Campaign donations.

[danielpalos]

We were discussing QE.
The fed can't press the intrest rate any lower so they've resorted to QE.

QE is the equivalent of saying... The patient isn't responding fast enough to the leaches so we've decided to lacerate the wrists. Short-term economic goals are met, but we'll pay for it in the end with deflation of currency. It is stupid policy on top of already economically incompetent policy.

It is the right's version of trickle down, bail out the wealthiest first and let the rest, "trickle down".

QE has nothing to do with the right or Reagan's "supply side" economic policies. In essence, every free market economy functions on a "trickle down" principle. If you don't like that principle then you don't like free market economy. Because that's what is happening.

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money. This is used like smoke and mirrors to keep a fledgling economy from tanking. We'll pay the piper for it down the road in devaluing of the dollar. So... two or three years from now, when we're all paying $4 for a loaf of bread, you'll understand why... or no... maybe YOU won't, I'm sure you'll blame that on Bush and Republicans too.

I agree to disagree. Simply bailing out the wealthiest and letting the rest, "tickle down" is merely capitalism in action regarding the wealthiest being able to simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We were discussing QE.
The fed can't press the intrest rate any lower so they've resorted to QE.

QE is the equivalent of saying... The patient isn't responding fast enough to the leaches so we've decided to lacerate the wrists. Short-term economic goals are met, but we'll pay for it in the end with deflation of currency. It is stupid policy on top of already economically incompetent policy.

It is the right's version of trickle down, bail out the wealthiest first and let the rest, "trickle down".

QE has nothing to do with the right or Reagan's "supply side" economic policies. In essence, every free market economy functions on a "trickle down" principle. If you don't like that principle then you don't like free market economy. Because that's what is happening.

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money. This is used like smoke and mirrors to keep a fledgling economy from tanking. We'll pay the piper for it down the road in devaluing of the dollar. So... two or three years from now, when we're all paying $4 for a loaf of bread, you'll understand why... or no... maybe YOU won't, I'm sure you'll blame that on Bush and Republicans too.

I agree to disagree. Simply bailing out the wealthiest and letting the rest, "tickle down" is merely capitalism in action regarding the wealthiest being able to simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities.

Simply bailing out the wealthiest

The wealthiest? Can you be more specific?
Bailed out how? Can you be more specific?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We were discussing QE.
The fed can't press the intrest rate any lower so they've resorted to QE.

QE is the equivalent of saying... The patient isn't responding fast enough to the leaches so we've decided to lacerate the wrists. Short-term economic goals are met, but we'll pay for it in the end with deflation of currency. It is stupid policy on top of already economically incompetent policy.

It is the right's version of trickle down, bail out the wealthiest first and let the rest, "trickle down".

QE has nothing to do with the right or Reagan's "supply side" economic policies. In essence, every free market economy functions on a "trickle down" principle. If you don't like that principle then you don't like free market economy. Because that's what is happening.

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money. This is used like smoke and mirrors to keep a fledgling economy from tanking. We'll pay the piper for it down the road in devaluing of the dollar. So... two or three years from now, when we're all paying $4 for a loaf of bread, you'll understand why... or no... maybe YOU won't, I'm sure you'll blame that on Bush and Republicans too.

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money.

So why hasn't the dollar tanked?

 

[CultureCitizen]

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money.

So why hasn't the dollar tanked?

What do you mean by tanked?

Money printing causes inflation. In this case most of the money has gone into the stock exchange. Some of it has already caused inflation.
The USD hasn't devaluated because it's the reserve currency, but China and Rusia are trying to put an end to that situation

 

[CultureCitizen]

QE has nothing to do with the right or Reagan's "supply side" economic policies. In essence, every free market economy functions on a "trickle down" principle. If you don't like that principle then you don't like free market economy. Because that's what is happening.

Just a note, I don't think QE is part of the tickle down.
For the tickle down to work , entrepreneurs have to create actual companies which produce something or give a service which the society actually demands.
Exchanging faux assets by money won't really do the trick.

 

[danielpalos]

We were discussing QE.
The fed can't press the intrest rate any lower so they've resorted to QE.

QE is the equivalent of saying... The patient isn't responding fast enough to the leaches so we've decided to lacerate the wrists. Short-term economic goals are met, but we'll pay for it in the end with deflation of currency. It is stupid policy on top of already economically incompetent policy.

