Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Prediction

sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 6:50:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
2% GDP growth

T-bond yields slightly up

No major changes in the stock market
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 7:25:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 6:50:23 PM, bluesteel wrote:
2% GDP growth

T-bond yields slightly up

No major changes in the stock market

A flat year, your probably right. But my gut just says different.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 11:49:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.

Another recession so quickly is very unlikely, especially considering that we are moving towards Keynesian economics again, like we did after the great depression. This recession is very similar to the great depression of the early 19th century in many ways. The economic factors that came beforehand were very similar (low trading regulations, low taxes for the wealthy, etc). The main thing that separates this recession from the depression is a natural factor (the dust bowl).
Another recession hitting us like the one in '08 is very unlikely.

If I had to cast a prediction, I see the DOW slowly gaining more ground, and the NYSE/NASDAQ becoming much stronger. We'll likely have moderately good GDP growth. I base this prediction mainly on the recent tax hikes that the rich have "suffered." Throughout the period in which Reaganomics was employed, the economy always strengthened when taxes on the rich were hiked.

Regardless of this year, I'm just glad we are finally laying the asinine economic model known as "Trickle Down Economics" to rest.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
Leanin_on_Slick
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 1:39:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/19/2014 11:49:10 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.

Another recession so quickly is very unlikely, especially considering that we are moving towards Keynesian economics again, like we did after the great depression. This recession is very similar to the great depression of the early 19th century in many ways. The economic factors that came beforehand were very similar (low trading regulations, low taxes for the wealthy, etc). The main thing that separates this recession from the depression is a natural factor (the dust bowl).
Another recession hitting us like the one in '08 is very unlikely.

If I had to cast a prediction, I see the DOW slowly gaining more ground, and the NYSE/NASDAQ becoming much stronger. We'll likely have moderately good GDP growth. I base this prediction mainly on the recent tax hikes that the rich have "suffered." Throughout the period in which Reaganomics was employed, the economy always strengthened when taxes on the rich were hiked.

Regardless of this year, I'm just glad we are finally laying the asinine economic model known as "Trickle Down Economics" to rest.

I think it's a little more nuanced then that. The current recession came about through a housing bubble, which was brought about by poor lending (Subprime loans) and even encouraged by government policy through artificially low interest rates and government guarantees. There is good evidence to suggest that the Depression was prolonged through poor regulations and price controls. Keynesian economics is important in that it expanded our awareness of demand-side policy, but it too has had its flaws -For example, stagflation in the 70's- (Thought to be largely impossible by Keynesians at the time).

I agree with the general point that we seem to be beginning to see signs of recovery in the current economy, but I'm not sure what you mean by low pre-recession taxes on the wealthy. The rate for top income brackets certainly is higher then it is for the majority in the United States. (And was before the recession) This is a myth that I hear from the Left quite often, but it simply isn't true. A Bill Gates for instance, is expected to pay about 50% of his income in taxes; substantially higher then most of us. The true problem is the U.S.'s cluttered tax code that allows for relatively easy loop-holes. Now there are other tax breaks that can come about through investment and savings practices, that the government looks to encourage, which inevitable wealthier individuals take more advantage of; but these don't accurately account for the claim. As for the topic of so called "supply-side economics" I would agree the evidence doesn't look to support it.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 2:15:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 6:50:23 PM, bluesteel wrote:
2% GDP growth

T-bond yields slightly up

No major changes in the stock market

Your predictions are incredibly bold and unbelievable.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 5:12:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 2:15:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/18/2014 6:50:23 PM, bluesteel wrote:
2% GDP growth

T-bond yields slightly up

No major changes in the stock market

Your predictions are incredibly bold and unbelievable.

I know! I'm really putting my reputation on the line here.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 10:25:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Purchasing power will continue to decline relative to productivity because the number of retirees will continue to grow relative to the number of workers and inflation will continue to erode purchasing power since prices adjust faster than wages. Marijuana legalization will be a big boon to Colorado and to a lesser extent Washington.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:09:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.

