Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Fed preparing to select financial victims

Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 9:42:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Janet Yellen states that stock valuations are 'quite high' (a bubble) in a Reuter' s story, http://www.reuters.com.... The story also talks about compression of spreads in high-yield debt, which to many is an indicator that recession is near.

Who should the Fed protect and who should be targeted? No matter what the Fed does people's wealth and livelihoods will be effected. Obviously, the well connected will be protected first.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 11:01:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 9:42:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Janet Yellen states that stock valuations are 'quite high' (a bubble) in a Reuter' s story, http://www.reuters.com.... The story also talks about compression of spreads in high-yield debt, which to many is an indicator that recession is near.

The WSJ had a great article on this today, which I highly suggest that you read because it - in the same way as the article you linked to - provides further context into Yellen's remarks. It's a bit hard to fancy yourself a serious person when you're cherry-picking facts in a complex debate.

Here's the article [http://blogs.wsj.com...] and here's a good quote from Yellen:

"My assessment at this point would be that risks to financial stability are moderated, not elevated at this point. And I say that because we"re not seeing any broad-based pickup in leverage. We"re not seeing rapid credit growth. We"re not seeing an increase in maturity transformation. And I would call those things kind of the hallmark of a financial bubble or the precursors of a financial crisis, but these are things we of course are focusing on very carefully."

It's clear, then, that Yellen was speaking of potential risks to financial stability - and gave a textbook case for how "lower for longer" could, in principle, lead to excessive leverage, though there's no reason at present to believe that's the case. Not to mention, I don't buy that "loose" policy spurs financial imbalances. In particular, I don't believe - and both Scott Sumner and Paul Krugman, who are generally polar opposites on quite a bit, both agree - that the housing bubble resulted from loose monetary policy, but rather from mismanaged financial innovations, loose regulation, and a typical agency "made to distribute" problem.

Who should the Fed protect and who should be targeted? No matter what the Fed does people's wealth and livelihoods will be effected. Obviously, the well connected will be protected first.

This is just complete nonsense, and the reason no one ought to take you seriously. The Fed is an independent institution that doesn't even receive public dollars. This is wildly off-base - though, frankly, I know that you want a fight on this front, so let's focus on the financial-stability points.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 7:10:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 11:01:16 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/6/2015 9:42:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Janet Yellen states that stock valuations are 'quite high' (a bubble) in a Reuter' s story, http://www.reuters.com.... The story also talks about compression of spreads in high-yield debt, which to many is an indicator that recession is near.

The WSJ had a great article on this today, which I highly suggest that you read because it - in the same way as the article you linked to - provides further context into Yellen's remarks. It's a bit hard to fancy yourself a serious person when you're cherry-picking facts in a complex debate.

Let's include what the person sharing the stage with Yellen had to say. IMF Managing director had to say, "Lagarde noted that more women leaders would help improve governance in the financial system, a comment that resonated in the event's crowd and waiting speakers, which featured some of the world's most powerful women in finance." and "Lagarde also said bank compensation incentives need to change so as to not reward excessive risk-taking."

And, I am the one that is hard to take serious.


Here's the article [http://blogs.wsj.com...] and here's a good quote from Yellen:

"My assessment at this point would be that risks to financial stability are moderated, not elevated at this point. And I say that because we"re not seeing any broad-based pickup in leverage. We"re not seeing rapid credit growth. We"re not seeing an increase in maturity transformation. And I would call those things kind of the hallmark of a financial bubble or the precursors of a financial crisis, but these are things we of course are focusing on very carefully."

It's clear, then, that Yellen was speaking of potential risks to financial stability - and gave a textbook case for how "lower for longer" could, in principle, lead to excessive leverage, though there's no reason at present to believe that's the case. Not to mention, I don't buy that "loose" policy spurs financial imbalances. In particular, I don't believe - and both Scott Sumner and Paul Krugman, who are generally polar opposites on quite a bit, both agree - that the housing bubble resulted from loose monetary policy, but rather from mismanaged financial innovations, loose regulation, and a typical agency "made to distribute" problem.

Who should the Fed protect and who should be targeted? No matter what the Fed does people's wealth and livelihoods will be effected. Obviously, the well connected will be protected first.

This is just complete nonsense, and the reason no one ought to take you seriously. The Fed is an independent institution that doesn't even receive public dollars. This is wildly off-base - though, frankly, I know that you want a fight on this front, so let's focus on the financial-stability points.

The Fed is preparing to punish different victims, these new victims must listen to every word that the punisher (Fed) states to reduce the punishment. For those new victims that are unaware, you should have been paying attention to the remarks of a few well-connect central bankers. The Fed demonstrates its independence clearly by disregarding the effects of its policies, if it had to answer to holders of US dollars, by optional use, the Fed's policy would be radically different.

People and businesses should focus on their own financial stability without regard to the Fed. The Fed is only a handful of connected, showing the next employer their loyalty. The Fed is loyalty is not the holders of US dollars.

Central banking monetary policy needs an "opt out" option.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 7:15:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 7:10:08 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Let's include what the person sharing the stage with Yellen had to say. IMF Managing director had to say, "Lagarde noted that more women leaders would help improve governance in the financial system, a comment that resonated in the event's crowd and waiting speakers, which featured some of the world's most powerful women in finance." and "Lagarde also said bank compensation incentives need to change so as to not reward excessive risk-taking."

