Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

The Federal Reserve System:

harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 12:00:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
The Federal Reserve is charged by congress to manage monetary policy, regulate inflation and minimise unemployment. Their policy in regards to managing inflation is to print free money, their policy to minimise unemployment is to cause a crash in 2008 which increased unemployment to 9.3%, and their version of "managing monetary policy" is "ruin the economy!"

Obcourse our economy is going to be really shi tty if these clowns are the ones in charge.
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 12:02:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Pretty simplistic and incorrect assessment.

The crash in 2008 was mostly caused by the big financial firms trading CDOs and the market collapsing.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 1:04:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
lol.

The funny thing is, there actually is a very compelling argument advanced by the market monetarist school that the recession CAUSED the financial crisis, rather than the other way around: that allowing nominal GDP to collapse so significantly in 2008 as the Fed did was the proximal cause of the housing bust, evidenced by the fact that technically home prices began to collapse around 2006ish, but unemployment didn't much budge.

Of course, that's not what this guy had in mind.

The Fed has actually done an absolutely phenomenal job in the post-crisis years, and while I'm the first one to quibble with them for not being aggressive ENOUGH, it's hard not to commend Bernanke/Yellen for the extraordinary measures (via-a-vis the historical record) they took with incredibly new and virtually untested tools.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 9:33:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 12:00:06 AM, harrytruman wrote:
The Federal Reserve is charged by congress to manage monetary policy, regulate inflation and minimise unemployment. Their policy in regards to managing inflation is to print free money, their policy to minimise unemployment is to cause a crash in 2008 which increased unemployment to 9.3%, and their version of "managing monetary policy" is "ruin the economy!"

Obcourse our economy is going to be really shi tty if these clowns are the ones in charge.
The first example of paper money that was brought to the European countries was based on a Ponzi scheme that seems to be hard to find to post a link. Apparently in China an emperor was in debt to other emperors. So what he did was print money and order his citizens to exchange it for goods and made it against the law to destroy it. He then used a tax to gather up some of it and re exchange it to his citizens for goods to pay off his debts. Essentially he created value out of thin air. In the US we assume money is representative of the gold that America has. That's why there used to be a gold standard bill. It also used to be a law that every bank had to exchange gold for money whenever asked by someone. You know I may be remembering this wrong because I use money to stuff my pillow cases and bean bags....
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 10:31:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 1:04:44 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
lol.

The funny thing is, there actually is a very compelling argument advanced by the market monetarist school that the recession CAUSED the financial crisis, rather than the other way around: that allowing nominal GDP to collapse so significantly in 2008 as the Fed did was the proximal cause of the housing bust, evidenced by the fact that technically home prices began to collapse around 2006ish, but unemployment didn't much budge.

Is time travel involved at any point?

Housing prices started to decline in 2006 and but the economy as a whole didn't start to decline until 2007 and it was 2008 before that decline became a recession.

Besides, it's hardly an excuse. They were neck deep in CDOs they didn't understand with little to no handling of risk. Many of the large banks had no idea of how to handle the risk involved and even those who did try and handle it were doing so poorly. They used mathematical formulas which could pretty accurately calculate risk - but feed it dodgy datasets seeing as there had never been an (inter)national interconnected market of this type so the small regional housing collapses they used as a baseline were unrepresentative of the situation.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 2:49:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:31:22 AM, Overhead wrote:
Is time travel involved at any point?

Not as far as I know.

Housing prices started to decline in 2006 and but the economy as a whole didn't start to decline until 2007 and it was 2008 before that decline became a recession.

I know. That is precisely what I just said. The argument they raise -- which I'm not endorsing, but only saying it's moderately compelling -- is that the financial crisis preceded the recession, and the gap between the two was a function of overly tight monetary policy. In other words, the financial crisis itself wasn't sufficient to cause the Great Recession. But then that leaves out the private-sector debt overhang and the headwinds actually preventing the Fed from stabilizing NGDP growth at, say 5 percent back in 2008.

