ShcShc11

Completely missing the point of QE. It is to add to the money supply in the economy. Its like adding oil into your car engine so that it would work more efficiently and smoothly. Restrict monetary supply and your economy will contract. Why do you think the Euro is in such a predicament? (hopefully you can guess the correct answer than the usual myth of "debt") A very narrow view of QE. One of the goal of QE is to discourage savings; who would tend to "save the most". The rich. It also helps erode previous debts (who has the most debts? the poor). You and I have 2 tickets for babysitting each. I babysit for you twice and get your 2 tickets. I hog the tickets. What's happening in our economy? In a recession. QE is an option to fix this. Cheers!

lol small relief... More like preventing the U.S from contracting 4% in GDP / year. see CBO analyses. The QE is crucial for liquidity trap recession such as the U.S post-2008 Lehman. People will continue to deny this unfortunately. Cheers! Shc

Do you consider yourself a Keynesian? Not necessarily. I never truly liked black&white labels... (kind of like are you a "Christian" or "Atheist"). My views tend to be "Keynesian" mainly because of the economic situations caused by the 2008 events. Milton Friedman (the father of Reagan's economics) said: "If monetary policy is insufficient, then the federal spending has to reign in". Mr. Friedman is in no way seen as a "Keynesian", my views are essentially the same as his in the circumstances we are currently in. Its very clear that interest rates can't be further lowered in the U.S (bc Interest Rates can't be in the negative) so we don't really have any choice but to spend in order to "compensate" the interest rates. But people simply tend to mix up subjects like: "Are gov spending spent efficiently?" or worse "all gov spending is evil". Irrelevant subjects bc the gov has no other choice. If the Fed could lower another 3% int rate, free to use QE and depreciate the currency then gov spending is unnecessary (and I would stop advocating it). -> Canada in the 1990s are a good example of this success. They've cut spending, but they wholly compensated it with monetary policy and depreciated currency (0.6$ CND = 1$ U.S back in 1995) now in 2012, its (1$ CND = 1$ U.S). The U.S don't have these options Cheers! Shc

*The scientific community has a consensus on Global Climate change during the Bush administration 2000-20008* GOP: Will you guys stop blaming it on Bush?? You scientists just want to blame Bush! wah. Cheers! Shc

The point for QE is to have more money supply in the economy. Let's say you have 2 tickets for babysitting and I have 2 tickets too. You use your 2 tickets and I go on to babysit twice for you. I now have 4 tickets. I am keeping the 4 tickets for a "rainy day" (aka SAVING). What happens to our economy? My motivation to keep them is higher than to spend them. We are now in a recession and other people who would want to get these tickets are not getting any. That is unless someone (the central bank) issues more of these. QE makes the economy rolling (and by extension the middle and lower class). Inflation inflates DEBT as well (which helps the lower and middle class). Cheers! Shc I understand why they did the QE's and Operation Twist. I don't think they worked at all and QE 3 is not going to have the desired effect and will just make things worse. I don't think inflation helps the middle and lower classes much at all if any. I think it hurts them a lot. The decreased purchasing power is why it hurts them more. Food and other necessities become more expensive. Savings is not a bad thing as you seem to think per Keynesian economics. I think the Austrian economic view of savings makes much more sense. Look it up as I really don't have the time to try and write it out here for you. "I don't think inflation helps the middle and lower classes much at all if any. I think it hurts them a lot.'' Whether it helps them or not is not an opinion. Its a fact that inflation helps them with debt-erosion and it is also the reason why deflation is catastrophic. Deflation essentially makes debt harder to pay by extension. And I do know everything about Austrian economics. They have been wrong very often since the 2008 crisis... (''very often'' in polite wordings). Look at the 10 years bond and fact-check with what they predicted under their models in 2009. Same with the inflation. Their theories don't work. Cheers and good day

