama sucks if EVERYONE is making MORE money.

Imagine how much better we'd do without someone adding so many stupid rules and regs.

 

[Indeependent]

And can YOU prove who's getting it?
Didn't think so.
The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets smaller and the poor get poorer.

And can YOU prove who's getting it?

Millions more employed, trillions in additional compensation.
Looks like lots of people are getting it.

The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets smaller and the poor get poorer.

The rich earning lots of wages and salary now?

Millions more employed...You must LOVE Obama.
Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.
But as a Globalist you probably have no problem with that.

Once again in reaction to your enthusiasm that EVERYONE is getting a significant Piece of the Action...
And can YOU prove who's getting it?
Didn't think so.

...You must LOVE Obama.

Obama sucks.

Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.

If that were the case, most new jobs $9.00 an hour and no raises for middle class or poor, the increase in compensation would be much, much less than $1.9 trillion since 2009.

Tell me EXACTLY how Obama sucks if EVERYONE is making MORE money.

Imagine how much better we'd do without someone adding so many stupid rules and regs.

One of my favorite rules is that American companies need not hire Americans.
You must get so excited every time yet another American is replaced by a Business Visa.
But I forgot that those unemployed Americans are making MORE money than ever before.
After all, you said so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And can YOU prove who's getting it?

Millions more employed, trillions in additional compensation.
Looks like lots of people are getting it.

The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets smaller and the poor get poorer.

The rich earning lots of wages and salary now?

Millions more employed...You must LOVE Obama.
Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.
But as a Globalist you probably have no problem with that.

Once again in reaction to your enthusiasm that EVERYONE is getting a significant Piece of the Action...
And can YOU prove who's getting it?
Didn't think so.

...You must LOVE Obama.

Obama sucks.

Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.

If that were the case, most new jobs $9.00 an hour and no raises for middle class or poor, the increase in compensation would be much, much less than $1.9 trillion since 2009.

Tell me EXACTLY how Obama sucks if EVERYONE is making MORE money.

Imagine how much better we'd do without someone adding so many stupid rules and regs.

One of my favorite rules is that American companies need not hire Americans.
You must get so excited every time yet another American is replaced by a Business Visa.
But I forgot that those unemployed Americans are making MORE money than ever before.
After all, you said so.

Household Income Quintiles

 

[Indeependent]

Millions more employed...You must LOVE Obama.
Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.
But as a Globalist you probably have no problem with that.

Once again in reaction to your enthusiasm that EVERYONE is getting a significant Piece of the Action...
And can YOU prove who's getting it?
Didn't think so.

...You must LOVE Obama.

Obama sucks.

Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.

If that were the case, most new jobs $9.00 an hour and no raises for middle class or poor, the increase in compensation would be much, much less than $1.9 trillion since 2009.

Tell me EXACTLY how Obama sucks if EVERYONE is making MORE money.

Imagine how much better we'd do without someone adding so many stupid rules and regs.

One of my favorite rules is that American companies need not hire Americans.
You must get so excited every time yet another American is replaced by a Business Visa.
But I forgot that those unemployed Americans are making MORE money than ever before.
After all, you said so.

View attachment 94446

Household Income Quintiles

Quintiles = Rolled up smoke and mirrors.
All you have is statistical mirages.
Go out and meet some people sometime.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...You must LOVE Obama.

Obama sucks.

Except for the fact that most of those jobs are for $9.00/hour.

If that were the case, most new jobs $9.00 an hour and no raises for middle class or poor, the increase in compensation would be much, much less than $1.9 trillion since 2009.

Tell me EXACTLY how Obama sucks if EVERYONE is making MORE money.

Imagine how much better we'd do without someone adding so many stupid rules and regs.

One of my favorite rules is that American companies need not hire Americans.
You must get so excited every time yet another American is replaced by a Business Visa.
But I forgot that those unemployed Americans are making MORE money than ever before.
After all, you said so.

