The Myth of Janet Yellen Exposed

[FlyerInHi]

CAr, If we have suddenly high inflation, the banks/capitalists would be hurt the most.

More inflation (not hyper inflation) generally causes people to work and invest more to generate the income they need to lead the lifestyles they want.

You seem to want near zero inflation (because you think purchasing power should be maintained over time) but you also want higher yields in savings accounts. It doesn’t work that way.

People opposing Yellen and the Federal Reserve, mostly Tea Party, don’t really know what they’re talking about.

[spdrun]

Considering that Americans already are one of the most overworked industrialized nations, why is working more a good thing? If anything, we should collectively take two steps back and slow the hell down. I’m not talking about people who already have paying investments. This should go for EVERYONE.

Actually, opposition comes from the left as well as the far right. Speaking as a mild leftist, I know Rand Paul won’t be able to block it, but I hope he gives her a hellacious case of heartburn during her nomination hearings. (I’ll make sure to buy stock in the makers of Maalox beforehand, of course.)

[FlyerInHi]

The opposition to the Fed is based on the fear of debasing that dollar and hyper inflation.

The same argument is made with regard to deficit spending.

It’s all ideological fear, not data driven logic.

[spdrun]

You can’t say “the opposition” as if it were a unified force, since many people look cross-eyed at the Fed’s policies, for many different reasons.

[FlyerInHi]

America is a nation of immigrants. They come in, work hard, and increase our collective wealth (national and world GDP)

Some inflation is good for the established population that owns investments. As that population ages and slows down, they have to sell their investments to afford the lifestyles they want for themselves and their relatively “lazy” kids.

That leads to economic renewal which is very good.

[spdrun]

Nation of immigrants? So are Canada and Australia, not to mention Germany and the UK at this point, and none of those countries work as long as the US on average.

Why the hell should GDP be the measure of the worth of a country anyway? As far as inflation and investments — it’s at best neutral. If value of money goes down 10%, value of investment goes “up” by a commensurate amount, you still end up with the same amount of money.

Good investments pay dividends, and that’s where the focus should be.

[FlyerInHi]

I think we have higher standard of living than much of EU because of higher growth.

You have to look at policy that’s beneficial to all, not what you want. If you are the philosophical type who wants a “quality” of life, it’s up to you to figure it out. But standard of living is based on consumption of goods and services.

In large productive, high GDP cities, such as New York, LA and SF bay, much of the older native population has sold off and moved away to make way for new arrivals. Yet those urban areas are wealthier than ever.

That’s the pattern of economic renewal we should see happening. It’s a sign of a robust economy. We want economic renewal and the old to make way for the new.

Canada and Australia are special cases because they have small populations but large natural resources. But their big, high GDP cities are very immigrant based who work very hard to pay the high price of entry. Those countries do have better policies such as national health care. We can too.

[spdrun]

You’re showing your brainwashing here, FlyerInHI…

Standard of living is based on consumption of goods and services TO A POINT. Excessive consumption (say, an iPhone, iPad, and two laptops per person) is just inefficiency, not to mention rape/pillage of Gaia. What’s the fucking point of more toys if you have no time to enjoy them?

If you look at many of the wealthier European countries, their standard of living is DIFFERENT, not necessarily lower. Smaller homes, less likely to own a home, maybe only one car on average.

But the cars on the road are newer and cleaner than the US, health-care spending is lower, people have much more time and ability to travel (only 30% of Americans have passports, and fewer than that ever travel outside of North America). Savings rates and the social safety net are better, so there’s less constant fear of financial ruination. (Less fear, period — did you know that kids are encouraged to walk to school … alone … in Germany starting at age 8 or so?)

Australia and Canada are much more similar to the US, BTW, largely due to lower population density than Europe.

See also — social mobility rankings. It doesn’t look good for the US, and perpetuating the same situation won’t solve anything:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_comparison

[FlyerInHi]

Until we can measure standard of living in different ways, more stuff is better. Not just more stuff but more services because we have no time or don’t want to do it ourselves.

But you have to recognize that more trade creates more wealth in terms of money.

I don’t disagree with your arguments and that why we need easier immigration policies and more stability so people can trade places worldwide if they wish.

We do trade places a lot in America. If people can’t deal with the standard of living in the coastal areas, they can move to Phoenix, Las Vegas, Charlotte, or Atlanta…. People are doing that and it’s very good. It creates new opportunities.

One anecdote for you about Europeans. When they come to America all they do is shop like mad because our products are so much cheaper.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]

See also — social mobility rankings. It doesn’t look good for the US, and perpetuating the same situation won’t solve anything:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_comparison%5B/quote%5D

I don’t disagree that our social policies suck. But as far as the federal reserve’s monetary policy, trade and immigration, we are much better.

[spdrun]

Until we can measure standard of living in different ways, more stuff is better.

No offense meant, but that’s the stupidest thing I’ve read rattling off a smart man’s keyboard in a long time.

Taken to the extreme, you’re saying that a morbidly obese divorced guy who had two coronary bypasses and works 90 hours a week, but has a BMW, Porsche, iPad, and coastal 6-bedroom home in La Jolla has a better standard of living than a happily married woman who works 35 hours a week, is healthy, in good physical condition, and has a two bedroom condo in City Heights, a 10-year-old Camry, and an Android tablet.

Come on, you’re smarter than that. It’s a complex mixture of health, happiness, relationships, free time, and quantity of toys.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]

Until we can measure standard of living in different ways, more stuff is better.

No offense meant, but that’s the stupidest thing I’ve read rattling off a smart man’s keyboard in a long time.

Taken to the extreme, you’re saying that a morbidly obese divorced guy who had two coronary bypasses and works 90 hours a week, but has a BMW, Porsche, iPad, and coastal 6-bedroom home in La Jolla has a better standard of living than a happily married woman who works 35 hours a week, is healthy, in good physical condition, and has a two bedroom condo in City Heights, a 10-year-old Camry, and an Android tablet.

Come on, you’re smarter than that. It’s a complex mixture of health, happiness, relationships, free time, and quantity of toys.[/quote]

I’m perfectly heathy, active, young looking, and young at heart. But I do think that dick Cheney has a better standard of living than I do.

You miss the point. Academics, economists and policy makers look at the aggregate, not individual cases.

[DataAgent]

You forgot to capitalize the D in Dick….

[spdrun]

I’m perfectly heathy, active, young looking, and young at heart. But I do think that dick Cheney has a better standard of living than I do.
You miss the point. Academics, economists and policy makers look at the aggregate, not individual cases.

No: I get your point. I just think you’re wrong. 🙂

As far as the policy makers, the output is influenced by the input — it’s a lot easier to use “the most toys per capita” as an input and desired end state, rather than a more complex mixture of conditions. I’m exaggerating a bit, of course, since no one is really that single-minded…

I wouldn’t trade places with Dick Cheney if you paid me ten million and gave me all the iPads in the world to do so. Life’s too short to go through it with angina, a limp dick, an unsteady aim, and an alienated daughter…

[FlyerInHi]

A limp dick would blow big time. I wouldn’t trade places either. But he has better standard of living than me.. Better access to health care, etc….

Now I’m off to look at at my tenant’s washer. I think the water hoses are reversed but the tenant is too oblivious to figure it out. I’ll be taking some wrenches, a bucket, rags and gloves. I should hire someone to do it for me to spur economic activity.

[Author]

Posts