The point for QE is to have more money supply in the economy. Let's say you have 2 tickets for babysitting and I have 2 tickets too. You use your 2 tickets and I go on to babysit twice for you. I now have 4 tickets. I am keeping the 4 tickets for a "rainy day" (aka SAVING). What happens to our economy? My motivation to keep them is higher than to spend them. We are now in a recession and other people who would want to get these tickets are not getting any. That is unless someone (the central bank) issues more of these. QE makes the economy rolling (and by extension the middle and lower class). Inflation inflates DEBT as well (which helps the lower and middle class). Cheers! Shc

Its wrong to say its "neither inferior or superior"- its nice to sound neutral but historical and present events are showing that though it can sound "ok in theory", it can be pretty catastrophic. Whether it is with the U.K or the U.S of the 1920s or "simulations of a gold standard" such as 1934 Nazi Germany (where they had only ONE WEEK worth of FX currency reserve) or the 2008 Euro-crisis, it is not worth to sacrifice the ability to control money supply in order to stem an inflation that is not even happening ("imaginary inflation"). Cheers! Shc

Quite sad they've stooped this low in economics. ...and somehow unable to recognize the Euro-monetary system is in essence under a guise similar to the gold system (one of the main reasons why it is failing). Cheers! Shc

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/07/google-announces-support-same-sex-marriage_n_1656680.html

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3D6NMr2VrhmFI

Are you missing the 'legitamate rape' part, where the clear insinuation is that women lie about being raped? That's the worst part of it for me. Not his blatant lack of education in biology (which he did later admit to), but what his statement says about victims of violence.... which he later reinforced by saying that he meant 'forcible rape'....as opposed to any other kind? Maybe he truly believes that... but its unclear if he does based on what he said. It seems blatant that the guy just chose poor wordings (we all do). This is the same as: -Obama's "you didn't build this company" (which he meant that America is there to build it WITH you) or -Romney's "I like firing people" (I want you to have options). I much rather focus on their actions (e.g: Ryans senate votes on abortion) than random snipets. Always be wary of people using quotes whether it is in the media or in documentaries. I remember there was a G.W Bush quote that 9-11 conspiratists used that went along the line of: "Before the American people realized what happened, I will be long dead" (again used out of context). Anyway, cheers. wish you all a legitimate nice week

In all honesty, his main point was: "We should protect the child, punish the rapist and give support to the woman. Don't take away the child's life just because of what the rapist did" His biological knowledge about the female body is obviously wrong though it wasn't the justification for making abortion illegal. His wordings were obviously extremely poor, but the media definitely twist it in a way to give shock&awe. (I am not defending Akin as I am pro-abortion on this topic but I did want to point out that the media/PR are trying to deceive us with snipets comments) Cheers! Shc

lol. A lot of excuses you're giving for a man you don't seem to have much clue about. Read my posts again. His analysis was wrong. His basic premise was that if the U.S has a massive increase in the monetary base and continue running trillion-dollar deficit, we're going to see skyrocketing 10-years bonds and inflation. We said that wouldn't happen in a zero-bound economy. His conditions are met and bonds are at a historical low. There's a problem with his analysis my friend. Tell me what is happening with the PIIGS and we'l have a real discussion and/or debate on it. You can start with the challenges posed by having a monetary union without fiscal union or political union. or we can talk about Texas of the 1980s. A 125B$ cleanup by U.S taxpayers for Texas banking fuck-up http://fcx.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/banking/2000dec/brv13n2_2.pdf In a state with a GDP of 290B$ in the 1980s, a 125B$ (1980 value) is astronomical. And there's a Euro lesson that's been overlooked from the Texas experience... But my guess is... you'l probably just shy away from the debate. Cheers!