And such eventualities or other crisis scenarios recurrently befall the capitalist system why? Could it perchance be because the fundamental dynamics and drives of capitalism (e.g., intracapitalist competition and the drive for accumulation; or good ole schopferische Zerstorung [creative destruction]; or factors that throw a monkey wrench into neoclassical economics such as imperfect competition and malfeasance [you know, inveterate capitalists behaving like inveterate capitalists], externalities, information asymmetry, etc.) are inherently and incorrigibly predisposed to produce instability and catastrophes? Is it at all conceivable that the fault, dear believers in the "free enterprise" system, lies not in our stars or government "interference" in the economy, but in the very nature of our form of economcs itself? You're darn tootin' it is.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:31:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 6:09:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.

And such eventualities or other crisis scenarios recurrently befall the capitalist system why? Could it perchance be because the fundamental dynamics and drives of capitalism (e.g., intracapitalist competition and the drive for accumulation; or good ole schopferische Zerstorung [creative destruction]; or factors that throw a monkey wrench into neoclassical economics such as imperfect competition and malfeasance [you know, inveterate capitalists behaving like inveterate capitalists], externalities, information asymmetry, etc.) are inherently and incorrigibly predisposed to produce instability and catastrophes? Is it at all conceivable that the fault, dear believers in the "free enterprise" system, lies not in our stars or government "interference" in the economy, but in the very nature of our form of economcs itself? You're darn tootin' it is.

"Could it perchance be because the fundamental dynamics and drives of capitalism" No, the disregard for the rule of law and the failure to enforce the rule of law. The #1 reason capitalism fails.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 12:10:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Fed will continue to draw back on QE efforts. Rates will begin to finally rise back to normal levels. There will be inflation, more than we've had since 2008.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 2:19:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 12:10:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
The Fed will continue to draw back on QE efforts. Rates will begin to finally rise back to normal levels. There will be inflation, more than we've had since 2008.

So you're making the case that there will be inflation after the Fed WITHDRAWS QE, an action with the intention of avoiding runaway inflation -- which, mind you, the case of Japan tells us nearly impossible amid a liquidity trap?

And, by the ay, the Fed hasn't drawn back QE; the mini-tap was a deceleration of monthly asset purchases by $10 billion a month. So, $10 billion a month amounts to $120 billion a year, for a $3.88 trillion balance sheet instead of a $4 trillion balance sheet. Frankly, it was due almost entirely to political pressures because, once again, inflation is not an issue.

See, ladies and gentleman, this is the problem with economics: facts take a backseat to ideology and policy ignorance.

Here's where you're wrong. Increasing the monetary base is not inflation. Inflation is an increase of prices relative to a base year. It's possible to increase the monetary base without increasing prices because interest rates are in the zero lower bound, bank are investing or loaning money, etc. That's a liquidity trap, and that's where we are now.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 2:21:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 2:19:21 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/22/2014 12:10:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
The Fed will continue to draw back on QE efforts. Rates will begin to finally rise back to normal levels. There will be inflation, more than we've had since 2008.

So you're making the case that there will be inflation after the Fed WITHDRAWS QE, an action with the intention of avoiding runaway inflation -- which, mind you, the case of Japan tells us is nearly impossible amid a liquidity trap?

And, by the ay, the Fed hasn't drawn back QE; the mini-tap was a deceleration of monthly asset purchases by $10 billion a month. So, $10 billion a month amounts to $120 billion a year, for a $3.88 trillion balance sheet instead of a $4 trillion balance sheet. Frankly, it was due almost entirely to political pressures because, once again, inflation is not an issue.

See, ladies and gentleman, this is the problem with many who don't understand economics, yet pontificate nevertheless: facts take a backseat to ideology and policy ignorance.

Here's where you're wrong. Increasing the monetary base is not inflation. Inflation is an increase of prices relative to a base year. It's possible to increase the monetary base without increasing prices because interest rates are in the zero lower bound, bank are not investing or loaning money, etc. That's a liquidity trap, and that's where we are now.