And, I am the one that is hard to take serious.

How in the world is that (a) relevant to this thread or (b) inconsistent with what I even said?

Lagarde, like Yellen, is referring to POTENTIAL risks to financial stability. I'm all for financial reform, but that isn't the least bit relevant. You misrepresented Janet Yellen's position, which is clearly more pertinent to the purposes of this thread than Lagarde, though you haven't pointed out a single thing Lagarde said which is inconsistent with Yellen's remarks.

You're splitting hairs, likely because you were caught cherry-picking

The Fed is preparing to punish different victims, these new victims must listen to every word that the punisher (Fed) states to reduce the punishment. For those new victims that are unaware, you should have been paying attention to the remarks of a few well-connect central bankers. The Fed demonstrates its independence clearly by disregarding the effects of its policies, if it had to answer to holders of US dollars, by optional use, the Fed's policy would be radically different.

People and businesses should focus on their own financial stability without regard to the Fed. The Fed is only a handful of connected, showing the next employer their loyalty. The Fed is loyalty is not the holders of US dollars.

Central banking monetary policy needs an "opt out" option.

I know you want to get into this sh1t, because this whole "monetary policy is immoral" sophistry is your thing, but let's focus on the substance - is there, presently, excessive leverage?

The stress tests conducted under Dodd-Frank say no:

"Despite the foreign banks" failures and broader struggles, analysts said the tests were largely positive for Wall Street, since all the U.S. domestic banks passed the exercise for the first time since 2009. After adjusting their capital plans, all 31 banks were found to be adequately capitalized and able to keep lending during a market shock"the first time no bank has fallen below a Fed minimum."

[http://www.wsj.com...]

Acknowledge that this does *not* prevent the *possibility* or the *risk* of future financial imbalances, but means only that, at present, there isn't any immediate need to worry about them.

Not to mention, leaning on bubbles does not and has never worked - that's why we got the Depression, in fact. Sweden tried it in 2010 and 2011 and failed as well. In fact, recent research presented at the San Francisco Fed (that I can link to) conducted a cost-benefit analysis and found that a 3 basis point - .03% - increase in the FFR was justified to ward off financial imbalances. It's a terrible policy move, and there isn't the slightest warrant for it.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 11:15:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 7:15:56 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2015 7:10:08 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Let's include what the person sharing the stage with Yellen had to say. IMF Managing director had to say, "Lagarde noted that more women leaders would help improve governance in the financial system, a comment that resonated in the event's crowd and waiting speakers, which featured some of the world's most powerful women in finance." and "Lagarde also said bank compensation incentives need to change so as to not reward excessive risk-taking."

And, I am the one that is hard to take serious.

How in the world is that (a) relevant to this thread or (b) inconsistent with what I even said?

Lagarde, like Yellen, is referring to POTENTIAL risks to financial stability. I'm all for financial reform, but that isn't the least bit relevant. You misrepresented Janet Yellen's position, which is clearly more pertinent to the purposes of this thread than Lagarde, though you haven't pointed out a single thing Lagarde said which is inconsistent with Yellen's remarks.

You're splitting hairs, likely because you were caught cherry-picking


The Fed is preparing to punish different victims, these new victims must listen to every word that the punisher (Fed) states to reduce the punishment. For those new victims that are unaware, you should have been paying attention to the remarks of a few well-connect central bankers. The Fed demonstrates its independence clearly by disregarding the effects of its policies, if it had to answer to holders of US dollars, by optional use, the Fed's policy would be radically different.

People and businesses should focus on their own financial stability without regard to the Fed. The Fed is only a handful of connected, showing the next employer their loyalty. The Fed is loyalty is not the holders of US dollars.

Central banking monetary policy needs an "opt out" option.

I know you want to get into this sh1t, because this whole "monetary policy is immoral" sophistry is your thing, but let's focus on the substance - is there, presently, excessive leverage?

The stress tests conducted under Dodd-Frank say no:


"Despite the foreign banks" failures and broader struggles, analysts said the tests were largely positive for Wall Street, since all the U.S. domestic banks passed the exercise for the first time since 2009. After adjusting their capital plans, all 31 banks were found to be adequately capitalized and able to keep lending during a market shock"the first time no bank has fallen below a Fed minimum."

[http://www.wsj.com...]

Acknowledge that this does *not* prevent the *possibility* or the *risk* of future financial imbalances, but means only that, at present, there isn't any immediate need to worry about them.

Not to mention, leaning on bubbles does not and has never worked - that's why we got the Depression, in fact. Sweden tried it in 2010 and 2011 and failed as well. In fact, recent research presented at the San Francisco Fed (that I can link to) conducted a cost-benefit analysis and found that a 3 basis point - .03% - increase in the FFR was justified to ward off financial imbalances. It's a terrible policy move, and there isn't the slightest warrant for it.

Yellen, as with all people with great power, she can not speak truthfully. Leaders must portray that everything is fine, and if there is no reason for panic, nothing to see here, move along. Example, if in April 2008 the Fed chair had stated something like "we are in big trouble" the Panic of 2008 would have started on the day of the statement. A statement of truth.

