What would a liberal Federal Reserve do:

[jillian]

Methinks he meant 'IF' BO had the chance to appoint Jillian

my take is BO would appoint who the banksters tell him to

~S~

i think he did appoint someone the banks were comfortable with, whether for the sake of stability or any other reason. but he nominated bernanke to continue in the position in 2010. and using bernie sanders as the standard for barack obama is just ignorant. hence my response to the o/p.

 

[sparky]

Sanders was the one who slipped the audit into one of the bills the Congressional investigation Barney Frank chaired Jillian

Now regardless of one's political view of this action by Sanders, the association made can be further disrgarded , as i think we can all agree BO wouldn't have the nads to be as confrontational

~S~

 

[jillian]

Sanders was the one who slipped the audit into one of the bills the Congressional investigation Barney Frank chaired Jillian

Now regardless of one's political view of this action by Sanders, the association made can be further disrgarded , as i think we can all agree BO wouldn't have the nads to be as confrontational

~S~

i know re sanders. and certainly you and i are able to distinguish between obama and sanders. so we're pretty much in agreement if i read you correctly.

but i don't think it's about 'nads' in this instance. i think the president just is more conservative than the right likes to pretend. to be fair, though, i never thought the president was confrontational enough. sometimes there's just no deal to be cut and you have to risk people getting angry with you. cause if you don't, they're going to get angry with you anyway... but they won't respect you.

i say that, generally, and not with respect to this particular topic.

 

[editec]

I don't recall the GOP complaining when the FED drive the prime up to 21% under Carter, and thereby caused massive unemployment to end stagflation.

In fact the GOP didn't start bitching about the FED, then, not unil REAGAN took office and that effect was ALSO crushing his popular support

Odd that so few here can't remember that, isn't it?

 

[Oddball]

I don't recall the GOP complaining when the FED drive the prime up to 21% under Carter, and thereby caused massive unemployment to end stagflation.

In fact the GOP didn't start bitching about the FED, then, not unil REAGAN took office and that effect was ALSO crushing his popular support

Odd that so few here can't remember that, isn't it?

All Reagan did was move the shells around to replace 20+% interest and 12+% inflation with the deficits...He, like most real Keynesians (as opposed to the Marxistic neo-Keynesian flavor of today), intended this to be a temporary stopgap until the economy could be turned around and spending brought under control.

What he failed to realize is that if there's a way for politicians to seize money to buy votes, they'll find a way to do so regardless of the repercussions down the road....He also got suckered in by Tip O'Neill, who reneged on his deal to help control spending and eliminate needless and redundant bureaucracy.

And the Fed?...They don't give a shit, as long as they get their interest payment on their money-from-nothing.

One way or another, it's the American taxpayer that's going to get reamed by the socialistic welfare/warfare state.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

To find out all we have to do is ask Bernie Sanders and remember that Obama voted to the left of Sanders while in the Senate. God help us all if Obama ever got to appoint a liberal inflationist Fed Chairman.

obama DID appoint a fed chairman, youi blithering idiot. it was ben bernanke.... the same guy who worked for baby bush.

if I said he didn't I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away once again with your liberal tail between your legs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

and using bernie sanders as the standard for barack obama is just ignorant. hence my response to the o/p.

why ignorant given that BO had 2 communist parents, is for single payer, and voted to the left of Sanders??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

a liberal Fed ?

doling out bizillions to their own ilk @ % normal biz can't achieve ?

there's a world of better terms to describe this.....

~S~

if so why be afraid to tell us what they are

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not really. No economic theory, more inflammatory name calling, ... the use of metaphor in place of actual reasoning. You'd get along real well with Edward.

of course everyone who has gotten as far as college knows that monetary stimulus is artifical and so creates mal-investment or bubbles that burst and cause recessions.

 

[samjones]

everyone who has gotten as far as college knows that monetary stimulus is artifical and so creates mal-investment or bubbles that burst and cause recessions.

Nope.... quite a few of us got to and through college with the belief that monetary stimulus can provide a market for goods not yet produced..... that might be the reasoning for the "stimulus" part of the term "monetary stimulus".

 

[DSGE]

Not really. No economic theory, more inflammatory name calling, ... the use of metaphor in place of actual reasoning. You'd get along real well with Edward.

of course everyone who has gotten as far as college knows that monetary stimulus is artifical and so creates mal-investment or bubbles that burst and cause recessions.

Maybe try going to college and getting an economics degree before telling other people what "everybody who has gotten as far as college" knows?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

everyone who has gotten as far as college knows that monetary stimulus is artifical and so creates mal-investment or bubbles that burst and cause recessions.

Nope.... quite a few of us got to and through college with the belief that monetary stimulus can provide a market for goods not yet produced..... that might be the reasoning for the "stimulus" part of the term "monetary stimulus".

so then why be so afraid to tell us the basis for your liberal belief??

 

[DSGE]

everyone who has gotten as far as college knows that monetary stimulus is artifical and so creates mal-investment or bubbles that burst and cause recessions.

Nope.... quite a few of us got to and through college with the belief that monetary stimulus can provide a market for goods not yet produced..... that might be the reasoning for the "stimulus" part of the term "monetary stimulus".

so then why be so afraid to tell us the basis for your liberal belief??