Quoted to fix my typos.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 3:19:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 2:19:21 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/22/2014 12:10:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
The Fed will continue to draw back on QE efforts. Rates will begin to finally rise back to normal levels. There will be inflation, more than we've had since 2008.

So you're making the case that there will be inflation after the Fed WITHDRAWS QE, an action with the intention of avoiding runaway inflation

I just want to make clear that I am only making the case of the Fed beginning to discontinue QE efforts, not to "withdraw" them, which as you say is disinflationary.

-- which, mind you, the case of Japan tells us nearly impossible amid a liquidity trap?

I'm not at all convinced that what we've been told about Japan by the likes of Paul Krugman is accurate. I subscribe to Richard Koo's version, that Japan has been mired in a very long process of deleveraging in order to reattain sustainable debt-equity ratios.

From my understanding, Japan has not been able to print their way out of their mess...this was inherent in the Plaza Accords that actually had the opposite effect of mandating that Japan's currency appreciate.

And, by the ay, the Fed hasn't drawn back QE; the mini-tap was a deceleration of monthly asset purchases by $10 billion a month. So, $10 billion a month amounts to $120 billion a year, for a $3.88 trillion balance sheet instead of a $4 trillion balance sheet. Frankly, it was due almost entirely to political pressures because, once again, inflation is not an issue.

Deceleration is draw-back.

See, ladies and gentleman, this is the problem with economics: facts take a backseat to ideology and policy ignorance.

No, you are misinterpreting my statements, and instead of asking for clarification are instead resorting to rhetorical attacks.

Here's where you're wrong. Increasing the monetary base is not inflation. Inflation is an increase of prices relative to a base year. It's possible to increase the monetary base without increasing prices because interest rates are in the zero lower bound, bank are investing or loaning money, etc. That's a liquidity trap, and that's where we are now.

I never said that "increasing the monetary base is not inflation", that's a strawman. What I will say is that increasing the monetary base is inflationary. I fully agree with the underlined because what you're describing is debt deflation, not a "liquidity trap".

What I predict in my original post is that we will see a more robust economic recovery, and because of the larger monetary base, it will result in pronounced inflation through the money multiplier, i.e. an increase in the velocity of money.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:26:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 3:19:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/22/2014 2:19:21 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/22/2014 12:10:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
The Fed will continue to draw back on QE efforts. Rates will begin to finally rise back to normal levels. There will be inflation, more than we've had since 2008.

So you're making the case that there will be inflation after the Fed WITHDRAWS QE, an action with the intention of avoiding runaway inflation

I just want to make clear that I am only making the case of the Fed beginning to discontinue QE efforts, not to "withdraw" them, which as you say is disinflationary.

You're trying to play a game of semantics and, frankly, to no avail. "Draw back," "withdraw," and "discontinue" are synonyms in this case. I'm focused more on your claim that inflation will follow.

-- which, mind you, the case of Japan tells us nearly impossible amid a liquidity trap?

I'm not at all convinced that what we've been told about Japan by the likes of Paul Krugman is accurate. I subscribe to Richard Koo's version, that Japan has been mired in a very long process of deleveraging in order to reattain sustainable debt-equity ratios.

Deleveraging is characteristic of a liquidity trap. The reason interest rates are low, yet inflation is nearly impossible to attain, is lack of aggregate demand and self-reinforcing deleveraging cycle which renders cash a safe investment. And, for the record, Krugman isn't the only one who wrote about liquidity traps. Bernanke did so quite extensively, and he's hardly a Keynesian.

From my understanding, Japan has not been able to print their way out of their mess...this was inherent in the Plaza Accords that actually had the opposite effect of mandating that Japan's currency appreciate.

That's the point. They couldn't print their way out because interest rates were already near zero.

