The Fed is a criminal organization that steals from the American people

[Dovahkiin]

It's what conservatives seem to love these days.. Ignore demand.

Liberals are still more clueless. Not even close.

Well, at least liberals recognize the need to boost demand . Actually, they're both pretty stupid, but at least liberals supported the stimulus/continue to support ventures that boost aggregate demand.

Well, at least liberals recognize the need to boost demand .

And completely ignore anything that would boost supply.
In fact, they actively work to reduce supply.

but at least liberals supported the stimulus/continue to support ventures that boost aggregate demand

Yes, liberals push to increase demand in the worst possible ways.

Huh? We have plenty of supply. Demand tends to lead to an increase in supply by the way, producers increase production due to new demand.
How do you propose increasing demand as of now? Low interest rates, excess reserves, what is left?

Huh? We have plenty of supply.

Sure, for instance, we have all the medical care we'd ever need.
We could spend trillions more on it and not raise the price.

College education as well. Just look at the effect of endless government dollars thrown at college tuition.
Yeah, we need the government to just throw more tax dollars at stuff, to increase demand.

When you say it out loud, you realize the stupidity of your claim.

How do you propose increasing demand as of now? Low interest rates, excess reserves, what is left?

Have low rates increased demand? How about increased regulations?

Maybe we could stop increasing capital requirements on our banks?
Our banks are ridiculously over capitalized and fear adding new loans.

Sure, for instance, we have all the medical care we'd ever need.

Probably true. Although your argument fails since I'm talking about investment/consumer spending, which is below what it needs to be for optimal growth.

Yeah, we need the government to just throw more tax dollars at stuff, to increase demand.

You assume tax dollars will be used. Did the government drain tax dollars to pay for the recent stimulus? It's called a budget deficit for a reason, spending past tax receipts.

When you say it out loud, you realize the stupidity of your claim.

No, it makes perfect sense. A voucher system to increase spending on food/other good, hell, I'm pretty sure Japan is considering this. Or reduce taxes for the poor, who spend most of their income.

Have low rates increased demand?

Well, ideally low rates encourage investment and spending. But when we already have virtually zero rates.... we can't simply lower them.

How about increased regulations?

Name specific regulations.

Maybe we could stop increasing capital requirements on our banks?

I agree.

fear adding new loans.

I'm not sure if I follow, do you want banks to start lending to people who obviously shouldn't be getting loans? Have you ever read anything from Minsky?

 

[kaz]

1) Just because I advocate going back to the gold standard doesn't mean I want to go back to the dollar value that was then. It would in fact not work, you have to set the dollar value at the total US dollar money supply / the amount of gold held by the US government. The trick then is you freeze it there

2) You actually just made the same argument that Todd's making that you're correctly refuting. How would restricting the nominal amount of money available make people not achieve pro-growth strategies? How do decreasing real values of nominal currency spur growth? It doesn't make sense

All the gold standard does is prevent the Fed from what it's doing, printing money and stealing from the American people.

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything. That's what the Fed does.

As for "I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough." Bad idea. That's what we have now. It's what allows the Fed to do what it does

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything.

Wow, what a confusing mess.
If someone drops a new pile of cash into the game and buys up all the property, that isn't devaluing everyone's property, that's inflating the price of everyone's property.

That's what the Fed does.

The Fed doesn't hand out cash. Just look at QE. They bought bonds with it.
The Monopoly equivalent would be the Fed coming in and buying some Red properties (Treasuries)
and some Railroads (MBS) to add cash to the game.

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?" It's as mentally simplistic as you get. What doesn't confuse you at this point? Look, that grass is green! Todd: What? What does that mean? it's ******* green!

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?"

In the way you reversed inflation and deflation.
In the way you think the Fed gives away money.

It's as mentally simplistic as you get.

And you still screwed it up.

still don't grasp "all else held equal," huh sparky?

You mean the demand for money must remain unchanged for your simplistic claim to be true. Durr.