Stress test for all 31 bank were a success, that gives everyone a warm feeling inside. Every bank must pass these stress tests to please the animal spirits, since if one bank fails, then the whole system would be in trouble. Federal regulators and regulations are tools of the banking industry. To really regulate banks end legal tender laws, so that people can regulate banks themselves, by using money outside of a central banking system.

The domination of the central banks must ended.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 2:30:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 11:15:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/7/2015 7:15:56 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2015 7:10:08 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Let's include what the person sharing the stage with Yellen had to say. IMF Managing director had to say, "Lagarde noted that more women leaders would help improve governance in the financial system, a comment that resonated in the event's crowd and waiting speakers, which featured some of the world's most powerful women in finance." and "Lagarde also said bank compensation incentives need to change so as to not reward excessive risk-taking."

And, I am the one that is hard to take serious.

How in the world is that (a) relevant to this thread or (b) inconsistent with what I even said?

Lagarde, like Yellen, is referring to POTENTIAL risks to financial stability. I'm all for financial reform, but that isn't the least bit relevant. You misrepresented Janet Yellen's position, which is clearly more pertinent to the purposes of this thread than Lagarde, though you haven't pointed out a single thing Lagarde said which is inconsistent with Yellen's remarks.

You're splitting hairs, likely because you were caught cherry-picking


The Fed is preparing to punish different victims, these new victims must listen to every word that the punisher (Fed) states to reduce the punishment. For those new victims that are unaware, you should have been paying attention to the remarks of a few well-connect central bankers. The Fed demonstrates its independence clearly by disregarding the effects of its policies, if it had to answer to holders of US dollars, by optional use, the Fed's policy would be radically different.

People and businesses should focus on their own financial stability without regard to the Fed. The Fed is only a handful of connected, showing the next employer their loyalty. The Fed is loyalty is not the holders of US dollars.

Central banking monetary policy needs an "opt out" option.

I know you want to get into this sh1t, because this whole "monetary policy is immoral" sophistry is your thing, but let's focus on the substance - is there, presently, excessive leverage?

The stress tests conducted under Dodd-Frank say no:


"Despite the foreign banks" failures and broader struggles, analysts said the tests were largely positive for Wall Street, since all the U.S. domestic banks passed the exercise for the first time since 2009. After adjusting their capital plans, all 31 banks were found to be adequately capitalized and able to keep lending during a market shock"the first time no bank has fallen below a Fed minimum."

[http://www.wsj.com...]

Acknowledge that this does *not* prevent the *possibility* or the *risk* of future financial imbalances, but means only that, at present, there isn't any immediate need to worry about them.

Not to mention, leaning on bubbles does not and has never worked - that's why we got the Depression, in fact. Sweden tried it in 2010 and 2011 and failed as well. In fact, recent research presented at the San Francisco Fed (that I can link to) conducted a cost-benefit analysis and found that a 3 basis point - .03% - increase in the FFR was justified to ward off financial imbalances. It's a terrible policy move, and there isn't the slightest warrant for it.

Yellen, as with all people with great power, she can not speak truthfully. Leaders must portray that everything is fine, and if there is no reason for panic, nothing to see here, move along. Example, if in April 2008 the Fed chair had stated something like "we are in big trouble" the Panic of 2008 would have started on the day of the statement. A statement of truth.

Stress test for all 31 bank were a success, that gives everyone a warm feeling inside. Every bank must pass these stress tests to please the animal spirits, since if one bank fails, then the whole system would be in trouble. Federal regulators and regulations are tools of the banking industry. To really regulate banks end legal tender laws, so that people can regulate banks themselves, by using money outside of a central banking system.

The domination of the central banks must ended.


Good job for ignoring every singe point I made to substitute your own BS.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 2:38:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 2:30:16 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2015 11:15:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/7/2015 7:15:56 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2015 7:10:08 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Let's include what the person sharing the stage with Yellen had to say. IMF Managing director had to say, "Lagarde noted that more women leaders would help improve governance in the financial system, a comment that resonated in the event's crowd and waiting speakers, which featured some of the world's most powerful women in finance." and "Lagarde also said bank compensation incentives need to change so as to not reward excessive risk-taking."

And, I am the one that is hard to take serious.

How in the world is that (a) relevant to this thread or (b) inconsistent with what I even said?

Lagarde, like Yellen, is referring to POTENTIAL risks to financial stability. I'm all for financial reform, but that isn't the least bit relevant. You misrepresented Janet Yellen's position, which is clearly more pertinent to the purposes of this thread than Lagarde, though you haven't pointed out a single thing Lagarde said which is inconsistent with Yellen's remarks.

You're splitting hairs, likely because you were caught cherry-picking


The Fed is preparing to punish different victims, these new victims must listen to every word that the punisher (Fed) states to reduce the punishment. For those new victims that are unaware, you should have been paying attention to the remarks of a few well-connect central bankers. The Fed demonstrates its independence clearly by disregarding the effects of its policies, if it had to answer to holders of US dollars, by optional use, the Fed's policy would be radically different.

People and businesses should focus on their own financial stability without regard to the Fed. The Fed is only a handful of connected, showing the next employer their loyalty. The Fed is loyalty is not the holders of US dollars.

Central banking monetary policy needs an "opt out" option.

