Market Currents
"(QE3) is explicitly linked to what happens with the economy," says San Francisco Fed President...
-
Monday, September 24, 2012, 3:39 PM ET"(QE3) is explicitly linked to what happens with the economy," says San Francisco Fed President Williams. The MBS purchases will continue or even expand to include other assets "until the job market looks substantially healthier." Sounding like he believes what he is saying, Williams calls the program an "automatic stabilizer," able to be tweaked depending on the fickle statistics-based surveys of the BLS each month.
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 51 comments:
I agree with you. However where are we going to be because of it down the road???
map
map
If we have an economy of 'X' size, and we attempt to bloat it to 'Y' size, under the current scheme with the Fed inventing money out of thin air, and the Treasury printing to accommodate, can we literally do this ad nauseum?
Does this just go on and on.....sort of a balance sheet with the same entry on both sides, so it expands at will, and never has to contract until both sides decide to cancel their obligations?
Which don't really exist to begin with?
Anyone explain it to me in simple terms?
Gov regulations and taxes make it possible for the castle to get bigger and bigger, and the village to become poorer and poorer. Think Marquis St. Evremonde in the Tale of Two Cities. The market check against this behavior is revolt. In the US, that can happen at the ballot box. Should the populace in the US miss that opportunity, the poverty can become so dire and the population so desparate, that it becomes ripe for a dictatorship (ie, we must suspend voting because the crisis is so bad - out of the heart the mouth speaks)
http://bit.ly/SrQeEQ
Thus, the way to over throw a dictator is a violent revolt. However, this could take generations before the poverty was so dire that the population makes the assessment that since everything else is gone, they might as well risk their life as well. As you can see, the market will correct things, but this is a nasty route to go.
In short QE can go on for a long time. It can go on as long as the general populace has wealth to be transferred. In other words they can bleed you as long as you have blood left to be bled.
You would have done well as a propagandist for jean baptiste Colbert.
garbage in!
Rubbish out!
The world is going to hell in a hand basket and our President only has time for the T.V. show "The View?"
God help us all,
if we don't right the horrible mistake the people made in 2008,
the republic falls!
The Muslim Brotherhood and "The Project" will be our fate!
Loss of freedom is never regained!
http://seekingalpha.co...
The FED can push the $$$ to it's member banks at will now.
Remember that the DNC was an investor in Solyndra....
For instance, a man who never had a pirvate sector job in his entire life and only worked as governor and President is worth probably more than $100 million, being able to spend $3 million on his daughter's wedding. Who would have ever considered that Clinton could amass such a fortune being a public servant (sarcasm!)
If it is suppose to work then why hasn't it been used in every recession?
map
Unemployment is closer to 20% than 8 %
map
Now the FED has truly given itself a blank check to spend your devalued dollars where ever an how ever it likes with ZERO checks and balances and ZERO transparency.
If you are connected you just hit the lottery!!!!
Can you imagine what kind of market shenanigans are going to take place moving forward.
If it was not such a travesty it would be comical...
How does an investor price this into their stocks...LOL
But, if someone looks carefully, the real reason these guys hate "money printing" is that their most intimate desire of seeing despair, deflation...isn't ocurring.
Life is great, there is fresh air outside, malls are packed....life isn't hoarding gold and being a awkward anti social gold lunatic.
Not anonymous. We have the Marquis St Evremonde here.
I bought recently land in PR, very cheap and zero taxes for 25 years.
You don't see people in despair either? No one you know is underwater on their mortgage?
Not sure what planet you live on. Gold has jumped from 1k a few years ago to almost double that now...Guess no one is buying it huh..
Wow.I also have plenty of friends by the way...
map
See, I hold gold too, but gold isn't the solution to the ailments of humanity.
Isn't it interesting that those that preach redistribution, never engage in it themselves.
I believe in giving back to the poor. I'm not a selfish guy that believes that cutting tax rates to the rich would help. By giving back I'm investing for a stronger society.
Now, what about those gold bars? Isn't it time to give those away too?
Republicans are disgusting, I agree with you.
Ah yes, the attempt to redirect. Nice try, but its not going to work here. The attempt to establish another's guilt, does not declare your innoncence.
First you claimed how rich you were, then you claimed how altruistic you were. So which is it? You claim Romney is letting people die because he fails to provide a benefit for them, the you are guilty of that same crime.
For someone who is so quick to demonize self interest, you sure are quick to defend your own. Now admit it. Based on your premise, what ever you keep for your benefit is causing someone else to die. As such, you are not altruistic, but self interested. Whatever you give, you do so, so you can brag about it. In other words your giving is not altruistic but self interested. Don't feel bad. Its a human survival instinct. Its just that you need to start using your human ability to reason instead of just your emotions.
Well, then, if you have a right to your self interest, then so does everyone else. So while you might enjoy your giving, you also enjoy what you keep. You are not altruisitic, because if you were, you wouldn't be bragging about how much wealth you have, because you would have given away everything you have except just the bare minimum you needed to survive so you could work 7 days a week 18 hours a day for the rest of your life, so you could say you are working based on your abilities so you could give according to other's needs. Then, and only then, could you claim to be altruistic.
