[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene][quote]For housing (during the bubble), I would translate that to: do you give credence to the fact that home prices are going up (S), or do you try to understand what causalities are going on under the hood (N)?[/quote]

That is really F versus T. And no one doubts that you’re a T. 🙂 S versus N refers to concreteness vs. abstractness, and to practical applications (such as this site) vs. theoretical musings.

From Wikipedia:

“Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come “out of nowhere.”They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.”[/quote]

I don’t agree that it is just F vs T… I knew many T’s who were totally bought into the housing bubble. 🙂

I think you are being too literal about the existence of the word “data” in that description… I see as more nuanced, ie, do you tend to believe your own lying eyes, or do you prefer to fit things into a theoretical model. (If the latter, data is of course an important input, hence the site tagline, but it’s not really in the “believing your own senses above all” sense.)

Again, I’m no expert but that’s been my take from reading about this stuff. Whatever the reason or explanation, I definitely come up as an N…

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene][quote]For housing (during the bubble), I would translate that to: do you give credence to the fact that home prices are going up (S), or do you try to understand what causalities are going on under the hood (N)?[/quote]

That is really F versus T. And no one doubts that you’re a T. 🙂 S versus N refers to concreteness vs. abstractness, and to practical applications (such as this site) vs. theoretical musings.

From Wikipedia:

“Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come “out of nowhere.”They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.”[/quote]

I don’t agree that it is just F vs T… I knew many T’s who were totally bought into the housing bubble. 🙂

I think you are being too literal about the existence of the word “data” in that description… I see as more nuanced, ie, do you tend to believe your own lying eyes, or do you prefer to fit things into a theoretical model. (If the latter, data is of course an important input, hence the site tagline, but it’s not really in the “believing your own senses above all” sense.)

Again, I’m no expert but that’s been my take from reading about this stuff. Whatever the reason or explanation, I definitely come up as an N…

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene][quote]For housing (during the bubble), I would translate that to: do you give credence to the fact that home prices are going up (S), or do you try to understand what causalities are going on under the hood (N)?[/quote]

That is really F versus T. And no one doubts that you’re a T. 🙂 S versus N refers to concreteness vs. abstractness, and to practical applications (such as this site) vs. theoretical musings.

From Wikipedia:

“Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come “out of nowhere.”They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.”[/quote]

I don’t agree that it is just F vs T… I knew many T’s who were totally bought into the housing bubble. 🙂

I think you are being too literal about the existence of the word “data” in that description… I see as more nuanced, ie, do you tend to believe your own lying eyes, or do you prefer to fit things into a theoretical model. (If the latter, data is of course an important input, hence the site tagline, but it’s not really in the “believing your own senses above all” sense.)

Again, I’m no expert but that’s been my take from reading about this stuff. Whatever the reason or explanation, I definitely come up as an N…

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene][quote]For housing (during the bubble), I would translate that to: do you give credence to the fact that home prices are going up (S), or do you try to understand what causalities are going on under the hood (N)?[/quote]

That is really F versus T. And no one doubts that you’re a T. 🙂 S versus N refers to concreteness vs. abstractness, and to practical applications (such as this site) vs. theoretical musings.

From Wikipedia:

“Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come “out of nowhere.”They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.”[/quote]

I don’t agree that it is just F vs T… I knew many T’s who were totally bought into the housing bubble. 🙂

I think you are being too literal about the existence of the word “data” in that description… I see as more nuanced, ie, do you tend to believe your own lying eyes, or do you prefer to fit things into a theoretical model. (If the latter, data is of course an important input, hence the site tagline, but it’s not really in the “believing your own senses above all” sense.)

Again, I’m no expert but that’s been my take from reading about this stuff. Whatever the reason or explanation, I definitely come up as an N…

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene]
My original assertion was that monetizing Treasuries at constant deficit does not have an effect on consumption.
[/quote]

Ah, I see what you mean. Good point — I agree.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene]
My original assertion was that monetizing Treasuries at constant deficit does not have an effect on consumption.
[/quote]

Ah, I see what you mean. Good point — I agree.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene]
My original assertion was that monetizing Treasuries at constant deficit does not have an effect on consumption.
[/quote]

Ah, I see what you mean. Good point — I agree.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene]
My original assertion was that monetizing Treasuries at constant deficit does not have an effect on consumption.
[/quote]

Ah, I see what you mean. Good point — I agree.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene]
My original assertion was that monetizing Treasuries at constant deficit does not have an effect on consumption.
[/quote]

Ah, I see what you mean. Good point — I agree.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene][quote]They can always cut taxes and finance the difference with newly printed money, which as Bernanke famously noted, would be akin to dropping money from helicopters.[/quote]

As Mark Zandi (former McCain’s advisor, hardly a socialist) estimated back in 2008, direct spending on infrastructure and aid to state governments to preventing state-level layoffs is about 4 to 5 times more effective per dollar spent than extending Bush tax cuts.[/quote]

That’s got nothing to do with the point I was making, which was in response to your assertion that monetizing Treasuries couldn’t have a discernible effect on consumption. This isn’t a left vs right policy debate.