It is the right's version of trickle down, bail out the wealthiest first and let the rest, "trickle down".

QE has nothing to do with the right or Reagan's "supply side" economic policies. In essence, every free market economy functions on a "trickle down" principle. If you don't like that principle then you don't like free market economy. Because that's what is happening.

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money. This is used like smoke and mirrors to keep a fledgling economy from tanking. We'll pay the piper for it down the road in devaluing of the dollar. So... two or three years from now, when we're all paying $4 for a loaf of bread, you'll understand why... or no... maybe YOU won't, I'm sure you'll blame that on Bush and Republicans too.

I agree to disagree. Simply bailing out the wealthiest and letting the rest, "tickle down" is merely capitalism in action regarding the wealthiest being able to simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities.

Simply bailing out the wealthiest

The wealthiest? Can you be more specific?
Bailed out how? Can you be more specific?

QE is simply bailing out the wealthiest on the Peoples' dime.

 

[danielpalos]

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money.

So why hasn't the dollar tanked?

What do you mean by tanked?

Money printing causes inflation. In this case most of the money has gone into the stock exchange. Some of it has already caused inflation.
The USD hasn't devaluated because it's the reserve currency, but China and Rusia are trying to put an end to that situation

Price inflation can be caused by increasing risk in any given market. Isn't it wonderful for speculators.

 

[Andylusion]

QE has nothing to do with the right or Reagan's "supply side" economic policies. In essence, every free market economy functions on a "trickle down" principle. If you don't like that principle then you don't like free market economy. Because that's what is happening.

Just a note, I don't think QE is part of the tickle down.
For the tickle down to work , entrepreneurs have to create actual companies which produce something or give a service which the society actually demands.
Exchanging faux assets by money won't really do the trick.

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money.

So why hasn't the dollar tanked?

What do you mean by tanked?

Money printing causes inflation. In this case most of the money has gone into the stock exchange. Some of it has already caused inflation.
The USD hasn't devaluated because it's the reserve currency, but China and Rusia are trying to put an end to that situation

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong..... (which is often), but my understanding is a little different.

The reason QE has not resulted in the massive inflation relative to it's size, is because of the changes in bank regulations.

The Federal Reserve was buying assets off the market, some with money they had, and others with money they (printed). This placed assets on the Federal Reserve portfolio, while placing money in the banks.

However, at the exact same time, the banking regulations were changed, requiring a larger amount of capital reserve. The primary capital reserve is of course T-bills, and Federal Reserve Deposits.

Additionally, excess reserves also dramatically increased. This is because of another change in policy, specifically, the Federal Reserve paying interest on deposits.

So in both cases, as much as the Federal Reserve was pumping money into the system, the money was turning around and coming right back.

And I would agree with the other two posters, QE and trickle down, are not related in any way.

There is false theory out there, that by giving banks money, that the banks will then lend, and that will "prime the pump" in the Keynesian view, and cause the economy to grow. This is absolutely asinine. If your alcoholic brother-in-law asks to borrow $100, increasing the amount of money you have to lend, will not induce you to lend to your alchoholic brother-in-law.

Why? Bad investment. Having more money to lend to a bad investment, doesn't magically make it a good investment.

When the economy is crap, the problem isn't a lack of money to lend out. The only people who believe and promote that myth, is the banks themselves, for obvious reasons. That being, they are struggling, and "bail us out or we'll fail" isn't compelling. "Bail us out so we can lend and grow the economy" is (more) compelling.

Logically, the last thing a struggling new business start up needs, is a massive debt payment overhead.

The reality is, you can give banks trillions of dollars, as much as you can dream up, and if there are not loan worthy borrowers, they are not going to lend.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money.

So why hasn't the dollar tanked?

What do you mean by tanked?

Money printing causes inflation. In this case most of the money has gone into the stock exchange. Some of it has already caused inflation.
The USD hasn't devaluated because it's the reserve currency, but China and Rusia are trying to put an end to that situation

What do you mean by tanked?

Gone down in value.
The Fed increased their balance sheet by over 400% since the crisis.
Have prices done the same? Why not?

Money printing causes inflation.

Says who? The guys who think the Fed bought junk bonds?

