In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 02 2014 11:39 bookwyrm wrote: Yes, im happy to see it end because im tired of waiting for the shit to hit the fan. The longer you wait, the bigger the shit. Burn baby burn
edit: oh right its just the 'permanent' open market operations that are ending. Forgive my terrible terrible ignorance
I think I know what you mean, but open market operations are used for normal monetary policy too. Those operations set the fed funds rate.
On October 02 2014 06:30 bookwyrm wrote: October is "officially" the last month of open market operations... only 10B of magic, free lunch, totally non-inflationary liquidity injections left in the punchbowl... I'm stocking up on popcorn...
any of our resident central bank cultists wanna make some reassurances about how everything is awesome and under control? I know we're all too dumb to understand the complicated math that grounds your incontrovertible opinions, but it will make us all feel better to hear you say it
here's a nice article from Pravda, I mean sorry the NYT, preparing us all for the prospect of forking over more taxpayer money to pigs - link. (and a "me too!" from that venerable mouthpiece of critical inquiry, the Economist) Nice coincidental timing on this article!
At this point? yeah, pretty much :D Being a monetary dove is pretty much like believing that Jesus is still coming back, any time now, just wait for it
But being a hawk is pretty much like trying to simultaneously run a marathon and engage in autoerotic asphyxiation
Could you explain your op? I would think that you'd be happy to see QE end (open market operations aren't ending), yet you seem to be expecting the shit to hit the fan?
Bookwyrm isn't really into "explaining what he means", because that would mean that he has a position that could be reasonably argued against. He is into throwing out oneliners which could mean pretty much whatever, but sound like they mean a lot, and as soon as someone tries to argue against that, throw out another smart-sounding substanceless oneliner, instead of actually explaining what his position is (because i highly doubt he actually has one).
On Wednesday, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter signed legislation decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana in the city.
The law, which downgrades possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana to a civil offense, goes into effect Oct. 20. While the new legislation does not legalize pot in the City of Brotherly Love, it reduces penalties stemming from possession and public use to small fines and community service.
It makes Philadelphia the largest city in the United States to decriminalize marijuana.
On October 02 2014 11:39 bookwyrm wrote: Yes, im happy to see it end because im tired of waiting for the shit to hit the fan. The longer you wait, the bigger the shit. Burn baby burn
edit: oh right its just the 'permanent' open market operations that are ending. Forgive my terrible terrible ignorance
I think I know what you mean, but open market operations are used for normal monetary policy too. Those operations set the fed funds rate.
Yes youre right. Its the 'pomo' thats ending.
The question is can draghi pick up the slack??
Draghi isn't part of the US monetary system, so him picking up the slack isn't really on the table. Best you can get is a tertiary effect - Draghi helps eurozone growth, which helps the US via trade.
Interesting that you bring up the eurozone though. The ECB and Sweden's central bank have been more hawkish than the Fed, and their economic performance has been worse.
Guys, you realize that all this recent scholarship about Depression economics that our technocrats are coming out of (Bernanke etc) is about the crucial importance of cooperation and coordination between central bankers? That these people believe that the reason the depression happened is that the central bankers weren't able to work together to smoothly manage the international monetary system? That the two lessons that Bernanke and co fervently believe that they have learned from the 30s and are hell bent on following this time are 1) must not tighten liquidity and 2) must coordinate with other central banks? You think it's a coincidence that we're finally easing up on monetizing debt when the ECB is about to begin doing precisely that? It's not a coincidence, they are passing the baton. The system is all linked together. It's not like Europe is over there and we're over here. Plus they all basically work for Goldman Sachs anyway...