And, by the ay, the Fed hasn't drawn back QE; the mini-tap was a deceleration of monthly asset purchases by $10 billion a month. So, $10 billion a month amounts to $120 billion a year, for a $3.88 trillion balance sheet instead of a $4 trillion balance sheet. Frankly, it was due almost entirely to political pressures because, once again, inflation is not an issue.

Deceleration is draw-back.

This is a game of semantics, once again. I'm frankly unconcerned with the terminology, but arguing that the Fed has drawn back QE when it's still purchasing $75 billion a month and short term rates are still 0 is simply disingenuous.

See, ladies and gentleman, this is the problem with economics: facts take a backseat to ideology and policy ignorance.

No, you are misinterpreting my statements, and instead of asking for clarification are instead resorting to rhetorical attacks.

Not at all. You made the case that inflation would follow drawing back QE, which is simply wrong. It's one thing to deny the existence of a liquidity trap. With all of the available evidence, I'd say denying it is on par with denying anthropogenic climate change, but feel free to do so. Insinuating, as you have, that discontinuing QE would be inflationary -- when it wasn't inflationary even with zero bound interest rates -- is incorrect.

Here's where you're wrong. Increasing the monetary base is not inflation. Inflation is an increase of prices relative to a base year. It's possible to increase the monetary base without increasing prices because interest rates are in the zero lower bound, bank are investing or loaning money, etc. That's a liquidity trap, and that's where we are now.

I never said that "increasing the monetary base is not inflation", that's a strawman. What I will say is that increasing the monetary base is inflationary. I fully agree with the underlined because what you're describing is debt deflation, not a "liquidity trap".

You're accusing me of a strawman, but yet you have your quotes backwards. I never accused you of saying that "increasing the monetary base is not inflation." I accused you of saying what you actually just said -- and let me quote you for clarity: "What I will say is that increasing the monetary base is inflationary." The problem is, this is simply wrong. QE was not inflationary. The current inflation rate is 1.6%, which is below the Fed's 2% target.

Again, debt deflation and liquidity trap, in this case, are not separable.

What I predict in my original post is that we will see a more robust economic recovery, and because of the larger monetary base, it will result in pronounced inflation through the money multiplier, i.e. an increase in the velocity of money.

An increase in the monetary base will not lead to an increase in the velocity of money. Lowering interest rates, amid normal conditions, would. If QE wasn't inflationary with zero bound rates, it won't be inflationary with higher rates. Now if you want to make the case that, amid a recovery when we've moved beyond the current deflationary spiral, we may see slightly higher inflation, that's a completely different story. But you cannot causally link that with an increase in the monetary base. For goodness' sake, even Art Laffer no longer agrees with this position.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:34:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 2:21:19 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/22/2014 2:19:21 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/22/2014 12:10:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
The Fed will continue to draw back on QE efforts. Rates will begin to finally rise back to normal levels. There will be inflation, more than we've had since 2008.

So you're making the case that there will be inflation after the Fed WITHDRAWS QE, an action with the intention of avoiding runaway inflation -- which, mind you, the case of Japan tells us is nearly impossible amid a liquidity trap?

And, by the ay, the Fed hasn't drawn back QE; the mini-tap was a deceleration of monthly asset purchases by $10 billion a month. So, $10 billion a month amounts to $120 billion a year, for a $3.88 trillion balance sheet instead of a $4 trillion balance sheet. Frankly, it was due almost entirely to political pressures because, once again, inflation is not an issue.

See, ladies and gentleman, this is the problem with many who don't understand economics, yet pontificate nevertheless: facts take a backseat to ideology and policy ignorance.

Here's where you're wrong. Increasing the monetary base is not inflation. Inflation is an increase of prices relative to a base year. It's possible to increase the monetary base without increasing prices because interest rates are in the zero lower bound, bank are not investing or loaning money, etc. That's a liquidity trap, and that's where we are now.

Quoted to fix my typos.

