The Money Masters

I've already shown you that I can increase or decrease the money supply, with no input from the Fed,.

dear, for the Fed to have control it would have to supply input which is has 1 billion times more than you should it want to use it.

for the Fed to have control it would have to supply input

Yes, they have influence, much more than I do, but as I've shown, they don't have absolute control over the money supply. And they certainly don't have control over the economy.

Where do you get these silly ideas?
 
And they still can't stop me from adding to or subtracting from the money supply at the click of a button.

dear if they wanted to they could double the money supply tomorrow or cut it in half.

dear if they wanted to they could double the money supply tomorrow or cut it in half.

Dear, you keep making that claim, but never back it up with evidence. Try for once. If you can find the IQ.
 
And they still can't stop me from adding to or subtracting from the money supply at the click of a button.

dear if they wanted to they could double the money supply tomorrow or cut it in half.

Even Krugman knows they don't control money supply.

The Fed Does Not Control the Money Supply
May 6, 2015 6:37 pm May 6, 2015 6:37 pm
  • David Glasner on John Taylor; I don’t think I need to add to the pile-on. But I do think Glasner misses a point when he says that

    the quantity of money, unlike the Fed Funds rate, is not an instrument under the direct control of the Fed.

    Actually, under current conditions — in a liquidity trap — it’s not even under the indirect control of the Fed. The same impotence of conventional monetary policy that makes open-market purchases of Treasuries useless at boosting GDP also mean that broad monetary aggregates that include deposits are largely immune to Fed influence. The Fed can stuff the banks full of reserves, but at zero rates those reserves have no incentive to go anywhere, and even if they do they can sit in safes and mattresses.
This is not a new point. Back in 1998 I covered it pretty well:

Putting financial intermediation into a liquidity trap framework suggests, pace Friedman and Schwartz, that it is quite misleading to look at monetary aggregates under these circumstances: in a liquidity trap, the central bank may well find that it cannot increase broader monetary aggregates, that increments to the monetary base are simply added to reserves and currency holdings, and thus both that such aggregates are no longer valid indicators of the stance of monetary policy and that their failure to rise does not indicate that the essential problem lies in the banking sector.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/the-fed-does-not-control-the-money-supply/
 
Dear, you keep making that claim, but never back it up with evidence.

evidence?? The Fed exists to control the money supply and can do anything it wants. Do you understand??

The Fed exists to control the money supply and can do anything it wants.

The Fed would like to control the money supply, but they cannot.
They can certainly influence the money supply.
Sometimes with more success than at other times.

I understand your confusion.
 
The Fed would like to control the money supply, but they cannot.
how absurd given that Fed can do anything it wants!!

The Fed has been "targeting 2% inflation" for years now.
Why don't they simply make it happen.

dear, if they wanted that to the exclusion of many other things they could do it instantly with their unlimited powers.

dear, if they wanted that


You doubt they do?

if they wanted that to the exclusion of many other things


They can't get that.....and many other things they want?
But that's absurd, you said they have unlimited powers.
Were you wrong.......again?
 
you said they have unlimited powers.

They do, what cant they do that is vaguely related to monetary policy?

They do,

Your faith in the ability of government to accomplish their goal is sweet. Very liberal.

what cant they do that is vaguely related to monetary policy?

They've been trying to get inflation up to 2% a year, for quite some time now.
They should have listened to you and hit 2% the day after they decided on that goal.

Why are they unsuccessful, after years of trying?
 
They've been trying to get inflation up to 2% a year, for quite some time now.

dear, do you really think they forgot how they got it to 15% in 1980 or 20% in 1920???

Why isn't inflation 2%.
You said they can do stuff overnight.
It's been many years.
Why don't they do what you feel they can do?

Do you think they got it to 15% on purpose?
Wow, that's funny!
 
Do you think they got it to 15% on purpose?

dear, if they could get to 15% and 20% they can get to 2% if they really want to!! Sorry but you've backed yourself into a corner for all to see.

if they could get to 15% and 20% they can get to 2%

You act like they got to 15% on purpose. Is that your claim?

they can get to 2% if they really want to!!

So when they say they want 2%, they're lying?

And what's with calling a grown man "dear"? Unless you're an 80 year old broad or a fag, it's really weird.
 

Forum List

Back
Top