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

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Nah, Obama pretty much sucks across the board.

 

[eflatminor]

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? Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

No support for other price controls I noticed.

No, they're a bad idea. Hypocrisy, thy name is Todd

If you really believed in centrally planned prices for money

They only control overnight rates. The others are decided by the market. It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

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..... Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises. You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed? Yea, you go there!

I think we're done here,

Run along now. And an asshole about it all too. Color me shocked.

One last thought. Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal. Even harder if you're a big government meddler that supports cronyism.

Whatever you call yourself, however you mock liberals, you're no better than they. You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

Pass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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? Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

No support for other price controls I noticed.

No, they're a bad idea. Hypocrisy, thy name is Todd

If you really believed in centrally planned prices for money

They only control overnight rates. The others are decided by the market. It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

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..... Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises. You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed? Yea, you go there!

I think we're done here,

Run along now. And an asshole about it all too. Color me shocked.

One last thought. Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal. Even harder if you're a big government meddler that supports cronyism.

Whatever you call yourself, however you mock liberals, you're no better than they. You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

Pass.

Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

None of those before the Fed?

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

It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

How does the overnight rate determine the price of a 30 year mortgage or a 10 year Treasury?


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

Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises.

Yes, when my home value increases 20% annually, that's good for me. The bank doesn't own the asset, I do.
The bank lent me the purchase price for 4%.
How does the bank now benefit from massive inflation?

You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed?

I'm suggesting your claim that the Fed "ensures constant earnings" is silly.
Just like your claim that inflation benefits lenders and bond owners.

You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

You borrow a lot of Fed Funds?

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

You're usually so much better than this. I hope it's nothing serious.

 

[eflatminor]

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? Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

No support for other price controls I noticed.

No, they're a bad idea. Hypocrisy, thy name is Todd

If you really believed in centrally planned prices for money

They only control overnight rates. The others are decided by the market. It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

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..... Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises. You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed? Yea, you go there!

I think we're done here,

Run along now. And an asshole about it all too. Color me shocked.

One last thought. Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal. Even harder if you're a big government meddler that supports cronyism.

Whatever you call yourself, however you mock liberals, you're no better than they. You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

Pass.

Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

None of those before the Fed?

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

It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

How does the overnight rate determine the price of a 30 year mortgage or a 10 year Treasury?


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

Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises.

Yes, when my home value increases 20% annually, that's good for me. The bank doesn't own the asset, I do.
The bank lent me the purchase price for 4%.
How does the bank now benefit from massive inflation?

You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed?

I'm suggesting your claim that the Fed "ensures constant earnings" is silly.
Just like your claim that inflation benefits lenders and bond owners.

You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

You borrow a lot of Fed Funds?

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

You're usually so much better than this. I hope it's nothing serious.

I think you wrong on every count. I also think it sad so called 'conservatives' argue for the same government meddling nonsense as today's liberals. More mandatory ideas because you're just sure you know what's best for everyone else. I had hoped you better than this. I was wrong.

Once again, only the libertarians stand for free markets.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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? Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

No support for other price controls I noticed.

No, they're a bad idea. Hypocrisy, thy name is Todd

If you really believed in centrally planned prices for money

They only control overnight rates. The others are decided by the market. It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

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..... Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises. You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed? Yea, you go there!

I think we're done here,

Run along now. And an asshole about it all too. Color me shocked.

One last thought. Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal. Even harder if you're a big government meddler that supports cronyism.

Whatever you call yourself, however you mock liberals, you're no better than they. You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

Pass.

Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

None of those before the Fed?

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

It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

How does the overnight rate determine the price of a 30 year mortgage or a 10 year Treasury?


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

Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises.

Yes, when my home value increases 20% annually, that's good for me. The bank doesn't own the asset, I do.
The bank lent me the purchase price for 4%.
How does the bank now benefit from massive inflation?

You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed?

I'm suggesting your claim that the Fed "ensures constant earnings" is silly.
Just like your claim that inflation benefits lenders and bond owners.

You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

You borrow a lot of Fed Funds?

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

You're usually so much better than this. I hope it's nothing serious.