No, you can't do that. You spelled a word or words wrong so everything you said is summarily dismissed and worthless. Oh and so are you as a human being. It is DDO law. Sorry.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 4:12:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:26:02 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 3:19:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

The Fed will continue to draw back on QE efforts. Rates will begin to finally rise back to normal levels. There will be inflation, more than we've had since 2008.

So you're making the case that there will be inflation after the Fed WITHDRAWS QE, an action with the intention of avoiding runaway inflation

I just want to make clear that I am only making the case of the Fed beginning to discontinue QE efforts, not to "withdraw" them, which as you say is disinflationary.

You're trying to play a game of semantics and, frankly, to no avail. "Draw back," "withdraw," and "discontinue" are synonyms in this case. I'm focused more on your claim that inflation will follow.

No they are not synonyms. By discontinuing QE, you are not withdrawing prior QE efforts, you are simply not adding more QE into the mix.

Again, you need to ask for clarification if you think terms are unclear. There is a very big difference between inflationary policy and actual inflation.

I'm not at all convinced that what we've been told about Japan by the likes of Paul Krugman is accurate. I subscribe to Richard Koo's version, that Japan has been mired in a very long process of deleveraging in order to reattain sustainable debt-equity ratios.

Deleveraging is characteristic of a liquidity trap. The reason interest rates are low, yet inflation is nearly impossible to attain, is lack of aggregate demand and self-reinforcing deleveraging cycle which renders cash a safe investment. And, for the record, Krugman isn't the only one who wrote about liquidity traps. Bernanke did so quite extensively, and he's hardly a Keynesian.

Everyone is a Keynesian. Bernanke and Romer were about as Keynesian as anyone could possibly be. What evidence do you have that they did not follow archetypal Keynesian short term stimulus measures?

From my understanding, Japan has not been able to print their way out of their mess...this was inherent in the Plaza Accords that actually had the opposite effect of mandating that Japan's currency appreciate.

That's the point. They couldn't print their way out because interest rates were already near zero.

No. You are confusing cause and effect. They couldn't print their way out because of the Plaza Accords, which mandated that their currency appreciate regardless of the state of their economy...not because of interest rates. Had they been able to print their way out (i.e. devalue their currency), then they could have engaged in much more effective debt destruction, which is what was/is crippling their economy.

And, by the ay, the Fed hasn't drawn back QE; the mini-tap was a deceleration of monthly asset purchases by $10 billion a month. So, $10 billion a month amounts to $120 billion a year, for a $3.88 trillion balance sheet instead of a $4 trillion balance sheet. Frankly, it was due almost entirely to political pressures because, once again, inflation is not an issue.

Deceleration is draw-back.

This is a game of semantics, once again. I'm frankly unconcerned with the terminology, but arguing that the Fed has drawn back QE when it's still purchasing $75 billion a month and short term rates are still 0 is simply disingenuous.

You need to be precise with terminology. Otherwise you will not know what you are talking about.

It's quite possible my terminology is unclear. The point is to understand my position, and IMHO clearly you are mischaracterizing it.

See, ladies and gentleman, this is the problem with economics: facts take a backseat to ideology and policy ignorance.

No, you are misinterpreting my statements, and instead of asking for clarification are instead resorting to rhetorical attacks.

Not at all. You made the case that inflation would follow drawing back QE, which is simply wrong.

Again, you are confusing cause and effect. I did not ever tie actual inflation to drawing back QE. That's simply another aspect of my prediction, one which I did not bother to explain initially.

All else being the same, printing money is inflation, no question (more money chasing same number of goods will lead to price increases). However, as I don't need to tell you, all else is not the same...money printing is occurring in the midst of debt deflation.

Inflation will occur because concomitant with a benign Fed policy, there will be more economic activity, which I have already explained (underlined) and apparently you did not comprehend.

It's one thing to deny the existence of a liquidity trap. With all of the available evidence, I'd say denying it is on par with denying anthropogenic climate change, but feel free to do so. Insinuating, as you have, that discontinuing QE would be inflationary -- when it wasn't inflationary even with zero bound interest rates -- is incorrect.