Again, I'm not endorsing it, but it's extremely hard to argue -- in fact, it would be demonstrably wrong to argue -- that Fed policy wasn't too tight in 2008. Ben Bernanke admitted in his memoir that it was. In 2008, they didn't slash rates two days after Lehman collapsed, in spite of cratering inflation expectations since July of that year (about 30 bps over a 5-year horizon and 70 over a 10-year horizon) because they were equally worried about inflation (oil shock) and recession. That was a mistake.

Besides, it's hardly an excuse. They were neck deep in CDOs they didn't understand with little to no handling of risk. Many of the large banks had no idea of how to handle the risk involved and even those who did try and handle it were doing so poorly. They used mathematical formulas which could pretty accurately calculate risk - but feed it dodgy datasets seeing as there had never been an (inter)national interconnected market of this type so the small regional housing collapses they used as a baseline were unrepresentative of the situation.

You don't need to lecture me on the financial crisis, man. I'm fully aware of the intricacies of CDO's and the extent of the reckless behavior that took place on Wall Street. That isn't the argument I was advancing.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 3:21:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 2:49:43 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I know. That is precisely what I just said. The argument they raise -- which I'm not endorsing, but only saying it's moderately compelling -- is that the financial crisis preceded the recession, and the gap between the two was a function of overly tight monetary policy. In other words, the financial crisis itself wasn't sufficient to cause the Great Recession. But then that leaves out the private-sector debt overhang and the headwinds actually preventing the Fed from stabilizing NGDP growth at, say 5 percent back in 2008.

You're either making a typo here or in your last post or your argument is just nonsense. You can't claim "the financial crisis preceded the recession" and "recession CAUSED the financial crisis" as you stated last time.

The two are mutually exclusive.

Either way, if you could clarify which of the two contradictory positions is the one you want to hold to, that'd be handy.

You don't need to lecture me on the financial crisis, man. I'm fully aware of the intricacies of CDO's and the extent of the reckless behavior that took place on Wall Street. That isn't the argument I was advancing.

You were advancing an argument which shifted blame to the Fed. I advanced an argument which shifted the blame to the banks. If you have any issues with that *Shrugs*
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 3:45:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 3:21:24 PM, Overhead wrote:
You're either making a typo here or in your last post or your argument is just nonsense. You can't claim "the financial crisis preceded the recession" and "recession CAUSED the financial crisis" as you stated last time.

The two are mutually exclusive.

Either way, if you could clarify which of the two contradictory positions is the one you want to hold to, that'd be handy.

The first post had a typo -- the financial crisis clearly took first, but the position (which I haven't endorsed) is that the gap was a function of tight money.

You don't need to lecture me on the financial crisis, man. I'm fully aware of the intricacies of CDO's and the extent of the reckless behavior that took place on Wall Street. That isn't the argument I was advancing.

You were advancing an argument which shifted blame to the Fed.

No, I didn't: I said it was compelling, which it is, because it's unquestionably true that monetary policy was far too tight in 2008. Even Ben Bernanke agrees with me on that.

I advanced an argument which shifted the blame to the banks. If you have any issues with that *Shrugs*

And you're welcome to make that case, but (a) I haven't actually advocated the market-monetarist line of causation (you could even say that I AGREE with you, with the one exception being that tight money in 2008 made it worse) and (b) a lecture is far different from an argument. I'm fully aware of the complex financial instruments, and truly don't need your condescension.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 3:58:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 3:45:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
No, I didn't: I said it was compelling, which it is, because it's unquestionably true that monetary policy was far too tight in 2008. Even Ben Bernanke agrees with me on that.

Yes, so you advanced it as a potentially correct analysis of the financial crisis.

And you're welcome to make that case, but (a) I haven't actually advocated the market-monetarist line of causation (you could even say that I AGREE with you, with the one exception being that tight money in 2008 made it worse)

Incorrect. You advocated it in your first post. " There actually is a very compelling argument advanced by the market monetarist school..."

and (b) a lecture is far different from an argument. I'm fully aware of the complex financial instruments, and truly don't need your condescension.