View attachment 94446

Household Income Quintiles

Quintiles = Rolled up smoke and mirrors.
All you have is statistical mirages.
Go out and meet some people sometime.

$1.9 trillion in added compensation, bah, just a few at the top.
Every quintile, increases in mean and upper limit numbers, just a mirage.

That is fucking hilarious!

Go out and meet some people sometime.

Yeah, a couple of dudes whining is much more accurate than the info I've been posting.

 

[eflatminor]

That would be counter to my understanding. Please, enlighten me. Link?

Your understanding was that prices were flat every year between 1783-1913? Seriously?
If prices drop 10% this year and rise 11.11% next year, would you consider that 0% inflation?

Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear. Allow me to restate: When looked at OVER TIME, from the founding of the country until the formation of the Fed in 1913, the AVERAGE rate of inflation was zero. Sometimes up, sometimes down, overall flat. Stated differently, a widget that cost a dollar in 1790 cost about a dollar in 1912.

Since the Fed, up about 2500%. So, a widget that cost a dollar in 1913 cost about $25 today. It's even worse if you include the prices in markets not considered in the official inflation index, like food and energy prices.

Again, the most regressive tax of the all. Meaning, it's poor people the take the brunt of the Fed's inflation.

from the founding of the country until the formation of the Fed in 1913, the AVERAGE rate of inflation was zero.

Before the Fed, price spikes and bouts of deflation. Prices were not stable.

So, a widget that cost a dollar in 1913 cost about $25 today.

Yes, holding cash for a long time is a money loser. So don't.

It's even worse if you include the prices in markets not considered in the official inflation index, like food and energy prices.

Food and energy are, and always have been, included in official inflation indexes.

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up, even during the longest economic downturn in history, which makes zero sense. The Fed prescribes this. Good for banks, bad for the people, especially poor people.

Hope that helps you.

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up,

Unstable before, unstable now. Okay.

Now how is this worse than periods of inflation followed by periods of deflation?
You don't think deflation is a good thing, do you?

That's what the Fed would have you think. YES deflation is good if that's what the market demands. Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

Regardless of the people's actual interplay of supply and demand, the Fed ensures overall prices increase no matter what. That makes no sense and more importantly, it causes constant inflation, which KILLS whatever earnings poor people bring home, thus justifying in even more meddling by governments in the form of minimum wages and an ever increasing dole.

No, central price controls cause way more problems than they solve and they do so inequitably. Banks love the Fed, which ensures constant earnings. The people pay for that privilege.

 

[eflatminor]

That would be counter to my understanding. Please, enlighten me. Link?

Your understanding was that prices were flat every year between 1783-1913? Seriously?
If prices drop 10% this year and rise 11.11% next year, would you consider that 0% inflation?

Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear. Allow me to restate: When looked at OVER TIME, from the founding of the country until the formation of the Fed in 1913, the AVERAGE rate of inflation was zero. Sometimes up, sometimes down, overall flat. Stated differently, a widget that cost a dollar in 1790 cost about a dollar in 1912.

Since the Fed, up about 2500%. So, a widget that cost a dollar in 1913 cost about $25 today. It's even worse if you include the prices in markets not considered in the official inflation index, like food and energy prices.

Again, the most regressive tax of the all. Meaning, it's poor people the take the brunt of the Fed's inflation.

from the founding of the country until the formation of the Fed in 1913, the AVERAGE rate of inflation was zero.

Before the Fed, price spikes and bouts of deflation. Prices were not stable.

So, a widget that cost a dollar in 1913 cost about $25 today.

Yes, holding cash for a long time is a money loser. So don't.

It's even worse if you include the prices in markets not considered in the official inflation index, like food and energy prices.

Food and energy are, and always have been, included in official inflation indexes.

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up, even during the longest economic downturn in history, which makes zero sense. The Fed prescribes this. Good for banks, bad for the people, especially poor people.

Hope that helps you.