Not at all- I would be happy to talk about Second World War era including Germany's economy 1928-1945 if you are curious about it. There's absolutely nothing grey about the things he asserted over the years- in writing and when he was on television. Saying U.S 10 years-bond would "skyrocket to at least 6-7%" and you end up with U.S 10 years bond at 1.625% ... I don't know how clearer you can get. And this has real-world effects: People from other countries are willing to PAY the U.S to borrow THEIR money. And here we are still talking about debt and bring up false analogies of "U.S raking up credit card debt". Economics is "grey" to people who don't understand it or unwilling to. Its a little lazy to declare Godwin's Law whenever someone mentions the word "Nazi" and completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with Nazism and you know it. And I know that you know it lol Reminds me of Eisenhower when he was planning to build the Interstate highway project: "My interest has nothing to do with the Nazis" haha. A little more lazier when you haven't read my post that in fact addressed some of Nial's assertions in Newsweek. Cheers!

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-TZ013_GOVSPE_E_20120731140538.jpg If inflation is low, what explains the 2% drop shown in the above URL for 2009-2012? Government role hasn't expanded as people would have assume. Many public functions ended up being cut- the Reagan and Bush era had more gov spending in that respect. I'm not sure why you're implying that it "dropped" because of inflation (which was fairly constant over the years minus food and perhaps oil energy). Cheers! Shc

Ok, so you're shooting the messenger. I listened to the message, not having any knowledge of the messenger. Make it easier for me to do so. I am shooting both the messenger and his current message. Let's take another author in another field. David Irving has had a historical past of denying the holocaust and wanted to publish a book a few years ago on Jewish life during 1920-1945. Are you not going to be skeptical? Of course you will be. Cheers! Shc

Right, first step is to attack the person who dares question "Dear Leader". Then scour the internet, going to various left wing sites until you can find one that tells you how to respond. I followed the man for years lol. I couldn't care less if Obama loses. I do however care for presenting real factual economics cases. And my dear GravityMaster, Niall Ferguson himself admitted he was wrong in many of his previous analysis. Its one thing to have your predictions wrong; its another to have messed up on the analysis. Cheers! Shc

*sigh* Its Niall Ferguson.. This man's past track record is quite terrible. The man communicates (verbally) pretty well, but is not an economist (a historian). And even as a historian, there are many of his WWI points which I disagree (but that';s another story). HIS PAST TRACK RECORDS : http://www.niallferguson.com/site/FERG/Templates/GeneralArticle.aspx?pageid=255&cc=GB Summary: In 2009, he said US bonds % will skyrocket. NO. It is currently at its [B] HISTORICAL LOW . http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/05/01/sticker-shock.html Summary: He said in 2009 that INFLATION is coming to U.S In 2011, he said INFLATION IS BACK in the U.S... No http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/503167dc6bb3f7231b000012/image.png http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-30/news/31004691_1_debt-problem-greece-defaults-niall-ferguson And guess what. Niall Ferguson ADMITS he was WRONG . The datas were just stacked far too much against him. And in his recent rant, it includes Affordable Health Care Act. He writes that the CBO reported "increase deficit". http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf You can have your own opinion on ACA, but the CBO report clearly says that it reduces the deficit. Many will still go: "but he is right!" because he is cheering for your side in politics. But the man has been babbling some awful fairy tales for many many years and he still is with his Newsweek cover (trying to use shock and awe to draw readerships in). Cheers! Shc

Any thoughts on the question? Overall inflation (in exception of food prices) have grown relatively slowly. 2% if I'm not mistaken. In many of Ben Bernanke's testimonies, it seems clear that they are very cautious when it comes to inflations (and one reason why they are reluctant to raise stimulus and/or raise the money supply). On another note about inflation: Europe (Merkel in particular) are extremely reluctant to have any inflation at all (which would likely result in the demise of the Euro). Cheers! Shc