You need to use words that connote precisely what is going on. "Liquidity trap" implies "cash crunch". That's not exactly what is going on, IMHO. It's impossible to have a cash crunch when you can print cash at will.

In Japan, yes, they had a liquidity trap, because they could not print their way out of their mess because of the Plaza Accords.

Here's where you're wrong. Increasing the monetary base is not inflation. Inflation is an increase of prices relative to a base year. It's possible to increase the monetary base without increasing prices because interest rates are in the zero lower bound, bank are investing or loaning money, etc. That's a liquidity trap, and that's where we are now.

I never said that "increasing the monetary base is not inflation", that's a strawman. What I will say is that increasing the monetary base is inflationary. I fully agree with the underlined because what you're describing is debt deflation, not a "liquidity trap".

You're accusing me of a strawman, but yet you have your quotes backwards. I never accused you of saying that "increasing the monetary base is not inflation." I accused you of saying what you actually just said -- and let me quote you for clarity: "What I will say is that increasing the monetary base is inflationary." The problem is, this is simply wrong. QE was not inflationary. The current inflation rate is 1.6%, which is below the Fed's 2% target.

QE is inflationary, but does not cause inflation because it is fighting disinflation and possible deflation.

Again, debt deflation and liquidity trap, in this case, are not separable.

"Liquidity trap" does not describe the American situation.

What I predict in my original post is that we will see a more robust economic recovery, and because of the larger monetary base, it will result in pronounced inflation through the money multiplier, i.e. an increase in the velocity of money.

An increase in the monetary base will not lead to an increase in the velocity of money.

I never made this causal link. I can see how you may have mistook my intentions.

Lowering interest rates, amid normal conditions, would.

These ARE normal conditions ("new normal") if deleveraging is a necessity, which it would be following an unsustainable, profligate debt boom.

If QE wasn't inflationary with zero bound rates, it won't be inflationary with higher rates.

QE is by definition inflationary.

Now if you want to make the case that, amid a recovery when we've moved beyond the current deflationary spiral, we may see slightly higher inflation, that's a completely different story. But you cannot causally link that with an increase in the monetary base. For goodness' sake, even Art Laffer no longer agrees with this position.

That is indeed my core assertion. However, the QE has increased the monetary base, and what will follow is more inflation than "normal".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wanderingbear
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 3:50:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.

UK economy will grow slowly <1%

Inequality will grow

Food banks will grow beyond anything we've seen before
Leanin_on_Slick
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 4:27:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 6:09:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.

And such eventualities or other crisis scenarios recurrently befall the capitalist system why? Could it perchance be because the fundamental dynamics and drives of capitalism (e.g., intracapitalist competition and the drive for accumulation; or good ole schopferische Zerstorung [creative destruction]; or factors that throw a monkey wrench into neoclassical economics such as imperfect competition and malfeasance [you know, inveterate capitalists behaving like inveterate capitalists], externalities, information asymmetry, etc.) are inherently and incorrigibly predisposed to produce instability and catastrophes? Is it at all conceivable that the fault, dear believers in the "free enterprise" system, lies not in our stars or government "interference" in the economy, but in the very nature of our form of economcs itself? You're darn tootin' it is.

There is very little to back up what you are saying here. There is no society that has ever had 0 fluctuations in their economy. The fact is that economies have become more stable as a general trend, with expansions generally being longer and recessions generally being shorter as economics has grown as a discipline.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:30:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 4:27:10 PM, Leanin_on_Slick wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:09:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.

And such eventualities or other crisis scenarios recurrently befall the capitalist system why? Could it perchance be because the fundamental dynamics and drives of capitalism (e.g., intracapitalist competition and the drive for accumulation; or good ole schopferische Zerstorung [creative destruction]; or factors that throw a monkey wrench into neoclassical economics such as imperfect competition and malfeasance [you know, inveterate capitalists behaving like inveterate capitalists], externalities, information asymmetry, etc.) are inherently and incorrigibly predisposed to produce instability and catastrophes? Is it at all conceivable that the fault, dear believers in the "free enterprise" system, lies not in our stars or government "interference" in the economy, but in the very nature of our form of economcs itself? You're darn tootin' it is.

