- This topic has 315 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 11, 2010 at 2:48 PM #590575August 11, 2010 at 2:50 PM #589534
smshorttimer
ParticipantInteresting stuff. I certainly don’t follow — nor am I probably capable of doing so — the way many of you in this thread do.
What strikes me, though: I hear this quantitative easing ala Japan comparison all the time, from guys such as Fox’s Charles Payne. People, say posters on Huffington Post, point to Japan when arguing against the Krugman spend-spend-spend side.
August 11, 2010 at 2:50 PM #589628ParticipantInteresting stuff. I certainly don’t follow — nor am I probably capable of doing so — the way many of you in this thread do.
What strikes me, though: I hear this quantitative easing ala Japan comparison all the time, from guys such as Fox’s Charles Payne. People, say posters on Huffington Post, point to Japan when arguing against the Krugman spend-spend-spend side.
August 11, 2010 at 2:50 PM #590163ParticipantInteresting stuff. I certainly don’t follow — nor am I probably capable of doing so — the way many of you in this thread do.
What strikes me, though: I hear this quantitative easing ala Japan comparison all the time, from guys such as Fox’s Charles Payne. People, say posters on Huffington Post, point to Japan when arguing against the Krugman spend-spend-spend side.
August 11, 2010 at 2:50 PM #590271ParticipantInteresting stuff. I certainly don’t follow — nor am I probably capable of doing so — the way many of you in this thread do.
What strikes me, though: I hear this quantitative easing ala Japan comparison all the time, from guys such as Fox’s Charles Payne. People, say posters on Huffington Post, point to Japan when arguing against the Krugman spend-spend-spend side.
August 11, 2010 at 2:50 PM #590580ParticipantInteresting stuff. I certainly don’t follow — nor am I probably capable of doing so — the way many of you in this thread do.
What strikes me, though: I hear this quantitative easing ala Japan comparison all the time, from guys such as Fox’s Charles Payne. People, say posters on Huffington Post, point to Japan when arguing against the Krugman spend-spend-spend side.
August 11, 2010 at 2:53 PM #589539Eugene
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]
This is not relevant… the government doesn’t need to increase its spending for the mechanism I described to increase the amount of money in the economy.[/quote]All that happens is that additional money is transferred to investors who sell existing Treasury bonds to the Fed. It’s certainly money creation, but the effect this would have on consumer demand and inflation is almost negligible.
August 11, 2010 at 2:53 PM #589633Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]
This is not relevant… the government doesn’t need to increase its spending for the mechanism I described to increase the amount of money in the economy.[/quote]All that happens is that additional money is transferred to investors who sell existing Treasury bonds to the Fed. It’s certainly money creation, but the effect this would have on consumer demand and inflation is almost negligible.
August 11, 2010 at 2:53 PM #590168Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]
This is not relevant… the government doesn’t need to increase its spending for the mechanism I described to increase the amount of money in the economy.[/quote]All that happens is that additional money is transferred to investors who sell existing Treasury bonds to the Fed. It’s certainly money creation, but the effect this would have on consumer demand and inflation is almost negligible.
August 11, 2010 at 2:53 PM #590276Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]
This is not relevant… the government doesn’t need to increase its spending for the mechanism I described to increase the amount of money in the economy.[/quote]All that happens is that additional money is transferred to investors who sell existing Treasury bonds to the Fed. It’s certainly money creation, but the effect this would have on consumer demand and inflation is almost negligible.
August 11, 2010 at 2:53 PM #590585Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]
This is not relevant… the government doesn’t need to increase its spending for the mechanism I described to increase the amount of money in the economy.[/quote]All that happens is that additional money is transferred to investors who sell existing Treasury bonds to the Fed. It’s certainly money creation, but the effect this would have on consumer demand and inflation is almost negligible.
August 11, 2010 at 2:59 PM #589549SD Transplant
ParticipantHere is what Chris Martenson has to say on the subject 🙂
This second round of quantitative easing is meant to lower mortgage rates (boost the housing market) and increase demand for bank loans (grow the economy).
Yet many reading this must be thinking: What deflation? Prices of gasoline, food, health-care, education are all getting more expensive.
Ask Chris Martenson, inflation or deflation? The economic researcher responds, “Yes!”
“We’re seeing inflation in some areas and deflation in others,” he tells Tech Ticker in this clip. “We have powerful deflationary forces in play right now. It’s been well balanced, so far, by what the Fed has done.”
Martenson thinks we’re “dangerously close” to entering a stage of “stagflation” that crippled the economy and market in the 1970s. “It’s the worst of all possible worlds,” says Martenson. “(Stagflation) really squeezes the workers even harder than any other condition you can experience. Wages are weak. Job growth is weak. The main assets that the average person tends to hold like real estate – that’s going down. On the other side, we are seeing base inflation” in some commodities.
“Stagflation,” as defined by Investopedia, is: a condition of slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment — a time of stagnation — accompanied by a rise in prices, or inflation. The U.S. dealt with this in the 1970s when a recession was met with a spike in global oil prices.
With these risks on the horizon, Martenson is convinced a double-dip recession is imminent, if not already under way: “The early data is saying, ‘weakness still is here’ and we’re going to have to live with this for a while,” he says.
As a result, he’s convinced Fed chairman Ben Bernanke will continue to go back into his “tool box” in the near-term to try to help put the economy back on a path of inflation and growth. “All the signs are telling us that the Fed can go forward and expand their balance sheet and so far they’ve been able to get away with it,” he says.