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PVYcXs8EFng/TgzWGDySUbI/AAAAAAAAAVE/_Kb8CXrq2dY/s1600/x-us+private+debt.png A little scary when these basic macroeconomic facts are generally ignored in the media. A lot of spotlight on public debt; little on private debt. (p-s: Canadians, watch out on your private debt) Ah we have such short memories. Sept 2008 Lehman Brothers - March 2009 Lowest DOW point hello??! Leave the market on its own, and all major U.S banks would have been bankrupted by now including YOUR money. Our economic models have been right. Weak recovery due to weak stimulus, Low U.S bond rate in spite of extensive money supply, low inflation (border-deflation), U.K's overly optimism in austerity-growth 2010, etc... Its unfortunate that the public got confused by trash-opinions from sources like the WSJ (and including Angela Merkel's current EU model). Cheers! Shc Macroeconomics involve: -If Government does X (e.g: raises the money supply, lower interest rate), what would happen to the real economy. Let's take example Europe. The ECB last month imposed limits on how much it will lend banks against government-guaranteed bonds. The rule change meant Spain had to ditch a plan for nationalized lender Bankia group to get a loan from the Frankfurt-based central bank. Bankia group … will now get the first portion of the country’s European Union cash imminently. The Euro essentially needs: -Devaluation in order to prevent catastrophic deflation in the periphery countries -Bank needs to stay liquid for the money supply to stay constant in the economy -Growth measures to stave off deflation Metaphors are dangerous when it has no resemblance to real-life events. We are and we can be much more ambitious than this. Cheers!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PVYcXs8EFng/TgzWGDySUbI/AAAAAAAAAVE/_Kb8CXrq2dY/s1600/x-us+private+debt.png A little scary when these basic macroeconomic facts are generally ignored in the media. A lot of spotlight on public debt; little on private debt. (p-s: Canadians, watch out on your private debt) Ah we have such short memories. Sept 2008 Lehman Brothers - March 2009 Lowest DOW point hello??! Leave the market on its own, and all major U.S banks would have been bankrupted by now including YOUR money. Our economic models have been right. Weak recovery due to weak stimulus, Low U.S bond rate in spite of extensive money supply, low inflation (border-deflation), U.K's overly optimism in austerity-growth 2010, etc... Its unfortunate that the public got confused by trash-opinions from sources like the WSJ (and including Angela Merkel's current EU model). Cheers! Shc

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/07/31/government-cutbacks-separate-this-expansion-from-others/?mod=WSJBlog More precisely: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-TZ013_GOVSPE_E_20120731140538.jpg Its not about the economy becoming too "reliant" on gov spending. Its the economy that relied too much on the private sector debt in 2000-2008 and now the private sector is forced to pay back the debt instead of putting money in the economy (keyword: private sector). Cheers! Shc

The poster boy for "austerity" policies was Cameron's U.K. The Wall Street Journal praised the U.K for being "courageous" (2010). Osborne, Chancellor of the Excheque, sharply criticized the U.S for not following austerity as well. In fact, he called it "America's economic blindness". Now, 2 years later, U.K is in a double-dip recession and has an economy undeniably worse-off than the U.S (albeit the U.S was far too timid in its own stimulus in 2009. Small stimulus for a 3.5 trillion $ gap). http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/exclusive-osbornes-supporters-turn-him Many economists in 2010 thought austerity was the right-course of action. Slowly and surely, they are admitting they were wrong. This is in a profession where your paycheck depends on not being wrong. Roger Bootle, a firm supporter of austerity in 2010 recently said: Now really, is economic masochism what the U.S really want? Cheers! Shc

haha. well technically, you're standing up holding newbies hands all day. You're not the one who'se taking the crack; you're showing newcomers how to take crack. Cheers! Shc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFO2usVjfQc&feature=player_embedded I very much liked the video and wanted to share it. I've always been a proponent that if space budget would be a key ingredient to peace. If the U.S succeeds tremendously on the space front; the Chinese would like too. What bulges out in the Chinese military budget? R&D on next-gen air fighters. No more R&D on jet fighters by the chinese, U.S R&D on F22s are strategically unneeded, etc... and a large chunk of money is freed for space travel. one can only dream Cheers! Shc