I think you wrong on every count. I also think it sad so called 'conservatives' argue for the same government meddling nonsense as today's liberals. More mandatory ideas because you're just sure you know what's best for everyone else. I had hoped you better than this. I was wrong.

Once again, only the libertarians stand for free markets.

I think you wrong on every count.

Great, if only you could prove it.
Start with an easy one, how does the Fed control the rate of a 10 year Treasury and a 30 year mortgage?

 

[eflatminor]

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? Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

No support for other price controls I noticed.

No, they're a bad idea. Hypocrisy, thy name is Todd

If you really believed in centrally planned prices for money

They only control overnight rates. The others are decided by the market. It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

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..... Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises. You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed? Yea, you go there!

I think we're done here,

Run along now. And an asshole about it all too. Color me shocked.

One last thought. Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal. Even harder if you're a big government meddler that supports cronyism.

Whatever you call yourself, however you mock liberals, you're no better than they. You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

Pass.

Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

None of those before the Fed?

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

It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

How does the overnight rate determine the price of a 30 year mortgage or a 10 year Treasury?


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

Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises.

Yes, when my home value increases 20% annually, that's good for me. The bank doesn't own the asset, I do.
The bank lent me the purchase price for 4%.
How does the bank now benefit from massive inflation?

You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed?

I'm suggesting your claim that the Fed "ensures constant earnings" is silly.
Just like your claim that inflation benefits lenders and bond owners.

You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

You borrow a lot of Fed Funds?

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

You're usually so much better than this. I hope it's nothing serious.

I think you wrong on every count. I also think it sad so called 'conservatives' argue for the same government meddling nonsense as today's liberals. More mandatory ideas because you're just sure you know what's best for everyone else. I had hoped you better than this. I was wrong.

Once again, only the libertarians stand for free markets.

I think you wrong on every count.

Great, if only you could prove it.
Start with an easy one, how does the Fed control the rate of a 10 year Treasury and a 30 year mortgage?

Economics 101 my collectivist friend. All longer term rates are pegged off the overnight rate. When the latter changes, so do all rates.

Get thee to a library.

I suppose I should thank you. If there was ever a doubt that today's so called conservatives are every bit the nanny state meddlers as the left, you have removed any uncertainty. Thank goodness you know what's best for everyone.

Yea, pass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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? Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

No support for other price controls I noticed.

No, they're a bad idea. Hypocrisy, thy name is Todd

If you really believed in centrally planned prices for money

They only control overnight rates. The others are decided by the market. It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

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..... Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises. You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed? Yea, you go there!

I think we're done here,

Run along now. And an asshole about it all too. Color me shocked.

One last thought. Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal. Even harder if you're a big government meddler that supports cronyism.

Whatever you call yourself, however you mock liberals, you're no better than they. You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

Pass.

Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

None of those before the Fed?

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

It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

How does the overnight rate determine the price of a 30 year mortgage or a 10 year Treasury?


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

Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises.

Yes, when my home value increases 20% annually, that's good for me. The bank doesn't own the asset, I do.
The bank lent me the purchase price for 4%.
How does the bank now benefit from massive inflation?

You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed?

I'm suggesting your claim that the Fed "ensures constant earnings" is silly.
Just like your claim that inflation benefits lenders and bond owners.

You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

You borrow a lot of Fed Funds?

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

You're usually so much better than this. I hope it's nothing serious.

I think you wrong on every count. I also think it sad so called 'conservatives' argue for the same government meddling nonsense as today's liberals. More mandatory ideas because you're just sure you know what's best for everyone else. I had hoped you better than this. I was wrong.

Once again, only the libertarians stand for free markets.

I think you wrong on every count.

Great, if only you could prove it.
Start with an easy one, how does the Fed control the rate of a 10 year Treasury and a 30 year mortgage?

Economics 101 my collectivist friend. All longer term rates are pegged off the overnight rate. When the latter changes, so do all rates.

Get thee to a library.

I suppose I should thank you. If there was ever a doubt that today's so called conservatives are every bit the nanny state meddlers as the left, you have removed any uncertainty. Thank goodness you know what's best for everyone.

Yea, pass.

All longer term rates are pegged off the overnight rate.

Great. Show me how they're pegged. What's the relationship?

When the latter changes, so do all rates.