That makes zero sense in terms of anything I ever said. It's just your nonsense that anyone cares that monopoly money isn't monopoly money

 

[kaz]

Liberals are still more clueless. Not even close.

Well, at least liberals recognize the need to boost demand . Actually, they're both pretty stupid, but at least liberals supported the stimulus/continue to support ventures that boost aggregate demand.

Well, at least liberals recognize the need to boost demand .

And completely ignore anything that would boost supply.
In fact, they actively work to reduce supply.

but at least liberals supported the stimulus/continue to support ventures that boost aggregate demand

Yes, liberals push to increase demand in the worst possible ways.

Huh? We have plenty of supply. Demand tends to lead to an increase in supply by the way, producers increase production due to new demand.
How do you propose increasing demand as of now? Low interest rates, excess reserves, what is left?

Boosting demand without boosting supply leads to higher prices, basic on the supply and demand curve

You assume that supply doesn't increase in relation to new demand. You also assume that we're lacking excess supply.

I'm assuming neither of those, that's just crap you're making up

 

[Dovahkiin]

Well, at least liberals recognize the need to boost demand . Actually, they're both pretty stupid, but at least liberals supported the stimulus/continue to support ventures that boost aggregate demand.

Well, at least liberals recognize the need to boost demand .

And completely ignore anything that would boost supply.
In fact, they actively work to reduce supply.

but at least liberals supported the stimulus/continue to support ventures that boost aggregate demand

Yes, liberals push to increase demand in the worst possible ways.

Huh? We have plenty of supply. Demand tends to lead to an increase in supply by the way, producers increase production due to new demand.
How do you propose increasing demand as of now? Low interest rates, excess reserves, what is left?

Boosting demand without boosting supply leads to higher prices, basic on the supply and demand curve

You assume that supply doesn't increase in relation to new demand. You also assume that we're lacking excess supply.

I'm assuming neither of those, that's just crap you're making up

You're saying supply doesn't increase with demand when plenty of resources are available? Damn, that's crazy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Liberals are still more clueless. Not even close.

Well, at least liberals recognize the need to boost demand . Actually, they're both pretty stupid, but at least liberals supported the stimulus/continue to support ventures that boost aggregate demand.

Well, at least liberals recognize the need to boost demand .

And completely ignore anything that would boost supply.
In fact, they actively work to reduce supply.

but at least liberals supported the stimulus/continue to support ventures that boost aggregate demand

Yes, liberals push to increase demand in the worst possible ways.

Huh? We have plenty of supply. Demand tends to lead to an increase in supply by the way, producers increase production due to new demand.
How do you propose increasing demand as of now? Low interest rates, excess reserves, what is left?

Huh? We have plenty of supply.

Sure, for instance, we have all the medical care we'd ever need.
We could spend trillions more on it and not raise the price.

College education as well. Just look at the effect of endless government dollars thrown at college tuition.
Yeah, we need the government to just throw more tax dollars at stuff, to increase demand.

When you say it out loud, you realize the stupidity of your claim.

How do you propose increasing demand as of now? Low interest rates, excess reserves, what is left?

Have low rates increased demand? How about increased regulations?

Maybe we could stop increasing capital requirements on our banks?
Our banks are ridiculously over capitalized and fear adding new loans.

Sure, for instance, we have all the medical care we'd ever need.

Probably true. Although your argument fails since I'm talking about investment/consumer spending, which is below what it needs to be for optimal growth.

Yeah, we need the government to just throw more tax dollars at stuff, to increase demand.

You assume tax dollars will be used. Did the government drain tax dollars to pay for the recent stimulus? It's called a budget deficit for a reason, spending past tax receipts.

When you say it out loud, you realize the stupidity of your claim.

No, it makes perfect sense. A voucher system to increase spending on food/other good, hell, I'm pretty sure Japan is considering this. Or reduce taxes for the poor, who spend most of their income.

Have low rates increased demand?

Well, ideally low rates encourage investment and spending. But when we already have virtually zero rates.... we can't simply lower them.

How about increased regulations?

Name specific regulations.

Maybe we could stop increasing capital requirements on our banks?