You're right, the Fed is watching the stock market and adjusting policy accordingly. That's great if you are in the market, the Fed has you back. But if you're living off fixed income and in low risk assets you're going to get screwed. No doubt the Fed has eliminated a lot of short term swings in the economy, but at what cost. And our central bank is not alone in this. All major central banks are trying this and it will end badly. We just don't know when. Anybody who thinks things are just peachy better start paying attention. Read this-
Column: The monetary bubble to end all bubbles is coming

Thanks for the link.

One could definitely arguing the Fed's iron handed oversight has resulted in fewer short term economic swings, but I would remind readers of the reality that since the Fed, we've seen the longest economic downturn in the nation's history (we're living it) as well as the worst depression ever, the one we called 'great'. It wasn't so great in reality.

Then there's the ATM machine that the Fed plays for Congress. We'd NEVER have the kind of debt we do (close to $20 trillion!) without the Fed issuing debt like candy to lawmakers who now don't have to pay for their oh-so- wonderful programs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your understanding was that prices were flat every year between 1783-1913? Seriously?
If prices drop 10% this year and rise 11.11% next year, would you consider that 0% inflation?

Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear. Allow me to restate: When looked at OVER TIME, from the founding of the country until the formation of the Fed in 1913, the AVERAGE rate of inflation was zero. Sometimes up, sometimes down, overall flat. Stated differently, a widget that cost a dollar in 1790 cost about a dollar in 1912.

Since the Fed, up about 2500%. So, a widget that cost a dollar in 1913 cost about $25 today. It's even worse if you include the prices in markets not considered in the official inflation index, like food and energy prices.

Again, the most regressive tax of the all. Meaning, it's poor people the take the brunt of the Fed's inflation.

from the founding of the country until the formation of the Fed in 1913, the AVERAGE rate of inflation was zero.

Before the Fed, price spikes and bouts of deflation. Prices were not stable.

So, a widget that cost a dollar in 1913 cost about $25 today.

Yes, holding cash for a long time is a money loser. So don't.

It's even worse if you include the prices in markets not considered in the official inflation index, like food and energy prices.

Food and energy are, and always have been, included in official inflation indexes.

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up, even during the longest economic downturn in history, which makes zero sense. The Fed prescribes this. Good for banks, bad for the people, especially poor people.

Hope that helps you.

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up,

Unstable before, unstable now. Okay.

Now how is this worse than periods of inflation followed by periods of deflation?
You don't think deflation is a good thing, do you?

That's what the Fed would have you think. YES deflation is good if that's what the market demands. Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

Regardless of the people's actual interplay of supply and demand, the Fed ensures overall prices increase no matter what. That makes no sense and more importantly, it causes constant inflation, which KILLS whatever earnings poor people bring home, thus justifying in even more meddling by governments in the form of minimum wages and an ever increasing dole.

No, central price controls cause way more problems than they solve and they do so inequitably. Banks love the Fed, which ensures constant earnings. The people pay for that privilege.

Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

What you're describing is not deflation.

Banks love the Fed, which ensures constant earnings.

How does the Fed "ensure constant earnings"?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Your understanding was that prices were flat every year between 1783-1913? Seriously?
If prices drop 10% this year and rise 11.11% next year, would you consider that 0% inflation?

Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear. Allow me to restate: When looked at OVER TIME, from the founding of the country until the formation of the Fed in 1913, the AVERAGE rate of inflation was zero. Sometimes up, sometimes down, overall flat. Stated differently, a widget that cost a dollar in 1790 cost about a dollar in 1912.

Since the Fed, up about 2500%. So, a widget that cost a dollar in 1913 cost about $25 today. It's even worse if you include the prices in markets not considered in the official inflation index, like food and energy prices.

Again, the most regressive tax of the all. Meaning, it's poor people the take the brunt of the Fed's inflation.

from the founding of the country until the formation of the Fed in 1913, the AVERAGE rate of inflation was zero.

Before the Fed, price spikes and bouts of deflation. Prices were not stable.

So, a widget that cost a dollar in 1913 cost about $25 today.