But even if you could claim that, your specious reasoning that we should use gov guns to coerce everyone to do adopt your theory is flawed because it assumes that this would create the produce from which people can take and consume. The problem with this approach, is that in order to try and carry this out, it means you have to put someone in charge of the guns. As soon, as you do that, all you have done is set up the Animal Farm scenario. The human instinct to survive takes over, and those with the power start to act in their self interest (just as you have demonstrated) at the expense of everyone else.
So while it makes you feel good to pat your self on the back, and ignore your hypocrisy, what you advocate for will result in exactly what you claim to hate. The result of any pursuit of a classless society, always results in two classes. Those with the control of the guns and all the wealth, and those that gave them that control (also known as the suckers).
So while you might call Republican's disgusting, you must now throw yourself in with that lot, because based on your own arguments, you are no different.
If I made $100 million dollars per year, I could give 80-90% of the gains easily. Pay up greedy selfish guys.
Just so I have it straight, You have inherited gold bars and bought land on the giant Bannana Plantation called PR.
Sounds like every independently wealthy person I have ever met "Please Mr. Government take more of my money"
Easy to make such altruistic claims, I'm gonna go ahead and call BS #12...lol
There is no such thing as a altruistic society. There reason there isn't, is because they would all starve to death in quick order. You cannot share your way to a prosperous society, you have to produce your way to a prosperous society. That means you need signals from nature's pricing mechanism that tell you what is productive and what is not. Sharing blinds you to those prices.
So does that mean you let people starve? Of course not, but what it does mean is that you shift your focus from sharing to investing. Investing means being sensitive to prices, which only comes when you are free of coercion. As such, the use of gov coercion to make people share (another way of saying theft), destroys the pricing mechanism for investing, and all that is left is plunder. The result is a murderous, looting mob that burns through all the capital like a cloud of locust. The final outcome is Cuba and N Korea, with a large swath of desparately poor people all serving a small, wealthy ruling class.
There is a difference between what you would like to be true, and what is true, and no amount of rhetoric will change that.
That's what the republicans stand for? Defending the bankers....how low can they go?
http://bit.ly/QEBMov
The utopia of conservatives, hmmm....why aren't you there? I mean zero taxes leads to prosperity, right???
Its not the presence of gov corecion inducing services, but the presence of gov coercion protecting you from coercion. This is the fatal flaw in your plan, is that you want to use coercion to try and produce capital. Coercion only has two uses. It can be used to steal (like a communist/socialist leader or a Somali warlord), or it can be used as a defense against stealing.
The goal then of a gov should be used to wring coercion out of transactions. If you use gov to impose coercion like in forcing people to donate to your favorite charity (ie gov wealth transfer programs), you have set your society onto the path whose ultimate manifestation is Somalia or Cuba. A warfare state where everyone resents everyone else, which are the same sort of resentments manifesting themselves in Europe (see Catalonia).
The bottom line here is that you don't advocate for peace and prosperity, you advocate for coercion. As such, you advocate for a violent, warlike society, like Somalia. As such, I shouldn't wonder why you haven't moved there, since you have far more in common with them than I do.
You have been sold a fraudulent bill of goods your whole life. Now its time for you to start listening to reason. You need to embrace the principals of enlightenment and abandon your extremist coercive ideology. Peace and prosperity is the way to go.
Taxes are an illusion created by the "government" to achieve a goal that only they know about. The reality is the government can be funded by printing money. The size of the government and the number of $ printed need only be managed by their impact on inflation.
We currently have excess capacity and resource underutilization. The government could undertake massive spending programs (hopefully not wasteful) and have a positive impact on the economy, but no one has the political will to fight that battle, much less the understanding.
The reason their lifestyle was less than now, is they did not have the technology that we do.
So the comparison is not how better modern day standards of living compared to those of 100 yrs ago, but how much better our current standards of living could be if we did not have so much coercion imposed into our everyday transactions.
W makes a good point, but we need to go just a bit further to really understand the physics of what is going on. All govs are ultimately funded by the wealth their societies create. Thus whether you exprorpriate that wealth (income taxes, sales taxes, etc), or whether you issue interest bearing (treasury notes) debt to get the wealth, or even if you inflate the wealth away with noninterest bearing notes, the true cost to the society is what portion of their productivity the gov causes to be consumed.
What people don't understand is that everyone bears the cost of gov consumption equally. The problem is they just don't see it, thus they tend to advocate for policies that tax them because they don't even know they are being taxed. We all pay a consumption tax at the same rate, because the cost of gov (military to welfare) is inside the cost of everything, everybody consumes. In short the reduction in everyone's lifestyle compared to what it could be is how the gov is funded.
Marginal tax rates with regards to income taxes are just as important to funding a gov as management fees from the subsidiary are to funding the parent. It all eliminates in consolidation, and what you are left with is the consolidated productivity of the populace.