I agree.

fear adding new loans.

I'm not sure if I follow, do you want banks to start lending to people who obviously shouldn't be getting loans? Have you ever read anything from Minsky?

You assume tax dollars will be used. Did the government drain tax dollars to pay for the recent stimulus? It's called a budget deficit for a reason, spending past tax receipts.

Tax dollars, debt dollars, government dollars.

No, it makes perfect sense. A voucher system to increase spending on food/other good, hell, I'm pretty sure Japan is considering this. Or reduce taxes for the poor, who spend most of their income.

It would be a debacle, like boosting home ownership and throwing government trillions at college.

Name specific regulations.

Dodd Frank. Obamacare. Any of the green energy-CO2 regs Obama added.

I'm not sure if I follow,

Are capital requirements going to be raised? Trading desks restricted further?
Does uncertainty make banks want to hoard cash, or lend more?

do you want banks to start lending to people who obviously shouldn't be getting loans?

No. Do you want start-ups and small business to continue to be starved of much needed loans?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything.

Wow, what a confusing mess.
If someone drops a new pile of cash into the game and buys up all the property, that isn't devaluing everyone's property, that's inflating the price of everyone's property.

That's what the Fed does.

The Fed doesn't hand out cash. Just look at QE. They bought bonds with it.
The Monopoly equivalent would be the Fed coming in and buying some Red properties (Treasuries)
and some Railroads (MBS) to add cash to the game.

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?" It's as mentally simplistic as you get. What doesn't confuse you at this point? Look, that grass is green! Todd: What? What does that mean? it's ******* green!

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?"

In the way you reversed inflation and deflation.
In the way you think the Fed gives away money.

It's as mentally simplistic as you get.

And you still screwed it up.

still don't grasp "all else held equal," huh sparky?

You mean the demand for money must remain unchanged for your simplistic claim to be true. Durr.

That makes zero sense in terms of anything I ever said. It's just your nonsense that anyone cares that monopoly money isn't monopoly money

"all else held equal," That means demand for money remains unchanged.
If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply and demand for money increases 10%, the pencil will remain $1.00

What value was destroyed?

 

[kaz]

Well, at least liberals recognize the need to boost demand .

And completely ignore anything that would boost supply.
In fact, they actively work to reduce supply.

but at least liberals supported the stimulus/continue to support ventures that boost aggregate demand

Yes, liberals push to increase demand in the worst possible ways.

Huh? We have plenty of supply. Demand tends to lead to an increase in supply by the way, producers increase production due to new demand.
How do you propose increasing demand as of now? Low interest rates, excess reserves, what is left?

Boosting demand without boosting supply leads to higher prices, basic on the supply and demand curve

You assume that supply doesn't increase in relation to new demand. You also assume that we're lacking excess supply.

I'm assuming neither of those, that's just crap you're making up

You're saying supply doesn't increase with demand when plenty of resources are available? Damn, that's crazy.

That's stupid, the only one who said that is you. I said "all else held equal." You didn't hold all else equal, moron

 

[kaz]

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?" It's as mentally simplistic as you get. What doesn't confuse you at this point? Look, that grass is green! Todd: What? What does that mean? it's ******* green!

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?"

In the way you reversed inflation and deflation.
In the way you think the Fed gives away money.

It's as mentally simplistic as you get.

And you still screwed it up.

still don't grasp "all else held equal," huh sparky?

You mean the demand for money must remain unchanged for your simplistic claim to be true. Durr.

That makes zero sense in terms of anything I ever said. It's just your nonsense that anyone cares that monopoly money isn't monopoly money

"all else held equal," That means demand for money remains unchanged.
If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply and demand for money increases 10%, the pencil will remain $1.00

What value was destroyed?

No, that isn't what all else held equal means. You people are just silly. All else held equal means you don't count factors that would have happened anyway. I'll give you one example, but you people, geez.

You and another kid are filling a pool. They throw two bucks of water in, you throw one bucket of water in.

I say you threw in one bucked of water. You think you threw in three