I know you want to get into this sh1t, because this whole "monetary policy is immoral" sophistry is your thing, but let's focus on the substance - is there, presently, excessive leverage?

The stress tests conducted under Dodd-Frank say no:


"Despite the foreign banks" failures and broader struggles, analysts said the tests were largely positive for Wall Street, since all the U.S. domestic banks passed the exercise for the first time since 2009. After adjusting their capital plans, all 31 banks were found to be adequately capitalized and able to keep lending during a market shock"the first time no bank has fallen below a Fed minimum."

[http://www.wsj.com...]

Acknowledge that this does *not* prevent the *possibility* or the *risk* of future financial imbalances, but means only that, at present, there isn't any immediate need to worry about them.

Not to mention, leaning on bubbles does not and has never worked - that's why we got the Depression, in fact. Sweden tried it in 2010 and 2011 and failed as well. In fact, recent research presented at the San Francisco Fed (that I can link to) conducted a cost-benefit analysis and found that a 3 basis point - .03% - increase in the FFR was justified to ward off financial imbalances. It's a terrible policy move, and there isn't the slightest warrant for it.

Yellen, as with all people with great power, she can not speak truthfully. Leaders must portray that everything is fine, and if there is no reason for panic, nothing to see here, move along. Example, if in April 2008 the Fed chair had stated something like "we are in big trouble" the Panic of 2008 would have started on the day of the statement. A statement of truth.

Stress test for all 31 bank were a success, that gives everyone a warm feeling inside. Every bank must pass these stress tests to please the animal spirits, since if one bank fails, then the whole system would be in trouble. Federal regulators and regulations are tools of the banking industry. To really regulate banks end legal tender laws, so that people can regulate banks themselves, by using money outside of a central banking system.

The domination of the central banks must ended.


Good job for ignoring every singe point I made to substitute your own BS.

As you ignore the victims of the Fed.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 6:57:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 2:38:11 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/8/2015 2:30:16 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2015 11:15:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/7/2015 7:15:56 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2015 7:10:08 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Let's include what the person sharing the stage with Yellen had to say. IMF Managing director had to say, "Lagarde noted that more women leaders would help improve governance in the financial system, a comment that resonated in the event's crowd and waiting speakers, which featured some of the world's most powerful women in finance." and "Lagarde also said bank compensation incentives need to change so as to not reward excessive risk-taking."

And, I am the one that is hard to take serious.

How in the world is that (a) relevant to this thread or (b) inconsistent with what I even said?

Lagarde, like Yellen, is referring to POTENTIAL risks to financial stability. I'm all for financial reform, but that isn't the least bit relevant. You misrepresented Janet Yellen's position, which is clearly more pertinent to the purposes of this thread than Lagarde, though you haven't pointed out a single thing Lagarde said which is inconsistent with Yellen's remarks.

You're splitting hairs, likely because you were caught cherry-picking


The Fed is preparing to punish different victims, these new victims must listen to every word that the punisher (Fed) states to reduce the punishment. For those new victims that are unaware, you should have been paying attention to the remarks of a few well-connect central bankers. The Fed demonstrates its independence clearly by disregarding the effects of its policies, if it had to answer to holders of US dollars, by optional use, the Fed's policy would be radically different.

People and businesses should focus on their own financial stability without regard to the Fed. The Fed is only a handful of connected, showing the next employer their loyalty. The Fed is loyalty is not the holders of US dollars.

Central banking monetary policy needs an "opt out" option.

I know you want to get into this sh1t, because this whole "monetary policy is immoral" sophistry is your thing, but let's focus on the substance - is there, presently, excessive leverage?

The stress tests conducted under Dodd-Frank say no:


"Despite the foreign banks" failures and broader struggles, analysts said the tests were largely positive for Wall Street, since all the U.S. domestic banks passed the exercise for the first time since 2009. After adjusting their capital plans, all 31 banks were found to be adequately capitalized and able to keep lending during a market shock"the first time no bank has fallen below a Fed minimum."

[http://www.wsj.com...]

Acknowledge that this does *not* prevent the *possibility* or the *risk* of future financial imbalances, but means only that, at present, there isn't any immediate need to worry about them.

Not to mention, leaning on bubbles does not and has never worked - that's why we got the Depression, in fact. Sweden tried it in 2010 and 2011 and failed as well. In fact, recent research presented at the San Francisco Fed (that I can link to) conducted a cost-benefit analysis and found that a 3 basis point - .03% - increase in the FFR was justified to ward off financial imbalances. It's a terrible policy move, and there isn't the slightest warrant for it.

Yellen, as with all people with great power, she can not speak truthfully. Leaders must portray that everything is fine, and if there is no reason for panic, nothing to see here, move along. Example, if in April 2008 the Fed chair had stated something like "we are in big trouble" the Panic of 2008 would have started on the day of the statement. A statement of truth.

Stress test for all 31 bank were a success, that gives everyone a warm feeling inside. Every bank must pass these stress tests to please the animal spirits, since if one bank fails, then the whole system would be in trouble. Federal regulators and regulations are tools of the banking industry. To really regulate banks end legal tender laws, so that people can regulate banks themselves, by using money outside of a central banking system.

The domination of the central banks must ended.