Seeing as you seem to think that any post which correct you or holds a contrary position is a lecture, perhaps avoid posting on the forums in the future - especially as you just respond with semantics. A blog without a comments section seems more your style.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 4:00:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 3:58:00 PM, Overhead wrote:
Yes, so you advanced it as a potentially correct analysis of the financial crisis.

No, I did not. You are misrepresenting what I said.

*rolls eyes*

Incorrect. You advocated it in your first post. " There actually is a very compelling argument advanced by the market monetarist school..."

I said it was compelling. I didn't endorse it. The reason it is compelling is because it is demonstrably true that money was too tight in 2008.

and (b) a lecture is far different from an argument. I'm fully aware of the complex financial instruments, and truly don't need your condescension.

Seeing as you seem to think that any post which correct you or holds a contrary position is a lecture, perhaps avoid posting on the forums in the future - especially as you just respond with semantics. A blog without a comments section seems more your style.

LMFAO.

That you think your post did anything in the way of "correcting" me -- or even did anything in the way of advocating a contrarian position, because you haven't actually responded to the position I actually hold or the argument I actually made (money was too tight, not that the Fed CAUSED the recession) -- is more a reflection of your misunderstanding than it is mine.

Respond to what I actually wrote. You can do that: Ben Bernanke would be in my corner, ironically.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 4:13:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I should note that there's a huge difference between refusing to engage on a topic (which sounds a bit silly when clearly you have an expertise in that subject area) and refusing to engage with people who misrepresent your views and clearly aren't intelligent enough to hold two ideas in their head at once, or to debate the finer nuances of monetary policy.

You shouldn't conflate the two.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 4:32:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 4:13:23 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I should note that there's a huge difference between refusing to engage on a topic (which sounds a bit silly when clearly you have an expertise in that subject area) and refusing to engage with people who misrepresent your views and clearly aren't intelligent enough to hold two ideas in their head at once, or to debate the finer nuances of monetary policy.

You shouldn't conflate the two.

Just because I corrected you on errors you made, that doesn't mean I automatically think that you "clearly aren't intelligent enough to hold two ideas in their head at once". Everyone makes mistakes.

You certainly haven't done yourself any favours by making meaningless semantic arguments and turning away from the topic altogether as you've doen now, instead posting about why you don't want to post about the topic up for discussion. After all anyone, no matter how ill-informed, can claim to be an expert if they aren't willing to engage in discussion. However if you've got anything relevant you want to contribute then I'm perfectly happy to judge it at face value.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 4:34:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 4:32:10 PM, Overhead wrote:
Just because I corrected you on errors you made, that doesn't mean I automatically think that you "clearly aren't intelligent enough to hold two ideas in their head at once". Everyone makes mistakes.

You didn't correct a single error I made -- only a typo, which says nothing about the position I was actually supporting, rather than what you think I was supporting.

You've also misread my last post.

You certainly haven't done yourself any favours by making meaningless semantic arguments and turning away from the topic altogether as you've doen now, instead posting about why you don't want to post about the topic up for discussion.

I didn't do that, either. Another misreading.

After all anyone, no matter how ill-informed, can claim to be an expert if they aren't willing to engage in discussion.

Indeed they can.

However if you've got anything relevant you want to contribute then I'm perfectly happy to judge it at face value.

No, you aren't, actually. You're perfectly happy to misconstrue it and misrepresent and disregard it, as you've disregarded the argument I actually made in this thread. And that's why I haven't any interesting in engaging with you, and will not be continuing this conversation.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 5:04:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 4:34:52 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
You didn't correct a single error I made -- only a typo, which says nothing about the position I was actually supporting, rather than what you think I was supporting.

"Only" a typo where you posted the exact opposite of what you meant, leading you to make to contradictory.