So the charts should look similar.
But the longer term rates have risen and fallen while the overnight rate was unchanged.
Why would they do that, if your claim was true?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

All longer term rates are pegged off the overnight rate. When the latter changes, so do all rates.

well often that has been true but don't forget Greenspan's central argument was that he had no control over long term rates; that they were controlled by world wide savings flooding into America.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I also think it sad so called 'conservatives' argue for the same government meddling nonsense as today's liberals..

its not the same meddling at all. When Ron Paul famously asked Bernanke why he didn't switch to a gold standard he said, "we run it as if we were on a gold standard". Whatever standard you have the govt is managing it but Republicans would manage it in a market oriented way while Dems would use monetary policy to create growth inflation, to create jobs, and to finance govt welfare entitlements as needed.

 

[eflatminor]

One last thought. Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal. Even harder if you're a big government meddler that supports cronyism.

Whatever you call yourself, however you mock liberals, you're no better than they. You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

Pass.

Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

None of those before the Fed?

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

It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

How does the overnight rate determine the price of a 30 year mortgage or a 10 year Treasury?


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

Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises.

Yes, when my home value increases 20% annually, that's good for me. The bank doesn't own the asset, I do.
The bank lent me the purchase price for 4%.
How does the bank now benefit from massive inflation?

You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed?

I'm suggesting your claim that the Fed "ensures constant earnings" is silly.
Just like your claim that inflation benefits lenders and bond owners.

You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

You borrow a lot of Fed Funds?

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

You're usually so much better than this. I hope it's nothing serious.

I think you wrong on every count. I also think it sad so called 'conservatives' argue for the same government meddling nonsense as today's liberals. More mandatory ideas because you're just sure you know what's best for everyone else. I had hoped you better than this. I was wrong.

Once again, only the libertarians stand for free markets.

I think you wrong on every count.

Great, if only you could prove it.
Start with an easy one, how does the Fed control the rate of a 10 year Treasury and a 30 year mortgage?

Economics 101 my collectivist friend. All longer term rates are pegged off the overnight rate. When the latter changes, so do all rates.

Get thee to a library.

I suppose I should thank you. If there was ever a doubt that today's so called conservatives are every bit the nanny state meddlers as the left, you have removed any uncertainty. Thank goodness you know what's best for everyone.

Yea, pass.

All longer term rates are pegged off the overnight rate.

Great. Show me how they're pegged. What's the relationship?

When the latter changes, so do all rates.

So the charts should look similar.
But the longer term rates have risen and fallen while the overnight rate was unchanged.
Why would they do that, if your claim was true?

Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been traveling.

Bottom line, one could argue your way (Fed control over the price of money) results in fewer economic swings but when they do happen, they're deep and prolonged (Great Depression, current recession). One could just as easily argue my way (market determines rates) results more economic swings but of less severity. We wouldn't be the first to disagree on which is better.

However, here's the big difference: Your way requires MANDATORY compliance, enforced by armed government agents. My way is completely voluntary.

And that is all the difference in the world.

Stated differently, I reject your idea that requires force to work. Free markets and free minds are in keeping with the notion of a free society. Your mandatory programs are not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Better than GIANT bubbles and the longest depressions and recessions in history.

None of those before the Fed?

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

It's the overnight rate that determines the price of money.

How does the overnight rate determine the price of a 30 year mortgage or a 10 year Treasury?


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

Asked and answered. The value of the assets upon which money is loaned rises.

Yes, when my home value increases 20% annually, that's good for me. The bank doesn't own the asset, I do.
The bank lent me the purchase price for 4%.
How does the bank now benefit from massive inflation?

You suggesting the banks don't like the Fed?

I'm suggesting your claim that the Fed "ensures constant earnings" is silly.
Just like your claim that inflation benefits lenders and bond owners.

You're both into ideas so darn good, they have to be mandatory.

You borrow a lot of Fed Funds?

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

You're usually so much better than this. I hope it's nothing serious.

I think you wrong on every count. I also think it sad so called 'conservatives' argue for the same government meddling nonsense as today's liberals. More mandatory ideas because you're just sure you know what's best for everyone else. I had hoped you better than this. I was wrong.

Once again, only the libertarians stand for free markets.

I think you wrong on every count.