Good job for ignoring every singe point I made to substitute your own BS.

As you ignore the victims of the Fed.

Untrue, especially because you're fabricating very serious issues about financial stability that you don't understand.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 10:30:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 6:57:21 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/8/2015 2:38:11 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/8/2015 2:30:16 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2015 11:15:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/7/2015 7:15:56 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2015 7:10:08 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Let's include what the person sharing the stage with Yellen had to say. IMF Managing director had to say, "Lagarde noted that more women leaders would help improve governance in the financial system, a comment that resonated in the event's crowd and waiting speakers, which featured some of the world's most powerful women in finance." and "Lagarde also said bank compensation incentives need to change so as to not reward excessive risk-taking."

And, I am the one that is hard to take serious.

How in the world is that (a) relevant to this thread or (b) inconsistent with what I even said?

Lagarde, like Yellen, is referring to POTENTIAL risks to financial stability. I'm all for financial reform, but that isn't the least bit relevant. You misrepresented Janet Yellen's position, which is clearly more pertinent to the purposes of this thread than Lagarde, though you haven't pointed out a single thing Lagarde said which is inconsistent with Yellen's remarks.

You're splitting hairs, likely because you were caught cherry-picking


The Fed is preparing to punish different victims, these new victims must listen to every word that the punisher (Fed) states to reduce the punishment. For those new victims that are unaware, you should have been paying attention to the remarks of a few well-connect central bankers. The Fed demonstrates its independence clearly by disregarding the effects of its policies, if it had to answer to holders of US dollars, by optional use, the Fed's policy would be radically different.

People and businesses should focus on their own financial stability without regard to the Fed. The Fed is only a handful of connected, showing the next employer their loyalty. The Fed is loyalty is not the holders of US dollars.

Central banking monetary policy needs an "opt out" option.

I know you want to get into this sh1t, because this whole "monetary policy is immoral" sophistry is your thing, but let's focus on the substance - is there, presently, excessive leverage?

The stress tests conducted under Dodd-Frank say no:


"Despite the foreign banks" failures and broader struggles, analysts said the tests were largely positive for Wall Street, since all the U.S. domestic banks passed the exercise for the first time since 2009. After adjusting their capital plans, all 31 banks were found to be adequately capitalized and able to keep lending during a market shock"the first time no bank has fallen below a Fed minimum."

[http://www.wsj.com...]

Acknowledge that this does *not* prevent the *possibility* or the *risk* of future financial imbalances, but means only that, at present, there isn't any immediate need to worry about them.

Not to mention, leaning on bubbles does not and has never worked - that's why we got the Depression, in fact. Sweden tried it in 2010 and 2011 and failed as well. In fact, recent research presented at the San Francisco Fed (that I can link to) conducted a cost-benefit analysis and found that a 3 basis point - .03% - increase in the FFR was justified to ward off financial imbalances. It's a terrible policy move, and there isn't the slightest warrant for it.

Yellen, as with all people with great power, she can not speak truthfully. Leaders must portray that everything is fine, and if there is no reason for panic, nothing to see here, move along. Example, if in April 2008 the Fed chair had stated something like "we are in big trouble" the Panic of 2008 would have started on the day of the statement. A statement of truth.

Stress test for all 31 bank were a success, that gives everyone a warm feeling inside. Every bank must pass these stress tests to please the animal spirits, since if one bank fails, then the whole system would be in trouble. Federal regulators and regulations are tools of the banking industry. To really regulate banks end legal tender laws, so that people can regulate banks themselves, by using money outside of a central banking system.

The domination of the central banks must ended.


Good job for ignoring every singe point I made to substitute your own BS.

As you ignore the victims of the Fed.

Untrue, especially because you're fabricating very serious issues about financial stability that you don't understand.

The issues are factual, the harm is real. Central planners use this banking system for economic control and political entrepreneurship.

Except for domestic market in currency, you seam like a free market guy. The Fed sets an artificial price along with artificial scarcity of currency. If turnip markets had artificial prices and no scarcity, you would see the problems. Yet when it is currency you will jump in line with the central planners.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 10:37:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 10:30:48 PM, Chang29 wrote:
The issues are factual, the harm is real. Central planners use this banking system for economic control and political entrepreneurship.

Sigh...

Okay, humor me: show me some of these "facts." I want to see non-biased sources, peer-reviewed journals, etc. Prove it.

Except for domestic market in currency, you seam like a free market guy.

I am a free market guy. Even with currencies I'm for a free market - which is to say I'm for floating exchange rates and, generally speaking, opposed to forex manipulation.

The Fed sets an artificial price along with artificial scarcity of currency.

But they're not. Interest rates are determined by the market. The Fed can intervene in and influence one benchmark short rate, but rates are procyclical - i.e., they rise when times are good, and fall when times are bad. Rates are low now not because of the Fed, but because NGDP is low.

If turnip markets had artificial prices and no scarcity, you would see the problems.

What do you mean by "artificial prices?" If the price differed from fundamentals, sure I've be scared - but it's hard to actually measure "fundamentals." Bubbles are extremely hard to detect .

Yet when it is currency you will jump in line with the central planners.