China and Rusia are trying

To keep their heads above water.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

QE is the equivalent of saying... The patient isn't responding fast enough to the leaches so we've decided to lacerate the wrists. Short-term economic goals are met, but we'll pay for it in the end with deflation of currency. It is stupid policy on top of already economically incompetent policy.

It is the right's version of trickle down, bail out the wealthiest first and let the rest, "trickle down".

QE has nothing to do with the right or Reagan's "supply side" economic policies. In essence, every free market economy functions on a "trickle down" principle. If you don't like that principle then you don't like free market economy. Because that's what is happening.

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money. This is used like smoke and mirrors to keep a fledgling economy from tanking. We'll pay the piper for it down the road in devaluing of the dollar. So... two or three years from now, when we're all paying $4 for a loaf of bread, you'll understand why... or no... maybe YOU won't, I'm sure you'll blame that on Bush and Republicans too.

I agree to disagree. Simply bailing out the wealthiest and letting the rest, "tickle down" is merely capitalism in action regarding the wealthiest being able to simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities.

Simply bailing out the wealthiest

The wealthiest? Can you be more specific?
Bailed out how? Can you be more specific?

QE is simply bailing out the wealthiest on the Peoples' dime.

Yeah, you mumbled something about that already.
Any details? Or you just repeating something you heard and didn't understand?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

QE has nothing to do with the right or Reagan's "supply side" economic policies. In essence, every free market economy functions on a "trickle down" principle. If you don't like that principle then you don't like free market economy. Because that's what is happening.

Just a note, I don't think QE is part of the tickle down.
For the tickle down to work , entrepreneurs have to create actual companies which produce something or give a service which the society actually demands.
Exchanging faux assets by money won't really do the trick.

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money.

So why hasn't the dollar tanked?

What do you mean by tanked?

Money printing causes inflation. In this case most of the money has gone into the stock exchange. Some of it has already caused inflation.
The USD hasn't devaluated because it's the reserve currency, but China and Rusia are trying to put an end to that situation

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong..... (which is often), but my understanding is a little different.

The reason QE has not resulted in the massive inflation relative to it's size, is because of the changes in bank regulations.

The Federal Reserve was buying assets off the market, some with money they had, and others with money they (printed). This placed assets on the Federal Reserve portfolio, while placing money in the banks.

However, at the exact same time, the banking regulations were changed, requiring a larger amount of capital reserve. The primary capital reserve is of course T-bills, and Federal Reserve Deposits.

Additionally, excess reserves also dramatically increased. This is because of another change in policy, specifically, the Federal Reserve paying interest on deposits.

So in both cases, as much as the Federal Reserve was pumping money into the system, the money was turning around and coming right back.

And I would agree with the other two posters, QE and trickle down, are not related in any way.

There is false theory out there, that by giving banks money, that the banks will then lend, and that will "prime the pump" in the Keynesian view, and cause the economy to grow. This is absolutely asinine. If your alcoholic brother-in-law asks to borrow $100, increasing the amount of money you have to lend, will not induce you to lend to your alchoholic brother-in-law.

Why? Bad investment. Having more money to lend to a bad investment, doesn't magically make it a good investment.

When the economy is crap, the problem isn't a lack of money to lend out. The only people who believe and promote that myth, is the banks themselves, for obvious reasons. That being, they are struggling, and "bail us out or we'll fail" isn't compelling. "Bail us out so we can lend and grow the economy" is (more) compelling.

Logically, the last thing a struggling new business start up needs, is a massive debt payment overhead.

The reality is, you can give banks trillions of dollars, as much as you can dream up, and if there are not loan worthy borrowers, they are not going to lend.

Additionally, excess reserves also dramatically increased. This is because of another change in policy, specifically, the Federal Reserve paying interest on deposits.

Excess reserves would have increased with or without Fed interest payments.

There is false theory out there, that by giving banks money, that the banks will then lend, and that will "prime the pump" in the Keynesian view,

Yes, make it easier to lend. Keynesian, no. That's government spending.

However, at the exact same time, the banking regulations were changed, requiring a larger amount of capital reserve.

Yes. Assclowns like Dodd and Frank wanted to punish the banks, make it harder for them to lend, harder for them to make money. Then they whined that they weren't lending enough. LOL! Morons.

That being, they are struggling, and "bail us out or we'll fail" isn't compelling.

Massive bank failures is never a good thing. For anybody.