Yes, holding cash for a long time is a money loser. So don't.

It's even worse if you include the prices in markets not considered in the official inflation index, like food and energy prices.

Food and energy are, and always have been, included in official inflation indexes.

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up, even during the longest economic downturn in history, which makes zero sense. The Fed prescribes this. Good for banks, bad for the people, especially poor people.

Hope that helps you.

You're right, the Fed is watching the stock market and adjusting policy accordingly. That's great if you are in the market, the Fed has you back. But if you're living off fixed income and in low risk assets you're going to get screwed. No doubt the Fed has eliminated a lot of short term swings in the economy, but at what cost. And our central bank is not alone in this. All major central banks are trying this and it will end badly. We just don't know when. Anybody who thinks things are just peachy better start paying attention. Read this-
Column: The monetary bubble to end all bubbles is coming

Thanks for the link.

One could definitely arguing the Fed's iron handed oversight has resulted in fewer short term economic swings, but I would remind readers of the reality that since the Fed, we've seen the longest economic downturn in the nation's history (we're living it) as well as the worst depression ever, the one we called 'great'. It wasn't so great in reality.

Then there's the ATM machine that the Fed plays for Congress. We'd NEVER have the kind of debt we do (close to $20 trillion!) without the Fed issuing debt like candy to lawmakers who now don't have to pay for their oh-so- wonderful programs.

Great points. The Feds tinkering can help avoid some smaller, short term downturns, but their arrogance that they can keep the economy chugging along at 2-4% and never have periods of slow or no growth leads to bigger, problems that last longer.

 

[eflatminor]

Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear. Allow me to restate: When looked at OVER TIME, from the founding of the country until the formation of the Fed in 1913, the AVERAGE rate of inflation was zero. Sometimes up, sometimes down, overall flat. Stated differently, a widget that cost a dollar in 1790 cost about a dollar in 1912.

Since the Fed, up about 2500%. So, a widget that cost a dollar in 1913 cost about $25 today. It's even worse if you include the prices in markets not considered in the official inflation index, like food and energy prices.

Again, the most regressive tax of the all. Meaning, it's poor people the take the brunt of the Fed's inflation.

from the founding of the country until the formation of the Fed in 1913, the AVERAGE rate of inflation was zero.

Before the Fed, price spikes and bouts of deflation. Prices were not stable.

So, a widget that cost a dollar in 1913 cost about $25 today.

Yes, holding cash for a long time is a money loser. So don't.

It's even worse if you include the prices in markets not considered in the official inflation index, like food and energy prices.

Food and energy are, and always have been, included in official inflation indexes.

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up, even during the longest economic downturn in history, which makes zero sense. The Fed prescribes this. Good for banks, bad for the people, especially poor people.

Hope that helps you.

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up,

Unstable before, unstable now. Okay.

Now how is this worse than periods of inflation followed by periods of deflation?
You don't think deflation is a good thing, do you?

That's what the Fed would have you think. YES deflation is good if that's what the market demands. Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

Regardless of the people's actual interplay of supply and demand, the Fed ensures overall prices increase no matter what. That makes no sense and more importantly, it causes constant inflation, which KILLS whatever earnings poor people bring home, thus justifying in even more meddling by governments in the form of minimum wages and an ever increasing dole.

No, central price controls cause way more problems than they solve and they do so inequitably. Banks love the Fed, which ensures constant earnings. The people pay for that privilege.

Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

What you're describing is not deflation.

Banks love the Fed, which ensures constant earnings.

How does the Fed "ensure constant earnings"?

Yes, it is. That's exactly what causes a reduction of the general level of prices in an economy. Well, in a free market economy anyway.

Inflation, no matter what the state of the economy, is great for those that loan money. The assets upon which they loan are going to increase in value when the Fed forces that inflation. Again, great for banks.

Tell you what, since you seem so keen on the Fed, let's talk a market other than the market for money. If you support central price controls, what other products or services shall have their prices set by central planners? Milk? Computers? How about coffee? What is the benefit you see in such meddling?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

from the founding of the country until the formation of the Fed in 1913, the AVERAGE rate of inflation was zero.