Great, if only you could prove it.
Start with an easy one, how does the Fed control the rate of a 10 year Treasury and a 30 year mortgage?

Economics 101 my collectivist friend. All longer term rates are pegged off the overnight rate. When the latter changes, so do all rates.

Get thee to a library.

I suppose I should thank you. If there was ever a doubt that today's so called conservatives are every bit the nanny state meddlers as the left, you have removed any uncertainty. Thank goodness you know what's best for everyone.

Yea, pass.

All longer term rates are pegged off the overnight rate.

Great. Show me how they're pegged. What's the relationship?

When the latter changes, so do all rates.

So the charts should look similar.
But the longer term rates have risen and fallen while the overnight rate was unchanged.
Why would they do that, if your claim was true?

Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been traveling.

Bottom line, one could argue your way (Fed control over the price of money) results in fewer economic swings but when they do happen, they're deep and prolonged (Great Depression, current recession). One could just as easily argue my way (market determines rates) results more economic swings but of less severity. We wouldn't be the first to disagree on which is better.

However, here's the big difference: Your way requires MANDATORY compliance, enforced by armed government agents. My way is completely voluntary.

And that is all the difference in the world.

Stated differently, I reject your idea that requires force to work. Free markets and free minds are in keeping with the notion of a free society. Your mandatory programs are not.

but when they do happen, they're deep and prolonged (Great Depression, current recession).

The Great Depression was deep and prolonged because the Fed screwed up. The current recession was much shorter and shallower, because they didn't.
The average pre-Fed busts occurred more often and were much more severe than post-Fed busts.

One could just as easily argue my way (market determines rates) results more economic swings but of less severity

You could argue that, but history shows pre-Fed swings were more severe.

Your way requires MANDATORY compliance

You have to comply with the Fed Funds rate? Or did you mean the Discount Rate? Please explain further.
And when you get a chance, show me the precise control the Fed has over 10 year Treasuries and 30 year mortgages.

 

[Slashsnake]

The low interest rates on savings and CD's are an absolute eye sore.

To keep your emergency savings from losing value due to inflation, you have to risk it in the stock market.

Not having a savings account is a very, very dangerous idea. Everyone should have a few thousand at a minimum stashed away for emergencies. With certain banks keeping interest rates at 0.01%, they're giving the finger to customers who are trying to better their lives by building financial stability. If I'm not making $300-$500 a year on interest with $5,000 sitting in the bank, the rate is too low. I should be able to beat inflation and then some since I'm letting the bank borrow my money and that should provide a payment to me for allowing them to do so.

I don't care if the banks have to raise the minimum mortgage interest rate by 5% to put savings rates back to normal. Give loans out to people who can afford them and there wouldn't be an issue with raising interest rates.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The low interest rates on savings and CD's are an absolute eye sore.

To keep your emergency savings from losing value due to inflation, you have to risk it in the stock market.

Not having a savings account is a very, very dangerous idea. Everyone should have a few thousand at a minimum stashed away for emergencies. With certain banks keeping interest rates at 0.01%, they're giving the finger to customers who are trying to better their lives by building financial stability. If I'm not making $300-$500 a year on interest with $5,000 sitting in the bank, the rate is too low. I should be able to beat inflation and then some since I'm letting the bank borrow my money and that should provide a payment to me for allowing them to do so.

I don't care if the banks have to raise the minimum mortgage interest rate by 5% to put savings rates back to normal. Give loans out to people who can afford them and there wouldn't be an issue with raising interest rates.

If I'm not making $300-$500 a year on interest with $5,000 sitting in the bank, the rate is too low.

You think you should get 6%-10% in your bank account?

I should be able to beat inflation and then some since I'm letting the bank borrow my money and that should provide a payment to me for allowing them to do so.

Historically, risk free money barely keeps up with inflation.

I don't care if the banks have to raise the minimum mortgage interest rate by 5% to put savings rates back to normal.

LOL!

 

[Slashsnake]

Should I get 6% back on a CD? Of course, that shows signs of a healthy economy. Inflation plus 3% return.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should I get 6% back on a CD? Of course, that shows signs of a healthy economy. Inflation plus 3% return.

Why 3%? How long a CD?