Also notice how you retreat instantly into semantics. It's not an "error", it's a "typo" - even though contextually their usages are identical in this situation. That you try and make this claim is just one example of how superficial your arguments are.

Regardless of the label you attach to it, the situation is as I described and making a semantic argument of what that label should be does not change the underlying claim. "A rose by any other name" after all.

You've also misread my last post.

I was showing good faith and assuming you weren't throwing a tantrum about being shown up.

I didn't do that, either. Another misreading.

Rubbish, not only did you do it directly above this bit of your post, but you've relied on it throughout your posts.

Take your constant defence that you weren't advancing the ideas of the market monetarist school. To advance is "to bring into consideration or notice". Based on this common definition (taken from dictionary.com), you advanced it.

But the thing is, it doesn't really matter. All you argue about is the word that should be used to define what you did. Regardless of what you want to call it, you brought forth the market monetarist position as one that is potentially credible. The label you attach to the actions doesn't matter, call is "advancing" or "propounding" or "promoting" or whatever the hell you want, the action it is actually describing stays the same. Yet that's all you defend yourself with - semantics!

No, you aren't, actually. You're perfectly happy to misconstrue it and misrepresent and disregard it, as you've disregarded the argument I actually made in this thread. And that's why I haven't any interesting in engaging with you, and will not be continuing this conversation.

I've made my points and if you had anything else relevant to the topic to say, I'd happily respond if it was interesting or I disagreed and wanted to point out your errors. Since all you've been doing is getting mad about being corrected and having someone disagree with you, there's not much to do besides poking holes in your defences (though I'm very happy to do it!).
harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 5:42:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 9:33:56 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 12:00:06 AM, harrytruman wrote:
The Federal Reserve is charged by congress to manage monetary policy, regulate inflation and minimise unemployment. Their policy in regards to managing inflation is to print free money, their policy to minimise unemployment is to cause a crash in 2008 which increased unemployment to 9.3%, and their version of "managing monetary policy" is "ruin the economy!"

Obcourse our economy is going to be really shi tty if these clowns are the ones in charge.
The first example of paper money that was brought to the European countries was based on a Ponzi scheme that seems to be hard to find to post a link. Apparently in China an emperor was in debt to other emperors. So what he did was print money and order his citizens to exchange it for goods and made it against the law to destroy it. He then used a tax to gather up some of it and re exchange it to his citizens for goods to pay off his debts. Essentially he created value out of thin air. In the US we assume money is representative of the gold that America has. That's why there used to be a gold standard bill. It also used to be a law that every bank had to exchange gold for money whenever asked by someone. You know I may be remembering this wrong because I use money to stuff my pillow cases and bean bags....

You mean worthless paper right?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 1:54:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 5:42:47 PM, harrytruman wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:33:56 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 12:00:06 AM, harrytruman wrote:
The Federal Reserve is charged by congress to manage monetary policy, regulate inflation and minimise unemployment. Their policy in regards to managing inflation is to print free money, their policy to minimise unemployment is to cause a crash in 2008 which increased unemployment to 9.3%, and their version of "managing monetary policy" is "ruin the economy!"

Obcourse our economy is going to be really shi tty if these clowns are the ones in charge.
The first example of paper money that was brought to the European countries was based on a Ponzi scheme that seems to be hard to find to post a link. Apparently in China an emperor was in debt to other emperors. So what he did was print money and order his citizens to exchange it for goods and made it against the law to destroy it. He then used a tax to gather up some of it and re exchange it to his citizens for goods to pay off his debts. Essentially he created value out of thin air. In the US we assume money is representative of the gold that America has. That's why there used to be a gold standard bill. It also used to be a law that every bank had to exchange gold for money whenever asked by someone. You know I may be remembering this wrong because I use money to stuff my pillow cases and bean bags....