Before the Fed, price spikes and bouts of deflation. Prices were not stable.

So, a widget that cost a dollar in 1913 cost about $25 today.

Yes, holding cash for a long time is a money loser. So don't.

It's even worse if you include the prices in markets not considered in the official inflation index, like food and energy prices.

Food and energy are, and always have been, included in official inflation indexes.

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up, even during the longest economic downturn in history, which makes zero sense. The Fed prescribes this. Good for banks, bad for the people, especially poor people.

Hope that helps you.

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up,

Unstable before, unstable now. Okay.

Now how is this worse than periods of inflation followed by periods of deflation?
You don't think deflation is a good thing, do you?

That's what the Fed would have you think. YES deflation is good if that's what the market demands. Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

Regardless of the people's actual interplay of supply and demand, the Fed ensures overall prices increase no matter what. That makes no sense and more importantly, it causes constant inflation, which KILLS whatever earnings poor people bring home, thus justifying in even more meddling by governments in the form of minimum wages and an ever increasing dole.

No, central price controls cause way more problems than they solve and they do so inequitably. Banks love the Fed, which ensures constant earnings. The people pay for that privilege.

Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

What you're describing is not deflation.

Banks love the Fed, which ensures constant earnings.

How does the Fed "ensure constant earnings"?

Yes, it is. That's exactly what causes a reduction of the general level of prices in an economy. Well, in a free market economy anyway.

Inflation, no matter what the state of the economy, is great for those that loan money. The assets upon which they loan are going to increase in value when the Fed forces that inflation. Again, great for banks.

Tell you what, since you seem so keen on the Fed, let's talk a market other than the market for money. If you support central price controls, what other products or services shall have their prices set by central planners? Milk? Computers? How about coffee? What is the benefit you see in such meddling?

Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

What you're describing is not deflation.

Yes, it is. That's exactly what causes a reduction of the general level of prices in an economy.

The difference between "the price of goods and services that are in less demand" and "a reduction of the general level of prices" is where your error was.

Inflation, no matter what the state of the economy, is great for those that loan money.

Wow. I saw wow because those who loan money are harmed by inflation. They're repaid with money that is worth less than the money they lent.

The assets upon which they loan are going to increase in value when the Fed forces that inflation. Again, great for banks.

The borrower benefits from that increase. If my house increases in value because inflation is 20% a year for the next decade, is the bank going to benefit from my 4% mortgage?

Which would you prefer, a 10% rise in prices this year followed by a 10% drop in prices next year?
Or a 1% rise this year and a 1% rise next year?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Gee, how can the Fed raise rates when 98+% of the population is taking pay cuts?
HINT: It can't.

Exactly! They have been talking about 3-4 interest rate increases per year for 2 years now, and all they have managed is 1/4 point. They are trying like hell to create substantial growth but can't get there. Look at the 3 charts below. Since 2007 we have had extraordinary Fed dovishness, but only small growth. In fact Obama is the only president to not have at least 1 year of 8 to not have growth over 3%. Stock market exploded + no growth +easy money = BUBBLE.

 

[eflatminor]

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up, even during the longest economic downturn in history, which makes zero sense. The Fed prescribes this. Good for banks, bad for the people, especially poor people.

Hope that helps you.

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up,

Unstable before, unstable now. Okay.

Now how is this worse than periods of inflation followed by periods of deflation?
You don't think deflation is a good thing, do you?

That's what the Fed would have you think. YES deflation is good if that's what the market demands. Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

Regardless of the people's actual interplay of supply and demand, the Fed ensures overall prices increase no matter what. That makes no sense and more importantly, it causes constant inflation, which KILLS whatever earnings poor people bring home, thus justifying in even more meddling by governments in the form of minimum wages and an ever increasing dole.

No, central price controls cause way more problems than they solve and they do so inequitably. Banks love the Fed, which ensures constant earnings. The people pay for that privilege.

Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

What you're describing is not deflation.

Banks love the Fed, which ensures constant earnings.

How does the Fed "ensure constant earnings"?

Yes, it is. That's exactly what causes a reduction of the general level of prices in an economy. Well, in a free market economy anyway.

Inflation, no matter what the state of the economy, is great for those that loan money. The assets upon which they loan are going to increase in value when the Fed forces that inflation. Again, great for banks.

Tell you what, since you seem so keen on the Fed, let's talk a market other than the market for money. If you support central price controls, what other products or services shall have their prices set by central planners? Milk? Computers? How about coffee? What is the benefit you see in such meddling?

Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

What you're describing is not deflation.

Yes, it is. That's exactly what causes a reduction of the general level of prices in an economy.

The difference between "the price of goods and services that are in less demand" and "a reduction of the general level of prices" is where your error was.

Inflation, no matter what the state of the economy, is great for those that loan money.

Wow. I saw wow because those who loan money are harmed by inflation. They're repaid with money that is worth less than the money they lent.

The assets upon which they loan are going to increase in value when the Fed forces that inflation. Again, great for banks.

The borrower benefits from that increase. If my house increases in value because inflation is 20% a year for the next decade, is the bank going to benefit from my 4% mortgage?

Which would you prefer, a 10% rise in prices this year followed by a 10% drop in prices next year?
Or a 1% rise this year and a 1% rise next year?

What I'd prefer is that prices be determined by supply and demand, not by the allocation of central planners.

No support for other price controls I noticed. If you really believed in centrally planned prices for money, you should be able to support it for all goods and services. Interesting you don't seem to be able to do that.

I think we're done here, but you feel free to educate yourself on this issue, and how inflation actually works for banks and lenders.

Good luck.

 

[Indeependent]

Tell me EXACTLY how Obama sucks if EVERYONE is making MORE money.

Imagine how much better we'd do without someone adding so many stupid rules and regs.

One of my favorite rules is that American companies need not hire Americans.
You must get so excited every time yet another American is replaced by a Business Visa.
But I forgot that those unemployed Americans are making MORE money than ever before.
After all, you said so.

View attachment 94446

Household Income Quintiles

Quintiles = Rolled up smoke and mirrors.
All you have is statistical mirages.
Go out and meet some people sometime.

$1.9 trillion in added compensation, bah, just a few at the top.
Every quintile, increases in mean and upper limit numbers, just a mirage.

That is fucking hilarious!

Go out and meet some people sometime.

Yeah, a couple of dudes whining is much more accurate than the info I've been posting.

I get it because I know a select few people like yourself.
You are one of the select wealthy who's emotional development stopped at "I got mine, screw you."
You're all statistics and you can "prove" anything using mathematical formulas..,even lies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Prices are not stable now, they CONSTANTLY go up,

Unstable before, unstable now. Okay.

Now how is this worse than periods of inflation followed by periods of deflation?
You don't think deflation is a good thing, do you?

That's what the Fed would have you think. YES deflation is good if that's what the market demands. Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

Regardless of the people's actual interplay of supply and demand, the Fed ensures overall prices increase no matter what. That makes no sense and more importantly, it causes constant inflation, which KILLS whatever earnings poor people bring home, thus justifying in even more meddling by governments in the form of minimum wages and an ever increasing dole.

No, central price controls cause way more problems than they solve and they do so inequitably. Banks love the Fed, which ensures constant earnings. The people pay for that privilege.

Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

What you're describing is not deflation.

Banks love the Fed, which ensures constant earnings.

How does the Fed "ensure constant earnings"?

Yes, it is. That's exactly what causes a reduction of the general level of prices in an economy. Well, in a free market economy anyway.

Inflation, no matter what the state of the economy, is great for those that loan money. The assets upon which they loan are going to increase in value when the Fed forces that inflation. Again, great for banks.