Simberto - doin the best I can bro, doin the best I can. Let's see you contribute something substantive about monetary policy. turns out it's pretty fucking complicated, but the more you learn the less you trust the assholes who are in charge of it. You guys are just so confused at having an opponent from the left that you don't know what to do, you're used to just feeling superior to idiot right-wingers and that's pretty much the extent of your political consciousness
from now on, anybody who wants to make ad hominem attacks toward me has to post some substantive position of their own... it's like that guy who just responded "NO" to me and thinks he's so superior to stupid bookwyrm with no real position. Okay dudes, if that makes you feel better... Or like kwizach who's never actually posted a single real point in response to me, but just posts responses about I how I never make any real points. okay... What a bunch of hypocrites. If this were my class I would fail you. I guess this is how politics works though, just a bunch of people talking past each other and feeling superior. Because in actuality there's not a single person on this entire website who understands how modern economics work.. I know becuase there's not a single person in the entire world who understands how modern economies work... the logical conclusion of which is that we should either stop having modern economies, or stop trying to manage them (these two options may turn out to be the same)
At any rate, this time I wanna see some huge banks fail and some banksters at the guillotine. If I have to go out in the street with a pitchfork to get it. bring the rain
Julia Pierson resigned as the head of the scandal-ridden Secret Service on Wednesday, but details about her shaky tenure at the agency keep emerging.
A critical new report from The Washington Post portrays Pierson as a consistent voice for a less robust security presence around President Obama and other dignitaries. One of the most damning details: Pierson, who was "irate" at what she considered excessive security measures for this summer's U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, said that “We need to be more like Disney World. We need to be more friendly, inviting.” Pierson had worked as a Disney costumed character during high school.
In another instance, Pierson wanted to assign around 30 officers to patrol the perimeter of the White House, even though an internal report recommended 100.
The report also outlined the Secret Service's lack of morale and inability to "to fulfill its sacred mission."
Julia Pierson resigned as the head of the scandal-ridden Secret Service on Wednesday, but details about her shaky tenure at the agency keep emerging.
A critical new report from The Washington Post portrays Pierson as a consistent voice for a less robust security presence around President Obama and other dignitaries. One of the most damning details: Pierson, who was "irate" at what she considered excessive security measures for this summer's U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, said that “We need to be more like Disney World. We need to be more friendly, inviting.” Pierson had worked as a Disney costumed character during high school.
In another instance, Pierson wanted to assign around 30 officers to patrol the perimeter of the White House, even though an internal report recommended 100.
The report also outlined the Secret Service's lack of morale and inability to "to fulfill its sacred mission."
Do we know that the President definitely would have died if he only had 30 highly trained highly armed people protecting him? Cause if not she may have had a point. Why not go with "How dare they recommend the President be protected by just 100? You need at least 500! That's 5x as secure!"
Someone far more informed and experienced that us commenting on it here thought 30 would be sufficient and if your only basis for criticising that is that there are numbers higher than 30 then you should be barred from opinions.
On October 03 2014 01:30 bookwyrm wrote: Guys, you realize that all this recent scholarship about Depression economics that our technocrats are coming out of (Bernanke etc) is about the crucial importance of cooperation and coordination between central bankers? That these people believe that the reason the depression happened is that the central bankers weren't able to work together to smoothly manage the international monetary system? That the two lessons that Bernanke and co fervently believe that they have learned from the 30s and are hell bent on following this time are 1) must not tighten liquidity and 2) must coordinate with other central banks? You think it's a coincidence that we're finally easing up on monetizing debt when the ECB is about to begin doing precisely that? It's not a coincidence, they are passing the baton. The system is all linked together. It's not like Europe is over there and we're over here. Plus they all basically work for Goldman Sachs anyway...
Quasi-True statement followed by
Simberto - doin the best I can bro, doin the best I can. Let's see you contribute something substantive about monetary policy. turns out it's pretty fucking complicated, but the more you learn the less you trust the assholes who are in charge of it. You guys are just so confused at having an opponent from the left that you don't know what to do, you're used to just feeling superior to idiot right-wingers and that's pretty much the extent of your political consciousness
Insult
from now on, anybody who wants to make ad hominem attacks toward me has to post some substantive position of their own...
Followed by demand of more than you provided
it's like that guy who just responded "NO" to me and thinks he's so superior to stupid bookwyrm with no real position. Okay dudes, if that makes you feel better... Or like kwizach who's never actually posted a single real point in response to me, but just posts responses about I how I never make any real points. okay... What a bunch of hypocrites. If this were my class I would fail you.