You mean worthless paper right?
The Chinese emperor created worthless paper. Federal reserve simply gives the illusion they aren't making worthless paper. I like the conspiracy theories about it. More interesting.....and no I stuffl pillow cases with fed reserve notes. No one would ever look for it in a dog bed. Lol
harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 12:39:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 1:54:45 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 5:42:47 PM, harrytruman wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:33:56 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 12:00:06 AM, harrytruman wrote:
The Federal Reserve is charged by congress to manage monetary policy, regulate inflation and minimise unemployment. Their policy in regards to managing inflation is to print free money, their policy to minimise unemployment is to cause a crash in 2008 which increased unemployment to 9.3%, and their version of "managing monetary policy" is "ruin the economy!"

Obcourse our economy is going to be really shi tty if these clowns are the ones in charge.
The first example of paper money that was brought to the European countries was based on a Ponzi scheme that seems to be hard to find to post a link. Apparently in China an emperor was in debt to other emperors. So what he did was print money and order his citizens to exchange it for goods and made it against the law to destroy it. He then used a tax to gather up some of it and re exchange it to his citizens for goods to pay off his debts. Essentially he created value out of thin air. In the US we assume money is representative of the gold that America has. That's why there used to be a gold standard bill. It also used to be a law that every bank had to exchange gold for money whenever asked by someone. You know I may be remembering this wrong because I use money to stuff my pillow cases and bean bags....

You mean worthless paper right?
The Chinese emperor created worthless paper. Federal reserve simply gives the illusion they aren't making worthless paper. I like the conspiracy theories about it. More interesting.....and no I stuffl pillow cases with fed reserve notes. No one would ever look for it in a dog bed. Lol

No, I don't do that either, I buy gold and silver
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 5:17:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 5:16:30 PM, harrytruman wrote:
At 5/6/2016 5:25:46 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...

Why then did you post?

Because I was interested in having a productive conversation based in reality, but evidently others are not. So I'll stick with my AMA threads.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 12:00:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/7/2016 5:17:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 5:16:30 PM, harrytruman wrote:
At 5/6/2016 5:25:46 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...

Why then did you post?

Because I was interested in having a productive conversation based in reality, but evidently others are not. So I'll stick with my AMA threads.

I provided a comprehensive explanation of exactly how your defence was superficial and shallow. You reply with an image macro.

You were wrong, there's no real argument to be made otherwise and now you're trying to save face as you scurry away.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 2:55:51 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/8/2016 12:00:12 PM, Overhead wrote:
At 5/7/2016 5:17:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 5:16:30 PM, harrytruman wrote:
At 5/6/2016 5:25:46 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...

Why then did you post?

Because I was interested in having a productive conversation based in reality, but evidently others are not. So I'll stick with my AMA threads.

I provided a comprehensive explanation of exactly how your defence was superficial and shallow. You reply with an image macro.

You were wrong, there's no real argument to be made otherwise and now you're trying to save face as you scurry away.

This is yet another example of just how disingenuous you are, because nothing could be further from the truth. You accused me of engaging in a semantic battle, when that was from the case, and frankly my time is better spent on my AMA threads, discussing economics with people who actually won't misrepresent my positions and are interesting in learning and having a civil discourse. There is no "saving face": that implies that you're far more relevant than you actually are. Don't flatter yourself.

So, once again, I don't give the slightest hell about what you have to say.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 1:29:19 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/6/2016 12:02:37 AM, Overhead wrote:
Pretty simplistic and incorrect assessment.

The crash in 2008 was mostly caused by the big financial firms trading CDOs and the market collapsing.

https://upload.wikimedia.org...

It does appear that the Fed Funds Rate is largely responsible for booms and busts.
The Fed first started creating new money since it was born, and then has raised interests rates until a tipping point, the first being the great depression. Since then it has continued to create booms and busts by building up the economy on new money and then raising the interest rates, and taking it away.
Obviously if there is a stream of credit, spending is up, demand for labor is high, then that credit feeding the economy is tightened up which drops the demand and in a debt based economy creates a deflationary spiral, until the credit comes back, and repeat.
I realize there are other factors of course, but all others being equal the effect is still the same in my opinion.
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 2:21:22 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/8/2016 2:55:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/8/2016 12:00:12 PM, Overhead wrote:
At 5/7/2016 5:17:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 5:16:30 PM, harrytruman wrote:
At 5/6/2016 5:25:46 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...