That just isn't the case. Exchange rates are set by the market. In the short run they fluctuate with monetary policy interventions, but in the long run real exchange rates reach parity - i.e., they equal 1.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 10:49:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 10:37:47 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/8/2015 10:30:48 PM, Chang29 wrote:
The issues are factual, the harm is real. Central planners use this banking system for economic control and political entrepreneurship.

Sigh...

Okay, humor me: show me some of these "facts." I want to see non-biased sources, peer-reviewed journals, etc. Prove it.

Except for domestic market in currency, you seam like a free market guy.

I am a free market guy. Even with currencies I'm for a free market - which is to say I'm for floating exchange rates and, generally speaking, opposed to forex manipulation.

The Fed sets an artificial price along with artificial scarcity of currency.

But they're not. Interest rates are determined by the market. The Fed can intervene in and influence one benchmark short rate, but rates are procyclical - i.e., they rise when times are good, and fall when times are bad. Rates are low now not because of the Fed, but because NGDP is low.

If turnip markets had artificial prices and no scarcity, you would see the problems.

What do you mean by "artificial prices?" If the price differed from fundamentals, sure I've be scared - but it's hard to actually measure "fundamentals." Bubbles are extremely hard to detect .

Yet when it is currency you will jump in line with the central planners.

That just isn't the case. Exchange rates are set by the market. In the short run they fluctuate with monetary policy interventions, but in the long run real exchange rates reach parity - i.e., they equal 1.

There ****NO**** domestic currency market. Americans must use US dollars in banking and must accept US Dollars for all debts public and private. US bank accounts must be is US dollars. Thus, no market in currency.

The market for US dollars in America is a Fed reserve monopoly or cartel, how even you want to define it.

The Fed either controls interest rates (price of currency) or it does not? If the Fed had no effect on interest rates then nobody would care about FOMC meetings.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 10:52:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 10:49:42 PM, Chang29 wrote:
There ****NO**** domestic currency market. Americans must use US dollars in banking and must accept US Dollars for all debts public and private. US bank accounts must be is US dollars. Thus, no market in currency.

Sure - there's a market for assets denominated in the domestic currency, but no "domestic currency market."

The market for US dollars in America is a Fed reserve monopoly or cartel, how even you want to define it.

How? The dollar is (a) under the purview of the U.S. Treasury and (b) set only indirectly by the Fed, and mostly by forces outside the purview of monetary policy.

The Fed either controls interest rates (price of currency) or it does not? If the Fed had no effect on interest rates then nobody would care about FOMC meetings.

I never said it has no effect on interest rates. It influences one rate, which transmits through to other rates, but it doesn't *set* those rates, and it's following the Wickselian equilibrium - which is determined by the state of the economy.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 11:14:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 10:52:49 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/8/2015 10:49:42 PM, Chang29 wrote:
There ****NO**** domestic currency market. Americans must use US dollars in banking and must accept US Dollars for all debts public and private. US bank accounts must be is US dollars. Thus, no market in currency.

Sure - there's a market for assets denominated in the domestic currency, but no "domestic currency market."

A domestic currency market, a market of different currencies all acceptable as legal tender within the US. In other words, domestic competition to the US dollar.


The market for US dollars in America is a Fed reserve monopoly or cartel, how even you want to define it.

How? The dollar is (a) under the purview of the U.S. Treasury and (b) set only indirectly by the Fed, and mostly by forces outside the purview of monetary policy.

The Fed is the sole distributor of the US dollar, and provides policies for creation of US dollars. A monopoly.


The Fed either controls interest rates (price of currency) or it does not? If the Fed had no effect on interest rates then nobody would care about FOMC meetings.

I never said it has no effect on interest rates. It influences one rate, which transmits through to other rates, but it doesn't *set* those rates, and it's following the Wickselian equilibrium - which is determined by the state of the economy.

For the Wickselian equilibrium to apply central banks must have currency monopoly power. Since the Fed has monopoly power over the US dollar, the Fed controls interest rates in US dollars. If there were a competing currency to the US dollar, that was acceptable for all debts public and private, then the Wickselian equilibrium would require a downward modification, and the Fed's effect on interest rates would decrease. Thus nobody would care about FOMC meetings.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 12:55:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:14:31 PM, Chang29 wrote:
A domestic currency market, a market of different currencies all acceptable as legal tender within the US. In other words, domestic competition to the US dollar.

I just agreed with you that such a thing doesn't exist.


The market for US dollars in America is a Fed reserve monopoly or cartel, how even you want to define it.

How? The dollar is (a) under the purview of the U.S. Treasury and (b) set only indirectly by the Fed, and mostly by forces outside the purview of monetary policy.

The Fed is the sole distributor of the US dollar, and provides policies for creation of US dollars. A monopoly.

The Fed can issue dollars, but so can the Treasury - so that's only partially true.


The Fed either controls interest rates (price of currency) or it does not? If the Fed had no effect on interest rates then nobody would care about FOMC meetings.

I never said it has no effect on interest rates. It influences one rate, which transmits through to other rates, but it doesn't *set* those rates, and it's following the Wickselian equilibrium - which is determined by the state of the economy.

For the Wickselian equilibrium to apply central banks must have currency monopoly power. Since the Fed has monopoly power over the US dollar, the Fed controls interest rates in US dollars. If there were a competing currency to the US dollar, that was acceptable for all debts public and private, then the Wickselian equilibrium would require a downward modification, and the Fed's effect on interest rates would decrease. Thus nobody would care about FOMC meetings.