Followed by more insults
I guess this is how politics works though, just a bunch of people talking past each other and feeling superior. Because in actuality there's not a single person on this entire website who understands how modern economics work.. I know becuase there's not a single person in the entire world who understands how modern economies work... the logical conclusion of which is that we should either stop having modern economies, or stop trying to manage them (these two options may turn out to be the same)
Followed by some vague, quasi-truthful statement and unclear recommendation.
On October 03 2014 01:30 bookwyrm wrote: Guys, you realize that all this recent scholarship about Depression economics that our technocrats are coming out of (Bernanke etc) is about the crucial importance of cooperation and coordination between central bankers? That these people believe that the reason the depression happened is that the central bankers weren't able to work together to smoothly manage the international monetary system? That the two lessons that Bernanke and co fervently believe that they have learned from the 30s and are hell bent on following this time are 1) must not tighten liquidity and 2) must coordinate with other central banks? You think it's a coincidence that we're finally easing up on monetizing debt when the ECB is about to begin doing precisely that? It's not a coincidence, they are passing the baton. The system is all linked together. It's not like Europe is over there and we're over here. Plus they all basically work for Goldman Sachs anyway...
Simberto - doin the best I can bro, doin the best I can. Let's see you contribute something substantive about monetary policy. turns out it's pretty fucking complicated, but the more you learn the less you trust the assholes who are in charge of it. You guys are just so confused at having an opponent from the left that you don't know what to do, you're used to just feeling superior to idiot right-wingers and that's pretty much the extent of your political consciousness
from now on, anybody who wants to make ad hominem attacks toward me has to post some substantive position of their own... it's like that guy who just responded "NO" to me and thinks he's so superior to stupid bookwyrm with no real position. Okay dudes, if that makes you feel better... Or like kwizach who's never actually posted a single real point in response to me, but just posts responses about I how I never make any real points. okay... What a bunch of hypocrites. If this were my class I would fail you. I guess this is how politics works though, just a bunch of people talking past each other and feeling superior. Because in actuality there's not a single person on this entire website who understands how modern economics work.. I know becuase there's not a single person in the entire world who understands how modern economies work... the logical conclusion of which is that we should either stop having modern economies, or stop trying to manage them (these two options may turn out to be the same)
At any rate, this time I wanna see some huge banks fail and some banksters at the guillotine. If I have to go out in the street with a pitchfork to get it. bring the rain
Yes central banks coordinate. You can see that more clearly when central banks, all together, lowered interest rates. The current 'passing the baton' is due to central banks de-coordinating. The policy goals aren't supported by 'passing the baton', they're supported by acting together.
Also, brush up on those open market operations. When interest rates go down the central bank is expanding the money supply, 'monetizing the debt', 'devaluing the currency', etc. QE and other special programs are just extensions of that. There's nothing particularly novel or magical about them.
Your points about the depression continue to confuse me. The economic history is that tightening the money supply in a recession is a bad idea. A point confirmed by recent history when you compare and contrast US and UK policy with ECB and Riksbanken policy. That 'lesson learned' impacts policy today. You've previously complained that econ doesn't look to history enough, yet here econ has looked very closely at history, and here you're complaining still.
On October 03 2014 01:30 bookwyrm wrote: Or like kwizach who's never actually posted a single real point in response to me, but just posts responses about I how I never make any real points. okay...
You accused QE of "debasing the currency", I responded by pointing out that inflation levels had instead remained low for the last few years (how is that not a "real point"? it directly disproves your claim), provided you with a reference dealing in detail with the rounds of QE and their impact on inflation, and asked you to explain how exactly, according to you, QE was "debasing the currency". You never answered (obviously) and went on with your uneducated (and divorced from facts) accusations towards monetary policy. Instead of whining, go educate yourself on the issues and back up your points with substance rather than... nothing.