Why then did you post?

Because I was interested in having a productive conversation based in reality, but evidently others are not. So I'll stick with my AMA threads.

I provided a comprehensive explanation of exactly how your defence was superficial and shallow. You reply with an image macro.

You were wrong, there's no real argument to be made otherwise and now you're trying to save face as you scurry away.

This is yet another example of just how disingenuous you are, because nothing could be further from the truth. You accused me of engaging in a semantic battle, when that was from the case, and frankly my time is better spent on my AMA threads, discussing economics with people who actually won't misrepresent my positions and are interesting in learning and having a civil discourse. There is no "saving face": that implies that you're far more relevant than you actually are. Don't flatter yourself.

So, once again, I don't give the slightest hell about what you have to say.

"I don't care what you say" - A guy on his 9th post about how, no, he totally hasn't made a load of ridiculous posts. Hmm, I don't really buy it.

Also I didn't simply accuse you of engaging in semantics, I showed how this was the case. If you have a counter argument beyond just spouting your unsupported opinion, feel free to share.

At 5/10/2016 1:29:19 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 5/6/2016 12:02:37 AM, Overhead wrote:
Pretty simplistic and incorrect assessment.

The crash in 2008 was mostly caused by the big financial firms trading CDOs and the market collapsing.

https://upload.wikimedia.org...

It does appear that the Fed Funds Rate is largely responsible for booms and busts.
The Fed first started creating new money since it was born, and then has raised interests rates until a tipping point, the first being the great depression. Since then it has continued to create booms and busts by building up the economy on new money and then raising the interest rates, and taking it away.
Obviously if there is a stream of credit, spending is up, demand for labor is high, then that credit feeding the economy is tightened up which drops the demand and in a debt based economy creates a deflationary spiral, until the credit comes back, and repeat.
I realize there are other factors of course, but all others being equal the effect is still the same in my opinion.

I think you're trying to form a narrative to fit an ideology.

Your graph is of the federal fund rate versus the capacity utilization of manufacturing. The issue in the crisis, however, was not manufacturing. It was not a collapse of the manufacturing industry that set off the crisis, it was a collapse of the housing bubble and the financial tools related to this such as CDOs. You're not comparing relevant criteria.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 2:26:32 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 2:21:22 AM, Overhead wrote:

Dude, do you think I actually gives a hell about what you have to say? I came here to debate economics: not to deal with a stupid, unproductive back and forth. You can keep repeating again and again that you've proven X, Y, and Z, when you have done no such thing, and I'll continue not to care.

I mean, look at the front page of this forum: my material is all around, and people follow it for a reason. That speaks for itself. When I receive a notification, I'm hoping it's from someone who actually wants to engage in an intelligent dialogue on something I happen to know a lot about. This is just dumb, and forum encounters like this are one of the reasons I've been less likely these days to spend time on this website.

So, please, leave me alone. If you have anything productive you'd like to say about economics, I'll welcome you to post in my AMA thread. But I have no interest in having this dumb argument with you, which is why I'm not engaging with what you've said (and, for that matter, I haven't even read two of your last three posts: I don't care).
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 2:54:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 2:21:22 AM, Overhead wrote:
At 5/8/2016 2:55:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/8/2016 12:00:12 PM, Overhead wrote:
At 5/7/2016 5:17:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 5:16:30 PM, harrytruman wrote:
At 5/6/2016 5:25:46 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...

Why then did you post?

Because I was interested in having a productive conversation based in reality, but evidently others are not. So I'll stick with my AMA threads.

I provided a comprehensive explanation of exactly how your defence was superficial and shallow. You reply with an image macro.

