The Money Masters

[Toddsterpatriot]

QE's they increased the Balance sheets by 4 Trillion to get the markets going........

we all know that dear, do you have a point???

They multiplied their balance sheet by 5 since August 2008. Has money supply been multiplied by 5 since August 2008? Have prices been multiplied by 5 since then? Why not?

Could it be that your claim was wrong? LOL! Poor low IQ, liberal Ed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Have prices been multiplied by 5 since then? Why not?

Dear, Milton Friedman taught us in the 1950's that price was a function of both quantity and velocity. Do you have the IQ to understand?

M x V=P x Q

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have prices been multiplied by 5 since then? Why not?

Dear, Milton Friedman taught us in the 1950's that price was a function of both quantity and velocity. Do you have the IQ to understand?

M x V=P x Q

Velocity is a fudge factor. No predicative value at all.

Are you going to provide proof for your claim that the Fed has absolute control over money supply?
Or should we take your word for it? That would be very liberal of you. And proof of your low IQ.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Velocity is a fudge factor. No predicative value at all.

what does that mean????

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Velocity is a fudge factor. No predicative value at all.

what does that mean????

It means it's a useless number.

Money supply divided by GDP. Why?
If velocity stayed constant, it would mean something. It doesn't. It's not.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Velocity is a fudge factor. No predicative value at all.

what does that mean????

It means it's a useless number.

Money supply divided by GDP. Why?
If velocity stayed constant, it would mean something. It doesn't. It's not.

the point was that when velocity is very low like now printing $4 trillion did not create inflation. Libertarians looked stupid when Bernanke predicted this and they predicted massive inflation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Velocity is a fudge factor. No predicative value at all.

what does that mean????

It means it's a useless number.

Money supply divided by GDP. Why?
If velocity stayed constant, it would mean something. It doesn't. It's not.

the point was that when velocity is very low like now printing $4 trillion did not create inflation. Libertarians looked stupid when Bernanke predicted this and they predicted massive inflation.

the point was that when velocity is very low

The point is, velocity is meaningless.
Why does growth of money supply have to be linked to GDP growth?
Sometime it grows faster, sometimes it grows slower.
Sometimes one grows while the other shrinks.
They aren't linked in any way that you could use to make a useful prediction.

Still waiting for you to prove the Fed has total control over money supply.
It's been months since you made the claim. Post your proof or run away like a low IQ liberal.

Maybe you'll find your proof in the Federal Reserve Act? LOL!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The point is, velocity is meaningless.

Even Friedman thought that in the 1950's because it had seemed largely constant. The Great Recession proved that it is not always constant. Libertarians learned that the hard way and now look stupid to most economists.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They aren't linked in any way that you could use to make a useful prediction.

Dear, Bernanke made a useful prediction that saved us from another Great Depression!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Still waiting for you to prove the Fed has total control over money supply.

Dear, Fed can do anything it wants to control money supply including doubling it tomorrow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They aren't linked in any way that you could use to make a useful prediction.

Dear, Bernanke made a useful prediction that saved us from another Great Depression!!

Which had nothing to do with velocity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still waiting for you to prove the Fed has total control over money supply.

Dear, Fed can do anything it wants to control money supply including doubling it tomorrow.

Dear, Fed can do anything it wants to control money supply

They can try anything, they just can't control it.

including doubling it tomorrow

They multiplied their balance sheet by 5. Did that multiply the money supply by 5?

Since you feel they have total control, what can they do to double money supply tomorrow?

Be precise.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Be precise.

why be precise when the Federal Reserve Act gives them authority to intervene anywhere they want anyway they want!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Be precise.

why be precise when the Federal Reserve Act gives them authority to intervene anywhere they want anyway they want!!

why be precise

Because you can't prove your claim. Not even a little.
Thanks for proving you were wrong (lying?)!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Be precise.

why be precise when the Federal Reserve Act gives them authority to intervene anywhere they want anyway they want!!

why be precise

Because you can't prove your claim. Not even a little.
Thanks for proving you were wrong (lying?)!

so you're saying the Fed can intervene anywhere they want, anyway they want, and to any degree they want, but that does not give them control over the money supply???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Be precise.

why be precise when the Federal Reserve Act gives them authority to intervene anywhere they want anyway they want!!

why be precise

Because you can't prove your claim. Not even a little.
Thanks for proving you were wrong (lying?)!

so you're saying the Fed can intervene anywhere they want, anyway they want, and to any degree they want, but that does not give them control over the money supply???

so you're saying the Fed can intervene anywhere they want, anyway they want, and to any degree they want, but that does not give them control over the money supply???

So you're saying that gives them absolute control over the money supply?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Be precise.

why be precise when the Federal Reserve Act gives them authority to intervene anywhere they want anyway they want!!

why be precise

Because you can't prove your claim. Not even a little.
Thanks for proving you were wrong (lying?)!

so you're saying the Fed can intervene anywhere they want, anyway they want, and to any degree they want, but that does not give them control over the money supply???

so you're saying the Fed can intervene anywhere they want, anyway they want, and to any degree they want, but that does not give them control over the money supply???

So you're saying that gives them absolute control over the money supply?

not over money supply but entire world's economy!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Be precise.

why be precise when the Federal Reserve Act gives them authority to intervene anywhere they want anyway they want!!

why be precise

Because you can't prove your claim. Not even a little.
Thanks for proving you were wrong (lying?)!

so you're saying the Fed can intervene anywhere they want, anyway they want, and to any degree they want, but that does not give them control over the money supply???

so you're saying the Fed can intervene anywhere they want, anyway they want, and to any degree they want, but that does not give them control over the money supply???

So you're saying that gives them absolute control over the money supply?

not over money supply but entire world's economy!!

So now you admit they don't have absolute control over money supply.
Why the change?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why be precise when the Federal Reserve Act gives them authority to intervene anywhere they want anyway they want!!

why be precise

Because you can't prove your claim. Not even a little.
Thanks for proving you were wrong (lying?)!

so you're saying the Fed can intervene anywhere they want, anyway they want, and to any degree they want, but that does not give them control over the money supply???

so you're saying the Fed can intervene anywhere they want, anyway they want, and to any degree they want, but that does not give them control over the money supply???

So you're saying that gives them absolute control over the money supply?

not over money supply but entire world's economy!!

So now you admit they don't have absolute control over money supply.
Why the change?

sorry meant not only do they have control over money supply but over entire economy too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

why be precise

Because you can't prove your claim. Not even a little.
Thanks for proving you were wrong (lying?)!

so you're saying the Fed can intervene anywhere they want, anyway they want, and to any degree they want, but that does not give them control over the money supply???

so you're saying the Fed can intervene anywhere they want, anyway they want, and to any degree they want, but that does not give them control over the money supply???

So you're saying that gives them absolute control over the money supply?

not over money supply but entire world's economy!!

So now you admit they don't have absolute control over money supply.
Why the change?

sorry meant not only do they have control over money supply but over entire economy too.

not only do they have control over money supply

I've already shown you that I can increase or decrease the money supply, with no input from the Fed, so why do you continue to make this silly claim?

but over entire economy too.

Is that why they're afraid a hike in the Fed Funds rate will tank the economy and/or stock market?
Because they have control?
If they had the control you imagine, we'd have 5% GDP growth and they could have hiked rates years ago.