The reality is, you can give banks trillions of dollars,

Nobody GAVE the banks anything.
TARP for the banks were expensive loans. Long ago repaid. The US Treasury made something like $50 billion.
QE was the Fed buying bonds in exchange for cash. The Fed made huge money on these bonds.
No gift to the banks here either.

 

[g5000]

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money.

So why hasn't the dollar tanked?

First, the money printing has offset the serious deflationary effects of the economic crash.

Second, there is a race to the bottom in international currencies. The other countries are doing a "better" job at devaluing their money. We are the cleanest shirt in a pile of dirty shirts.

Third, the velocity of money has greatly slowed down since the crash. You can print ten trillion dollars, but it will have no inflationary effect if you bury it in the back yard. There is a lot of cash being hoarded right now. Once that money is dug up out of the back yard and starts to circulate, then it becomes a question of whether the Fed will be able to burn it fast enough to prevent inflation. I have serious doubts they will be able to.

In fact, I believe the US government will deliberately allow our money to inflate so as to make it easier to pay down the federal debt, at the expense of the middle class and savers. Again.

 

[g5000]

Nobody GAVE the banks anything.
TARP for the banks were expensive loans. Long ago repaid. The US Treasury made something like $50 billion.

Don t Be Fooled, There's No Profit In Bank Bailouts - Forbes

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nobody GAVE the banks anything.
TARP for the banks were expensive loans. Long ago repaid. The US Treasury made something like $50 billion.

Don t Be Fooled, There's No Profit In Bank Bailouts - Forbes

Bailout Scorecard Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

 

[danielpalos]

It is the right's version of trickle down, bail out the wealthiest first and let the rest, "trickle down".

QE has nothing to do with the right or Reagan's "supply side" economic policies. In essence, every free market economy functions on a "trickle down" principle. If you don't like that principle then you don't like free market economy. Because that's what is happening.

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money. This is used like smoke and mirrors to keep a fledgling economy from tanking. We'll pay the piper for it down the road in devaluing of the dollar. So... two or three years from now, when we're all paying $4 for a loaf of bread, you'll understand why... or no... maybe YOU won't, I'm sure you'll blame that on Bush and Republicans too.

I agree to disagree. Simply bailing out the wealthiest and letting the rest, "tickle down" is merely capitalism in action regarding the wealthiest being able to simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities.

Simply bailing out the wealthiest

The wealthiest? Can you be more specific?
Bailed out how? Can you be more specific?

QE is simply bailing out the wealthiest on the Peoples' dime.

Yeah, you mumbled something about that already.
Any details? Or you just repeating something you heard and didn't understand?

It has more to do with public policies (which constitute public Use), which the wealthiest can invest in on a for-profit basis, with their existing wealth. It is the opinion of some on the left, that promoting the general warfare cannot be a necessary and proper expense if our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates for it, simply Because, only promoting and providing for the general welfare, is specifically enumerated, should there be Any need to quibble especially in legal venues.

 

[g5000]

Nobody GAVE the banks anything.
TARP for the banks were expensive loans. Long ago repaid. The US Treasury made something like $50 billion.

Don t Be Fooled, There's No Profit In Bank Bailouts - Forbes

Bailout Scorecard Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

Does making a profit on bailing out a bankrupt drug dealer justify bailing out the drug dealer?


We bailed out criminals and frauds and incompetents.

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody GAVE the banks anything.
TARP for the banks were expensive loans. Long ago repaid. The US Treasury made something like $50 billion.

Don t Be Fooled, There's No Profit In Bank Bailouts - Forbes

Bailout Scorecard Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

Does making a profit on bailing out a bankrupt drug dealer justify bailing out the drug dealer?


We bailed out criminals and frauds and incompetents.

Isn't Capitalism wonderful when you have enough capital. Even means tested corporate welfare honors multimillion dollar bonuses.

 

[Boss]

It has more to do with public policies (which constitute public Use), which the wealthiest can invest in on a for-profit basis, with their existing wealth.

Let me straighten you out on some things here... There is no law on the books which allows wealthy people to do anything that you and I aren't also allowed to do. There is no law that restricts us but doesn't apply to the wealthiest. We don't have a caste system here, all our citizens are afforded the same rights under the constitution. We all follow the same set of laws.