There is very little to back up what you are saying here. There is no society that has ever had 0 fluctuations in their economy. The fact is that economies have become more stable as a general trend, with expansions generally being longer and recessions generally being shorter as economics has grown as a discipline.

"There is very little to back up what you are saying here."

The rules of the OP clearly state no one has to defend their prediction or position. So it doesn't matter if he/she backs up what he/ she says or predicts. All though it is their prerogative to discuss it. But you get no acknowledgements or points for intelligent rebuttals.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:35:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
HMM recent current events are making my prediction look good.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Leanin_on_Slick
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:52:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 9:30:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:27:10 PM, Leanin_on_Slick wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:09:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.

And such eventualities or other crisis scenarios recurrently befall the capitalist system why? Could it perchance be because the fundamental dynamics and drives of capitalism (e.g., intracapitalist competition and the drive for accumulation; or good ole schopferische Zerstorung [creative destruction]; or factors that throw a monkey wrench into neoclassical economics such as imperfect competition and malfeasance [you know, inveterate capitalists behaving like inveterate capitalists], externalities, information asymmetry, etc.) are inherently and incorrigibly predisposed to produce instability and catastrophes? Is it at all conceivable that the fault, dear believers in the "free enterprise" system, lies not in our stars or government "interference" in the economy, but in the very nature of our form of economcs itself? You're darn tootin' it is.

There is very little to back up what you are saying here. There is no society that has ever had 0 fluctuations in their economy. The fact is that economies have become more stable as a general trend, with expansions generally being longer and recessions generally being shorter as economics has grown as a discipline.

"There is very little to back up what you are saying here."

The rules of the OP clearly state no one has to defend their prediction or position. So it doesn't matter if he/she backs up what he/ she says or predicts. All though it is their prerogative to discuss it. But you get no acknowledgements or points for intelligent rebuttals.

Cool, cool. The guy wasn't making a prediction tho. A critique for a critique my man.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 3:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 12:52:47 PM, Leanin_on_Slick wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:30:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:27:10 PM, Leanin_on_Slick wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:09:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.

And such eventualities or other crisis scenarios recurrently befall the capitalist system why? Could it perchance be because the fundamental dynamics and drives of capitalism (e.g., intracapitalist competition and the drive for accumulation; or good ole schopferische Zerstorung [creative destruction]; or factors that throw a monkey wrench into neoclassical economics such as imperfect competition and malfeasance [you know, inveterate capitalists behaving like inveterate capitalists], externalities, information asymmetry, etc.) are inherently and incorrigibly predisposed to produce instability and catastrophes? Is it at all conceivable that the fault, dear believers in the "free enterprise" system, lies not in our stars or government "interference" in the economy, but in the very nature of our form of economcs itself? You're darn tootin' it is.

There is very little to back up what you are saying here. There is no society that has ever had 0 fluctuations in their economy. The fact is that economies have become more stable as a general trend, with expansions generally being longer and recessions generally being shorter as economics has grown as a discipline.

"There is very little to back up what you are saying here."

The rules of the OP clearly state no one has to defend their prediction or position. So it doesn't matter if he/she backs up what he/ she says or predicts. All though it is their prerogative to discuss it. But you get no acknowledgements or points for intelligent rebuttals.

Cool, cool. The guy wasn't making a prediction tho. A critique for a critique my man.

Oh, OK but no points still. LOL
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Leanin_on_Slick
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 10:53:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 3:54:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:52:47 PM, Leanin_on_Slick wrote:
At 3/4/2014 9:30:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:27:10 PM, Leanin_on_Slick wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:09:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.

