.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:1327898"][QUOTE="eyeroller:1327855"]But isn't that the point? They're creating fiat money - Just printing it, with the expectation that it's all "worth" the same.[/QUOTE] Not the expectation that it's all worth the same (that would require an inflation rate of precisely 0% over years which is impossible since it's never exactly zero), but they do it with the expectation that any economic upturns created by the spending outweighs any downturns caused by the eventual inflation. Whether they're right or wrong on that is a really important debate, and not exactly a simple thing to prove or disprove even in hindsight; in addition, say a person thinks its the right approach to some degree, then at what point are there diminishing returns on such an approach? Where's the line? Has the Fed crossed that line by printing TOO much? On the other side, does risking any inflation at all always mean a worse fate than any federal reserve stimulation no matter how bad the economy is? If not, then where's the line there? Tricky stuff, and I don't claim to have all the answers on that rubix cube. The 2008 economic crash isn't far enough in the rear view mirror to judge the long-term consequences of how the Fed has reacted with full certainty, since we can't see what inflation will be in five or ten years to know whether doubling the Dow and turning job losses into gains within a year or so after the first QE and the stimulus was worth the price. The results of how we got out of the Great Depression do make a more complete and convincing case for Keynesian economics in responding to a downturn, but of course not everyone agrees with even that, and even if one does, then - like I said- where's the line? And how do you EVER prove or disprove exactly where that line even is? Fuck. All I'm saying for certain is that abstract prospective speculation can't be part of a budget projection that uses only hard numbers (for the same reason I can't play x notes on my guitar for you unless I know for certain what number that x represents). We know this especially well since failing to understand that was the same reason for the bank mortgage swap mess which crashed the economy: credit default swaps inserted abstract prospective speculation into projections that were supposed to be based on hard numbers. That's why including the costs and effects of QE prospectively as part of a ten year comparison of policy effects initiated by different Presidents is a pretty haphazard proposition. Nonetheless, even when I played devil's advocate and included the implausibly worst case scenario into the arithmetic anyway - that the cost of all QE would be as much to the economy through inflation in the long term as the trillions of new money that were created, and assuming zero dollars economic benefit from the spending to counterbalance that - it still barely makes a dent in the ratio between how much each admin's policies cost v. the other.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.007 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][