Also, ANY investment is made with the anticipation and expectation of a profit. There is no such thing as non-profit investment. This does not matter if the investment is public or private. Because we do live in a system where we all follow the same set of laws, whenever you establish laws which restrict the amount of profit you can make on investments, you essentially kill all investment. You're cutting your dick off to spite your balls.

 

[danielpalos]

It has more to do with public policies (which constitute public Use), which the wealthiest can invest in on a for-profit basis, with their existing wealth.

Let me straighten you out on some things here... There is no law on the books which allows wealthy people to do anything that you and I aren't also allowed to do. There is no law that restricts us but doesn't apply to the wealthiest. We don't have a caste system here, all our citizens are afforded the same rights under the constitution. We all follow the same set of laws.

Also, ANY investment is made with the anticipation and expectation of a profit. There is no such thing as non-profit investment. This does not matter if the investment is public or private. Because we do live in a system where we all follow the same set of laws, whenever you establish laws which restrict the amount of profit you can make on investments, you essentially kill all investment. You're cutting your dick off to spite your balls.

It is about policies, public, benefiting the wealthiest the most due simply to their wealth; the right's version of "trickle down" is to bailout the wealthiest who may even retain multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare, and let the rest trickle down.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[19] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[18][19][20] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.
Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Whence even, any standing to complain about the alleged unfairness of Taxes, if no wartime tax rates are involved.

 

[Boss]

It is about policies, public, benefiting the wealthiest the most due simply to their wealth; the right's version of "trickle down" is to bailout the wealthiest who may even retain multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare, and let the rest trickle down.

Again... there is not one single solitary law on any law book in any state in the United States which applies only to the wealthy or excludes the wealthy. Now... Do people who have more money also have more potential to realize benefit? Of course, that's the value of money! If you and I go into a candy store, I have $1 and you have 50¢, I am going to realize more benefit from the store in terms of the amount of candy I can buy. That's not unfairness, that's just a fact of life. You want a system which makes my candy purchases more expensive and then use that extra to subsidise your purchases. The problem with your plan is, I am rich, I don't need to buy any candy.

As for your old tired ranting propaganda about wealth distribution and inequality.... *sigh* Let me give this analogy one more time...

Imagine that wealth acquirement is a marathon race. Now this race has all kinds of participants young and old, and from all walks of life. After all, everyone wants wealth. Some people entered in the race are marathon pros. They've been running marathons all their life. They live, eat and breathe marathons. They spend every waking hour, training, planning, working out, preparing for the next marathon. You also have the "average" person, who runs on the weekends, not a pro but more than a novice. And also entered into competition are total couch potatoes who couldn't run to the mailbox and back. So the marathon begins, and this represents the economy functioning.

It doesn't matter how long or short the marathon is, the marathon pros are going to do better than the couch potatoes, that's a given. In this particular analogy, the economy never ends so the marathon is never-ending. Each day that passes, we observe the pros outpacing the rest. This disparity will naturally grow as time goes on. There will never be the day when the couch potatoes gain ground on the pros. This is why your charts and graphs show consistently growing disparity between the wealthy and poor.

Now.... in this analogy.... What you want to do, the policies you favor with all this 1% vs. 99% rhetoric, is a system that hobbles the pro marathoner. You don't even mind hobbling the "average" runners either, you are willing to put the couch potatoes in rickshaws and have them towed by the better runners. All of this done to make the marathon "more fair" to all. However, it's like your mother always told you, life is not fair!

The better solution to wealth disparity is to train the couch potatoes. Motivate them to be better marathoners. Have programs where the pros mentor them and teach them how to succeed and win. Get them out of their rickshaws and putting one foot in front of the other on their own. They may never be able to collectively close the gap of disparity between themselves and the pros, but some of them will become pros in the process.

You see, wealth is not a finite thing. Humans create wealth through their labor, ingenuity, creativity, talent, invention, design, wisdom... the sources are infinite, really. In our free market, free enterprise capitalist system, there have been more millionaires and billionaires created than any other system ever conceived by man.

You want to replace this system with a "more fair" system, where everyone shares in the big wealth pie... The problem with your idea is this.... If we divided all the world's current wealth up, each man, woman and child would get about $12k and that would be it for the rest of your life. If you were to do this and then re-establish our current free market system of capitalism, the wealth disparity gap would be the same within 50 years. It is because wealth disparity (growing gap between most wealthy and poorest) is a natural consequence of free market capitalism.