But eventually, Martenson believes these actions to fight near-term problems will result in nearly insurmountable long-term dilemmas for the government
August 11, 2010 at 2:59 PM #589643ParticipantHere is what Chris Martenson has to say on the subject 🙂
This second round of quantitative easing is meant to lower mortgage rates (boost the housing market) and increase demand for bank loans (grow the economy).
Yet many reading this must be thinking: What deflation? Prices of gasoline, food, health-care, education are all getting more expensive.
Ask Chris Martenson, inflation or deflation? The economic researcher responds, “Yes!”
“We’re seeing inflation in some areas and deflation in others,” he tells Tech Ticker in this clip. “We have powerful deflationary forces in play right now. It’s been well balanced, so far, by what the Fed has done.”
Martenson thinks we’re “dangerously close” to entering a stage of “stagflation” that crippled the economy and market in the 1970s. “It’s the worst of all possible worlds,” says Martenson. “(Stagflation) really squeezes the workers even harder than any other condition you can experience. Wages are weak. Job growth is weak. The main assets that the average person tends to hold like real estate – that’s going down. On the other side, we are seeing base inflation” in some commodities.
“Stagflation,” as defined by Investopedia, is: a condition of slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment — a time of stagnation — accompanied by a rise in prices, or inflation. The U.S. dealt with this in the 1970s when a recession was met with a spike in global oil prices.
With these risks on the horizon, Martenson is convinced a double-dip recession is imminent, if not already under way: “The early data is saying, ‘weakness still is here’ and we’re going to have to live with this for a while,” he says.
As a result, he’s convinced Fed chairman Ben Bernanke will continue to go back into his “tool box” in the near-term to try to help put the economy back on a path of inflation and growth. “All the signs are telling us that the Fed can go forward and expand their balance sheet and so far they’ve been able to get away with it,” he says.
But eventually, Martenson believes these actions to fight near-term problems will result in nearly insurmountable long-term dilemmas for the government
August 11, 2010 at 2:59 PM #590178ParticipantHere is what Chris Martenson has to say on the subject 🙂
This second round of quantitative easing is meant to lower mortgage rates (boost the housing market) and increase demand for bank loans (grow the economy).
Yet many reading this must be thinking: What deflation? Prices of gasoline, food, health-care, education are all getting more expensive.
Ask Chris Martenson, inflation or deflation? The economic researcher responds, “Yes!”
“We’re seeing inflation in some areas and deflation in others,” he tells Tech Ticker in this clip. “We have powerful deflationary forces in play right now. It’s been well balanced, so far, by what the Fed has done.”
Martenson thinks we’re “dangerously close” to entering a stage of “stagflation” that crippled the economy and market in the 1970s. “It’s the worst of all possible worlds,” says Martenson. “(Stagflation) really squeezes the workers even harder than any other condition you can experience. Wages are weak. Job growth is weak. The main assets that the average person tends to hold like real estate – that’s going down. On the other side, we are seeing base inflation” in some commodities.
“Stagflation,” as defined by Investopedia, is: a condition of slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment — a time of stagnation — accompanied by a rise in prices, or inflation. The U.S. dealt with this in the 1970s when a recession was met with a spike in global oil prices.
With these risks on the horizon, Martenson is convinced a double-dip recession is imminent, if not already under way: “The early data is saying, ‘weakness still is here’ and we’re going to have to live with this for a while,” he says.
As a result, he’s convinced Fed chairman Ben Bernanke will continue to go back into his “tool box” in the near-term to try to help put the economy back on a path of inflation and growth. “All the signs are telling us that the Fed can go forward and expand their balance sheet and so far they’ve been able to get away with it,” he says.
But eventually, Martenson believes these actions to fight near-term problems will result in nearly insurmountable long-term dilemmas for the government
August 11, 2010 at 2:59 PM #590286ParticipantHere is what Chris Martenson has to say on the subject 🙂
This second round of quantitative easing is meant to lower mortgage rates (boost the housing market) and increase demand for bank loans (grow the economy).
Yet many reading this must be thinking: What deflation? Prices of gasoline, food, health-care, education are all getting more expensive.
Ask Chris Martenson, inflation or deflation? The economic researcher responds, “Yes!”
“We’re seeing inflation in some areas and deflation in others,” he tells Tech Ticker in this clip. “We have powerful deflationary forces in play right now. It’s been well balanced, so far, by what the Fed has done.”
Martenson thinks we’re “dangerously close” to entering a stage of “stagflation” that crippled the economy and market in the 1970s. “It’s the worst of all possible worlds,” says Martenson. “(Stagflation) really squeezes the workers even harder than any other condition you can experience. Wages are weak. Job growth is weak. The main assets that the average person tends to hold like real estate – that’s going down. On the other side, we are seeing base inflation” in some commodities.
“Stagflation,” as defined by Investopedia, is: a condition of slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment — a time of stagnation — accompanied by a rise in prices, or inflation. The U.S. dealt with this in the 1970s when a recession was met with a spike in global oil prices.
With these risks on the horizon, Martenson is convinced a double-dip recession is imminent, if not already under way: “The early data is saying, ‘weakness still is here’ and we’re going to have to live with this for a while,” he says.
As a result, he’s convinced Fed chairman Ben Bernanke will continue to go back into his “tool box” in the near-term to try to help put the economy back on a path of inflation and growth. “All the signs are telling us that the Fed can go forward and expand their balance sheet and so far they’ve been able to get away with it,” he says.
But eventually, Martenson believes these actions to fight near-term problems will result in nearly insurmountable long-term dilemmas for the government
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.