On October 03 2014 01:46 KwarK wrote: Do we know that the President definitely would have died if he only had 30 highly trained highly armed people protecting him? Cause if not she may have had a point. Why not go with "How dare they recommend the President be protected by just 100? You need at least 500! That's 5x as secure!"
Someone far more informed and experienced that us commenting on it here thought 30 would be sufficient and if your only basis for criticising that is that there are numbers higher than 30 then you should be barred from opinions.
if their internal reports say you need 100 people to keep the White House perimeter secure at all times then trying to do it with 30 is a risk they should not be taking. Now ofc you can look at the situation and see how you can employ other measures to allow 30 to do it but thats something different.
A random bystander climbed the fence and walked through the front door of the White House. I would say that there is more going on then ignorant people shouting.
HAHA right on cue, more neener neener NO YOU from the self-appointed guardians of discursive integrity. You guys are really doing a great job of convincing me of that your position is reasonable! Thanks for explaining all these difficult concepts to me!
On October 03 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Also, brush up on those open market operations. When interest rates go down the central bank is expanding the money supply, 'monetizing the debt', 'devaluing the currency', etc. QE and other special programs are just extensions of that. There's nothing particularly novel or magical about them.
I know. That's my point! it's exactly the same as has been going on for literally thousands of years. History is full of sovereigns thinking that there are monetary solutions to real-world problems. There aren't, and it always, always ends badly. The point is that economists think that "history" means the 20th century. They need to go read their Fernand Braudel
QE is just debasing the currency in a world with fancier forms of money.
Hey kwizach and Sub40, y'all wanna explain to me how in your world it's possible to get something for nothing? Please, demonstrate how a REAL intellectual supports his points! How can QE both DO SOMETHING, and BE FREE? Since this is clearly what you believe. Or if not, please explain what, on your view, are the dangers of "unconventional monetary policy", since the dangers I have identified are obviously very stupid and ignorant
It's an established economic fact that the 'neutrality of money' holds true long term, that's why many countries in the Eurozone have emphasized the importance of structural reforms to solve the current crisis. I don't think there are a lot of people who think that the crisis was solely caused or can solely be solved by monetary policy.
On October 03 2014 02:37 Nyxisto wrote: It's an established economic fact that the 'neutrality of money' holds true long term, that's why many countries in the Eurozone have emphasized the importance of structural reforms to solve the current crisis. I don't think there are a lot of people who think that the crisis was solely caused or can solely be solved by monetary policy.
by structural reforms you mean austerity? that's not structural reform, that's just abandoning the old structural reform half-measures (social democracy) without any replacement.
our country is full of people who believe that there are magic, monetary solutions to real world problems. Like... kwizach and sub40
On October 03 2014 01:30 bookwyrm wrote: Or like kwizach who's never actually posted a single real point in response to me, but just posts responses about I how I never make any real points. okay...
You accused QE of "debasing the currency", I responded by pointing out that inflation levels had instead remained low for the last few years (how is that not a "real point"? it directly disproves your claim),
because it's not true. the inflation is just in sectors of the economy that aren't counted as "inflation..." like housing and equities. inflation is not a phenomenon that happens evenly in all sectors of the economy all at once! When you do inflationary things (like create debt ex nihilo) there will be inflation... no free lunch kids. I can't believe you've brainwashed yourself into thinking that you can do inflationary things and not get inflation. It's nuts.
and since as One Of Them pointed out, the point of the policy is to encourage banks to loan more, which WOULD be inflationary, which they aren't doing because they are just using the money to speculate and finance stock buybacks and shit like that, if the policy were having its intended effect* there WOULD be inflation in the sense of the measures that you are talking about. YOU never responded to THIS point that I made (I don't think you are going to allow yourself to understand it) so don't feel all high and mighty, son. You don't get to accuse me of not responding to your points when actually I DID respond and you just ignore my response...
the sad thing is I used to think you guys were cool and smart and stuff. but it's okay, I know that really deep down you're just scared and clinging on to whatever certainty is left to you in the world
*(supposedly intended effect, actually the intended effect is to create more wealth for rich people which is exactly what it is doing)