Tell you what, since you seem so keen on the Fed, let's talk a market other than the market for money. If you support central price controls, what other products or services shall have their prices set by central planners? Milk? Computers? How about coffee? What is the benefit you see in such meddling?

Why shouldn't the price of goods and services that are in less demand or are over supplied over time see their prices decrease?

What you're describing is not deflation.

Yes, it is. That's exactly what causes a reduction of the general level of prices in an economy.

The difference between "the price of goods and services that are in less demand" and "a reduction of the general level of prices" is where your error was.

Inflation, no matter what the state of the economy, is great for those that loan money.

Wow. I saw wow because those who loan money are harmed by inflation. They're repaid with money that is worth less than the money they lent.

The assets upon which they loan are going to increase in value when the Fed forces that inflation. Again, great for banks.

The borrower benefits from that increase. If my house increases in value because inflation is 20% a year for the next decade, is the bank going to benefit from my 4% mortgage?

Which would you prefer, a 10% rise in prices this year followed by a 10% drop in prices next year?
Or a 1% rise this year and a 1% rise next year?

What I'd prefer is that prices be determined by supply and demand, not by the allocation of central planners.

No support for other price controls I noticed. If you really believed in centrally planned prices for money, you should be able to support it for all goods and services. Interesting you don't seem to be able to do that.

I think we're done here, but you feel free to educate yourself on this issue, and how inflation actually works for banks and lenders.

Good luck.

What I'd prefer is that prices be determined by supply and demand, not by the allocation of central planners.

And when that results in wildly unstable prices and booms and busts....oh well?

No support for other price controls I noticed.

No, they're a bad idea.

If you really believed in centrally planned prices for money

They only control overnight rates. The others are decided by the market.

feel free to educate yourself on this issue, and how inflation actually works for banks and lenders.

I noticed no answer to how the banks benefit from my mortgage when inflation jumps to 20% a year.....

I think we're done here,

Run along now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Imagine how much better we'd do without someone adding so many stupid rules and regs.

One of my favorite rules is that American companies need not hire Americans.
You must get so excited every time yet another American is replaced by a Business Visa.
But I forgot that those unemployed Americans are making MORE money than ever before.
After all, you said so.

View attachment 94446

Household Income Quintiles

Quintiles = Rolled up smoke and mirrors.
All you have is statistical mirages.
Go out and meet some people sometime.

$1.9 trillion in added compensation, bah, just a few at the top.
Every quintile, increases in mean and upper limit numbers, just a mirage.

That is fucking hilarious!

Go out and meet some people sometime.

Yeah, a couple of dudes whining is much more accurate than the info I've been posting.

I get it because I know a select few people like yourself.
You are one of the select wealthy who's emotional development stopped at "I got mine, screw you."
You're all statistics and you can "prove" anything using mathematical formulas..,even lies.

"I got mine, screw you."

That must be my attitude because I prefer actual data to a few dudes whining about their raises.

You're all statistics

And you're all feelings.

 

[Indeependent]

One of my favorite rules is that American companies need not hire Americans.
You must get so excited every time yet another American is replaced by a Business Visa.
But I forgot that those unemployed Americans are making MORE money than ever before.
After all, you said so.

View attachment 94446

Household Income Quintiles

Quintiles = Rolled up smoke and mirrors.
All you have is statistical mirages.
Go out and meet some people sometime.

$1.9 trillion in added compensation, bah, just a few at the top.
Every quintile, increases in mean and upper limit numbers, just a mirage.

That is fucking hilarious!

Go out and meet some people sometime.

Yeah, a couple of dudes whining is much more accurate than the info I've been posting.

I get it because I know a select few people like yourself.
You are one of the select wealthy who's emotional development stopped at "I got mine, screw you."
You're all statistics and you can "prove" anything using mathematical formulas..,even lies.

"I got mine, screw you."

That must be my attitude because I prefer actual data to a few dudes whining about their raises.

You're all statistics

And you're all feelings.

And you must love Obama.
Nothing like a Globalist saying everything's just fine and dandy.