This is totally and complete wrong on the first front because there would still be some market-clearing interest, which would be roughy equal in several different currencies via arbitrage. Setting policy, to that end, would once more illuminate FOMC meetings.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 3:53:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 12:55:49 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/8/2015 11:14:31 PM, Chang29 wrote:
A domestic currency market, a market of different currencies all acceptable as legal tender within the US. In other words, domestic competition to the US dollar.

I just agreed with you that such a thing doesn't exist.


The market for US dollars in America is a Fed reserve monopoly or cartel, how even you want to define it.

How? The dollar is (a) under the purview of the U.S. Treasury and (b) set only indirectly by the Fed, and mostly by forces outside the purview of monetary policy.

The Fed is the sole distributor of the US dollar, and provides policies for creation of US dollars. A monopoly.

The Fed can issue dollars, but so can the Treasury - so that's only partially true.


The Fed either controls interest rates (price of currency) or it does not? If the Fed had no effect on interest rates then nobody would care about FOMC meetings.

I never said it has no effect on interest rates. It influences one rate, which transmits through to other rates, but it doesn't *set* those rates, and it's following the Wickselian equilibrium - which is determined by the state of the economy.

For the Wickselian equilibrium to apply central banks must have currency monopoly power. Since the Fed has monopoly power over the US dollar, the Fed controls interest rates in US dollars. If there were a competing currency to the US dollar, that was acceptable for all debts public and private, then the Wickselian equilibrium would require a downward modification, and the Fed's effect on interest rates would decrease. Thus nobody would care about FOMC meetings.

This is totally and complete wrong on the first front because there would still be some market-clearing interest, which would be roughy equal in several different currencies via arbitrage. Setting policy, to that end, would once more illuminate FOMC meetings.

Arbitrage would be out of inferior currencies to superior. With the FED having control on only one currency, the effects on other independent currencies would be muted. New velocity of currencies would cause inferior currencies to have the highest velocity. People would attempt to deplete these less desirable currencies before value drops.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 4:14:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 3:53:38 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Arbitrage would be out of inferior currencies to superior.

That's the entire point of arbitrage, yes.

With the FED having control on only one currency, the effects on other independent currencies would be muted.

Not true, especially with the dollar being the current world reserve currency, and the current medium of exchange. Movements in the dollar would tend to dictate movements in other currencies, especially with current debt - which many are still paying down - denominated in dollars.

New velocity of currencies would cause inferior currencies to have the highest velocity.

I don't even know what "velocity of currencies" means. Velocity in economics is the tendency to hold liquid assets. How are you defining it in this case?

People would attempt to deplete these less desirable currencies before value drops.

Before the value drops? No, they'd hold them expecting the currencies to appreciate.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 8:25:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 4:14:35 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/9/2015 3:53:38 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Arbitrage would be out of inferior currencies to superior.

That's the entire point of arbitrage, yes.

With the FED having control on only one currency, the effects on other independent currencies would be muted.

Not true, especially with the dollar being the current world reserve currency, and the current medium of exchange. Movements in the dollar would tend to dictate movements in other currencies, especially with current debt - which many are still paying down - denominated in dollars.

Correct, further encouraging the Fed no to let the US dollar become an inferior currency. Additional domestic currencies, would threaten as some call the Petro-dollar. US currencies would have significant international ramifications outside of control of central planners. An international currency could rise as the world reserve currency. Thus, degrading the actions of all central banks.

BRICs and AIIB currency ideas are interesting, but are mostly designed to enhance Chinese economic power.

New velocity of currencies would cause inferior currencies to have the highest velocity.

I don't even know what "velocity of currencies" means. Velocity in economics is the tendency to hold liquid assets. How are you defining it in this case?

Same meaning, each currency (liquid asset) would have a different velocity, with inferior currencies having the highest velocity.


People would attempt to deplete these less desirable currencies before value drops.

Before the value drops? No, they'd hold them expecting the currencies to appreciate.

Correct, people would hold appreciating currencies (superior), and spend depreciating currencies (inferior). Over time people would not accept inferior currencies, unless governmental force is applied.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 8:31:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 8:25:00 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Correct, further encouraging the Fed no to let the US dollar become an inferior currency. Additional domestic currencies, would threaten as some call the Petro-dollar. US currencies would have significant international ramifications outside of control of central planners. An international currency could rise as the world reserve currency. Thus, degrading the actions of all central banks.

I suppose. It's highly unlikely, but sure, there's a scenario where that could happen. How is that desirable?

BRICs and AIIB currency ideas are interesting, but are mostly designed to enhance Chinese economic power.

Agreed, and clearly that's an issue. Both of us support floating exchange rates, I'd imagine.

Same meaning, each currency (liquid asset) would have a different velocity, with inferior currencies having the highest velocity.

Why would people want to hold inferior currencies, especially when currency competition will lead to various export goods being denominated in different currencies? The export effect would be completely muted.

People would attempt to deplete these less desirable currencies before value drops.

Before the value drops? No, they'd hold them expecting the currencies to appreciate.

Correct, people would hold appreciating currencies (superior), and spend depreciating currencies (inferior). Over time people would not accept inferior currencies, unless governmental force is applied.