I was stating the FACT that monetizing Treasuries to finance a tax cut would get money into the hands of consumers (along with the FACT that Bernanke had pointed this out himself as a potential policy option). I didn’t endorse that policy as being a good idea.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene][quote]They can always cut taxes and finance the difference with newly printed money, which as Bernanke famously noted, would be akin to dropping money from helicopters.[/quote]

As Mark Zandi (former McCain’s advisor, hardly a socialist) estimated back in 2008, direct spending on infrastructure and aid to state governments to preventing state-level layoffs is about 4 to 5 times more effective per dollar spent than extending Bush tax cuts.[/quote]

That’s got nothing to do with the point I was making, which was in response to your assertion that monetizing Treasuries couldn’t have a discernible effect on consumption. This isn’t a left vs right policy debate.

I was stating the FACT that monetizing Treasuries to finance a tax cut would get money into the hands of consumers (along with the FACT that Bernanke had pointed this out himself as a potential policy option). I didn’t endorse that policy as being a good idea.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene][quote]They can always cut taxes and finance the difference with newly printed money, which as Bernanke famously noted, would be akin to dropping money from helicopters.[/quote]

As Mark Zandi (former McCain’s advisor, hardly a socialist) estimated back in 2008, direct spending on infrastructure and aid to state governments to preventing state-level layoffs is about 4 to 5 times more effective per dollar spent than extending Bush tax cuts.[/quote]

That’s got nothing to do with the point I was making, which was in response to your assertion that monetizing Treasuries couldn’t have a discernible effect on consumption. This isn’t a left vs right policy debate.

I was stating the FACT that monetizing Treasuries to finance a tax cut would get money into the hands of consumers (along with the FACT that Bernanke had pointed this out himself as a potential policy option). I didn’t endorse that policy as being a good idea.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene][quote]They can always cut taxes and finance the difference with newly printed money, which as Bernanke famously noted, would be akin to dropping money from helicopters.[/quote]

As Mark Zandi (former McCain’s advisor, hardly a socialist) estimated back in 2008, direct spending on infrastructure and aid to state governments to preventing state-level layoffs is about 4 to 5 times more effective per dollar spent than extending Bush tax cuts.[/quote]

That’s got nothing to do with the point I was making, which was in response to your assertion that monetizing Treasuries couldn’t have a discernible effect on consumption. This isn’t a left vs right policy debate.

I was stating the FACT that monetizing Treasuries to finance a tax cut would get money into the hands of consumers (along with the FACT that Bernanke had pointed this out himself as a potential policy option). I didn’t endorse that policy as being a good idea.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene][quote]They can always cut taxes and finance the difference with newly printed money, which as Bernanke famously noted, would be akin to dropping money from helicopters.[/quote]

As Mark Zandi (former McCain’s advisor, hardly a socialist) estimated back in 2008, direct spending on infrastructure and aid to state governments to preventing state-level layoffs is about 4 to 5 times more effective per dollar spent than extending Bush tax cuts.[/quote]

That’s got nothing to do with the point I was making, which was in response to your assertion that monetizing Treasuries couldn’t have a discernible effect on consumption. This isn’t a left vs right policy debate.

I was stating the FACT that monetizing Treasuries to finance a tax cut would get money into the hands of consumers (along with the FACT that Bernanke had pointed this out himself as a potential policy option). I didn’t endorse that policy as being a good idea.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=Rich Toscano]
(Check today’s admission that the FOMC will engage in further QE for the latest exhibit).
[/quote]

I’m assuming you’re referring to the fed’s announcement that they will reinvest principle from treasuries and other securities that have matured and been paid off. How is that quantitative easing? I thought quantitative easing was when the fed printed (created) new money and bought assets with newly created money. If they receive money for maturing securities and then reinvest that money where is the QE? If that’s not what you’re referring to then I’m curious, what policy are you referring to?[/quote]

Yes, you are correct, I was being sloppy in my use of the term.

Definitional quibbles aside, you are right that this does not itself increase their money printing. There was to be an implicit tightening as they let the maturing MBS mature; now they are preventing that tightening. So this is not an actual expansion of their balance sheet, but it is a loosening of policy compared to what they had previously said they would do.

Whatever you call it, I think it still supports the point I was trying to make…

[Author]

Posts