You were wrong, there's no real argument to be made otherwise and now you're trying to save face as you scurry away.

This is yet another example of just how disingenuous you are, because nothing could be further from the truth. You accused me of engaging in a semantic battle, when that was from the case, and frankly my time is better spent on my AMA threads, discussing economics with people who actually won't misrepresent my positions and are interesting in learning and having a civil discourse. There is no "saving face": that implies that you're far more relevant than you actually are. Don't flatter yourself.

So, once again, I don't give the slightest hell about what you have to say.

"I don't care what you say" - A guy on his 9th post about how, no, he totally hasn't made a load of ridiculous posts. Hmm, I don't really buy it.

Also I didn't simply accuse you of engaging in semantics, I showed how this was the case. If you have a counter argument beyond just spouting your unsupported opinion, feel free to share.

At 5/10/2016 1:29:19 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 5/6/2016 12:02:37 AM, Overhead wrote:
Pretty simplistic and incorrect assessment.

The crash in 2008 was mostly caused by the big financial firms trading CDOs and the market collapsing.

https://upload.wikimedia.org...

It does appear that the Fed Funds Rate is largely responsible for booms and busts.
The Fed first started creating new money since it was born, and then has raised interests rates until a tipping point, the first being the great depression. Since then it has continued to create booms and busts by building up the economy on new money and then raising the interest rates, and taking it away.
Obviously if there is a stream of credit, spending is up, demand for labor is high, then that credit feeding the economy is tightened up which drops the demand and in a debt based economy creates a deflationary spiral, until the credit comes back, and repeat.
I realize there are other factors of course, but all others being equal the effect is still the same in my opinion.

I think you're trying to form a narrative to fit an ideology.

Your graph is of the federal fund rate versus the capacity utilization of manufacturing. The issue in the crisis, however, was not manufacturing. It was not a collapse of the manufacturing industry that set off the crisis, it was a collapse of the housing bubble and the financial tools related to this such as CDOs. You're not comparing relevant criteria.

An ideology? No, it's supply and demand. If there is an increase in spending, there is increase in the demand for manufacturing, which means growth, which means people buy homes, and at higher and higher prices.
Obviously loose credit and the bundling of these overvalued securities were contributors to the housing bubble. It did not 'pop' until the interest rates were raised, nearly doubled in the six years before the crash. The point is that bubbles form in a bullish economy because of the increase in credit and they pop when the credit is taken away.
If the supply of money goes up in relation to the supply of goods, naturally the demand will go up until prices adjust, at that point the fed adjusts the rates to combat the inflation and continually raise the rates until there is a crash. Capacity utilization seems to be a great indicator for overall spending and production in my opinion.
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 2:59:11 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 2:26:32 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/10/2016 2:21:22 AM, Overhead wrote:

Dude, do you think I actually gives a hell about what you have to say? I came here to debate economics: not to deal with a stupid, unproductive back and forth. You can keep repeating again and again that you've proven X, Y, and Z, when you have done no such thing, and I'll continue not to care.

I mean, look at the front page of this forum: my material is all around, and people follow it for a reason. That speaks for itself. When I receive a notification, I'm hoping it's from someone who actually wants to engage in an intelligent dialogue on something I happen to know a lot about. This is just dumb, and forum encounters like this are one of the reasons I've been less likely these days to spend time on this website.

So, please, leave me alone. If you have anything productive you'd like to say about economics, I'll welcome you to post in my AMA thread. But I have no interest in having this dumb argument with you, which is why I'm not engaging with what you've said (and, for that matter, I haven't even read two of your last three posts: I don't care).

LOL

"You are wrong, even though I'm now explicitly stating that I'm not reading your posts so actually have o way to truthfully assess that and make this claim" - ResponsiblyIrresponsible, TYOOL 2016

Please feel free to write another few paragraphs about how you totally don't care and how your superficial and even contradictory claims are totally correct because you post a lot on a small internet message board.