And such eventualities or other crisis scenarios recurrently befall the capitalist system why? Could it perchance be because the fundamental dynamics and drives of capitalism (e.g., intracapitalist competition and the drive for accumulation; or good ole schopferische Zerstorung [creative destruction]; or factors that throw a monkey wrench into neoclassical economics such as imperfect competition and malfeasance [you know, inveterate capitalists behaving like inveterate capitalists], externalities, information asymmetry, etc.) are inherently and incorrigibly predisposed to produce instability and catastrophes? Is it at all conceivable that the fault, dear believers in the "free enterprise" system, lies not in our stars or government "interference" in the economy, but in the very nature of our form of economcs itself? You're darn tootin' it is.

There is very little to back up what you are saying here. There is no society that has ever had 0 fluctuations in their economy. The fact is that economies have become more stable as a general trend, with expansions generally being longer and recessions generally being shorter as economics has grown as a discipline.

"There is very little to back up what you are saying here."

The rules of the OP clearly state no one has to defend their prediction or position. So it doesn't matter if he/she backs up what he/ she says or predicts. All though it is their prerogative to discuss it. But you get no acknowledgements or points for intelligent rebuttals.

Cool, cool. The guy wasn't making a prediction tho. A critique for a critique my man.

Oh, OK but no points still. LOL

lol
VaLoR
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 2:10:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.

Unemployment will fall below 6% for the first time since 2008.

I'm still very displeased with Obama's excessively moderate economic policy (and at times even overly conservative -- Monsanto protection, new free trade negotiations, etc.), but the above prediction should be on pace.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 7:19:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 6:13:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Name a gut feeling you have for the 2014 economy. You don't have to justify it in any way.

My gut feeling is that the stock market will tumble and hundres of thousands of 401k and Roth holders will lose vasts amounts of retirement money like they did in 08.

I have been saying this was going to happen since the middle of last year. It so obvious. I really can't see how anyone with half a brain can think we can go on and on just printing worthless money to prop up the stock market.

http://moneymorning.com...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
kiryasjoelvillage
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 12:47:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 6:50:23 PM, bluesteel wrote:
2% GDP growth

T-bond yields slightly up

No major changes in the stock market
It is going to be the same.Flat year for economy as rate of progress is really slow and weak.
sportsprognoz
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 6:34:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.sportsprognoz.com... - The service of Accurate Sports Betting Predictions Pick tips.
Over 100 000 + forecasters make their predictions .
Choose your system and make stable money on sports betting just getting right picks tips www.sportsprognoz.com is new business related to Sports Predictions anyone can become professionall forecaster and help to everyone make money on sports betting.
In general our service was designed only for Clients who want to get qualified prediction.
Our predictors have history and our garantee that history of forecaster is really fair.
Money Back in Case of amount of wrong predictions will exceed successfull predictions.
Sportsprognoz - Make money on sports betting as professionals make.
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 10:36:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/11/2014 6:34:49 AM, sportsprognoz wrote:
http://www.sportsprognoz.com... - The service of Accurate Sports Betting Predictions Pick tips.
Over 100 000 + forecasters make their predictions .
Choose your system and make stable money on sports betting just getting right picks tips www.sportsprognoz.com is new business related to Sports Predictions anyone can become professionall forecaster and help to everyone make money on sports betting.
In general our service was designed only for Clients who want to get qualified prediction.
Our predictors have history and our garantee that history of forecaster is really fair.
Money Back in Case of amount of wrong predictions will exceed successfull predictions.
Sportsprognoz - Make money on sports betting as professionals make.

Go away spammer!
Ashton
Value_LLL
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 8:50:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sorry, I only read the first couple so I am not sure what all has been suggested, but here are some for myself...

I think that Obamacare (ACA) will turn and be looked upon as a good thing, even though... I too was against it at one point.

I think the economy will actually get better. It has shown slight improvements already.

Though I don't think anything like this will happen, I do think that Socialism as a sustainable economic system will have more interest than in previous years (within America). Time is drawing nearer, the current system from within America and globally is not sustainable though.