You've taken Econ 101. I'm sure you're well versed in how shocks to monetary velocity that aren't offset, combined with nominal rigidities, can cause unnecessary recessions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nope.... quite a few of us got to and through college with the belief that monetary stimulus can provide a market for goods not yet produced..... that might be the reasoning for the "stimulus" part of the term "monetary stimulus".

so then why be so afraid to tell us the basis for your liberal belief??

You've taken Econ 101. I'm sure you're well versed in how shocks to monetary velocity that aren't offset, combined with nominal rigidities, can cause unnecessary recessions.

no idea what point you thought you were making. Do you have any idea??

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What it is is monetary central planner witch doctors, like those at the Fed, trying to tell us that you really can push strings.

What the **** are you talking about? You think Milton Friedman was a central planner witch doctor?

He worked with and enabled some of the greatest authoritarian economic witch doctors of all time, including FDR....In fact one of Friedman's greatest regrets is that he foisted income tax withholding upon the nation.

Unlike some, I don't consider Friedman to be an economic demi-god.

Friedman was a lead in the Chicago boys economics. Think south America...Pinochet, anyone. In other words, yes, Friedman was for central planning in monetary policy. Keynes was too. He himself said his theories would work best under authoritarian style governments. Shocker, he was right.

What most all modern day economists have in common is they believe in the control/plan model of economics. There is a concensus that economics is a hard science, when it is not. In order to prove their a priori values correct in mathematics, they must eventually succumb to controlling it all.

Economics is a human action and can not be quantified in natural science. Monetarists have some things right, but fall right into the planning trap.

 

[DSGE]

so then why be so afraid to tell us the basis for your liberal belief??

You've taken Econ 101. I'm sure you're well versed in how shocks to monetary velocity that aren't offset, combined with nominal rigidities, can cause unnecessary recessions.

no idea what point you thought you were making. Do you have any idea??

The point is that since you're so keen on telling everybody to go to college and constantly informing us of your immense understanding of Econ 101, you should know better than anybody the basis you were asking for. No point in sucking eggs.

 

[Oddball]

Nope.... quite a few of us got to and through college with the belief that monetary stimulus can provide a market for goods not yet produced..... that might be the reasoning for the "stimulus" part of the term "monetary stimulus".

so then why be so afraid to tell us the basis for your liberal belief??

You've taken Econ 101. I'm sure you're well versed in how shocks to monetary velocity that aren't offset, combined with nominal rigidities, can cause unnecessary recessions.

I sure you're well versed in the fact that you still can't push a rope.

 

[samjones]

everyone who has gotten as far as college knows that monetary stimulus is artifical and so creates mal-investment or bubbles that burst and cause recessions.

Nope.... quite a few of us got to and through college with the belief that monetary stimulus can provide a market for goods not yet produced..... that might be the reasoning for the "stimulus" part of the term "monetary stimulus".

so then why be so afraid to tell us the basis for your liberal belief??

In this case I think that I'm grounded more in a firm understanding of the English language.... monetary "stimulus" (you brought it up) - might be trying to "stimulate" something.

And, generally speaking, I believe that monetary stimulus works. You have 10 poor people and one rich person. You give each of the 10 poor people $100.00. Before you know each of those 10 poor people gets to go to work for a week and the rich person is $1,000.00 richer. That's not economic theory or liberal or conservative idealogy. That's just life.

Poor people make things. Rich people make money.

 

[DSGE]

What the **** are you talking about? You think Milton Friedman was a central planner witch doctor?

He worked with and enabled some of the greatest authoritarian economic witch doctors of all time, including FDR....In fact one of Friedman's greatest regrets is that he foisted income tax withholding upon the nation.

Unlike some, I don't consider Friedman to be an economic demi-god.

Friedman was a lead in the Chicago boys economics. Think south America...Pinochet, anyone. In other words, yes, Friedman was for central planning in monetary policy. Keynes was too. He himself said his theories would work best under authoritarian style governments. Shocker, he was right.

What most all modern day economists have in common is they believe in the control/plan model of economics. There is a concensus that economics is a hard science, when it is not. In order to prove their a priori values correct in mathematics, they must eventually succumb to controlling it all.

Economics is a human action and can not be quantified in natural science. Monetarists have some things right, but fall right into the planning trap.

Friedman wasn't for central planning at all. He ideally wanted Free Banking. The point of monetarism was that given that central banks exist, which isn't to say that they should, they should be constrained by binding rules and have any discretion taken away from them. Strange to call that being "for central planning". But that's part and parcel of the whole libertarian/anarchist internet culture. Anybody that holds opinions based on contingencies that occur in reality rather than constantly pounding the same extreme views is a "statist".

 

[Oddball]

Nope.... quite a few of us got to and through college with the belief that monetary stimulus can provide a market for goods not yet produced..... that might be the reasoning for the "stimulus" part of the term "monetary stimulus".

so then why be so afraid to tell us the basis for your liberal belief??

In this case I think that I'm grounded more in a firm understanding of the English language.... monetary "stimulus" (you brought it up) - might be trying to "stimulate" something.

And, generally speaking, I believe that monetary stimulus works. You have 10 poor people and one rich person. You give each of the 10 poor people $100.00. Before you know each of those 10 poor people gets to go to work for a week and the rich person is $1,000.00 richer. That's not economic theory or liberal or conservative idealogy. That's just life.

Poor people make things. Rich people make money.

Problem being that a significant portion of the relatively poor people might do things with their unexpected windfalls, like save or pay down credit lines, that have absolutely no "stimulative" effect.

Fact remains...You can't push a rope.