But that depends on what people depend to do with those dollar - invest them in foreign assets or spend them on export goods, and even then there's a question of what currency those goods are denominated in.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 11:16:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 8:31:32 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/9/2015 8:25:00 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Correct, further encouraging the Fed no to let the US dollar become an inferior currency. Additional domestic currencies, would threaten as some call the Petro-dollar. US currencies would have significant international ramifications outside of control of central planners. An international currency could rise as the world reserve currency. Thus, degrading the actions of all central banks.

I suppose. It's highly unlikely, but sure, there's a scenario where that could happen. How is that desirable?

You asked for sophistry, personal freedom, blah blah blah, personal responsibility, blah blah blah, limit government power blah blah blah, end oligarchy blah blah blah.


BRICs and AIIB currency ideas are interesting, but are mostly designed to enhance Chinese economic power.

Agreed, and clearly that's an issue. Both of us support floating exchange rates, I'd imagine.

Same meaning, each currency (liquid asset) would have a different velocity, with inferior currencies having the highest velocity.

Why would people want to hold inferior currencies, especially when currency competition will lead to various export goods being denominated in different currencies? The export effect would be completely muted.

People would not hold inferior currencies, thus debased and inflated currencies would be museum pieces. The export effect could be completely gone, the effect is just another tool of governmental economic interference.


People would attempt to deplete these less desirable currencies before value drops.

Before the value drops? No, they'd hold them expecting the currencies to appreciate.

Correct, people would hold appreciating currencies (superior), and spend depreciating currencies (inferior). Over time people would not accept inferior currencies, unless governmental force is applied.

But that depends on what people depend to do with those dollar - invest them in foreign assets or spend them on export goods, and even then there's a question of what currency those goods are denominated in.

A superior currency, it would gain value in a shoe box. No need to invest until interest rates rise to a point to incentify investment, thus coordinating investment and consumption without a central planner. Denomination of goods would be up to the holder of the good. Individuals and firms can do what they believe is in their self-interest. I have no desire to control anybody else's decisions.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 11:25:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 11:16:21 PM, Chang29 wrote:
You asked for sophistry, personal freedom, blah blah blah, personal responsibility, blah blah blah, limit government power blah blah blah, end oligarchy blah blah blah.

Uhh... no, I didn't.

People would not hold inferior currencies, thus debased and inflated currencies would be museum pieces. The export effect could be completely gone, the effect is just another tool of governmental economic interference.

It is a tool of economic interference, though clearly a useful one - and, mind you, it's an indirect tool, with the rare exception of China, especially because in the U.S., the mechanism for boosting net exports would be expansionary monetary policy, though if the income effect outweighs the substitution effect, the trade balance falls.

A superior currency, it would gain value in a shoe box. No need to invest until interest rates rise to a point to incentify investment, thus coordinating investment and consumption without a central planner.

But the currency would rise with the *expectation* of a rate hike - i.e., to prevent the economy from overheating, so clearly arbitrage would exist to moderate one currency from becoming "superior."

Denomination of goods would be up to the holder of the good. Individuals and firms can do what they believe is in their self-interest. I have no desire to control anybody else's decisions.

Nor do I, though I don't buy the idea that everyone acts in their own self-interest, is perfectly rational, etc., and nor should you.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 2:06:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 11:25:52 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/9/2015 11:16:21 PM, Chang29 wrote:
You asked for sophistry, personal freedom, blah blah blah, personal responsibility, blah blah blah, limit government power blah blah blah, end oligarchy blah blah blah.

Uhh... no, I didn't.

People would not hold inferior currencies, thus debased and inflated currencies would be museum pieces. The export effect could be completely gone, the effect is just another tool of governmental economic interference.

It is a tool of economic interference, though clearly a useful one - and, mind you, it's an indirect tool, with the rare exception of China, especially because in the U.S., the mechanism for boosting net exports would be expansionary monetary policy, though if the income effect outweighs the substitution effect, the trade balance falls.

A superior currency, it would gain value in a shoe box. No need to invest until interest rates rise to a point to incentify investment, thus coordinating investment and consumption without a central planner.

But the currency would rise with the *expectation* of a rate hike - i.e., to prevent the economy from overheating, so clearly arbitrage would exist to moderate one currency from becoming "superior."

Economies cannot overheat, that is sophistry. If all aspects of an economy are coordinated by free markets overheating is impossible.


Denomination of goods would be up to the holder of the good. Individuals and firms can do what they believe is in their self-interest. I have no desire to control anybody else's decisions.

Nor do I, though I don't buy the idea that everyone acts in their own self-interest, is perfectly rational, etc., and nor should you.

Rational and self-interest is completely far from the same, but people should be allowed to be irrational, even in monetary decision. There are societies that are different, that hot-climate culture vs cold-climate. A few selfless that will fall on a grenade for the good of the rest, most people will kick the grenade at another.

On the other thread, I proposed a debate, I have my last final on Tuesday, and will have some time. I will need to do some papers on the Financial crises next semester, might as well do the research now.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 8:38:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 2:06:40 AM, Chang29 wrote:

As with the other thread, I'll respond to this when I have more time - though I'm certainly interested in a formal debate.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah