[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]

All you have to do is talk to the real estate contractors who live in San Diego. They are Republicans and all hope for more government action to save them from failure. …
…
When it comes to money, ideology goes out the window real quick.[/quote]

I am a liberal but still would like to have free money.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]

All you have to do is talk to the real estate contractors who live in San Diego. They are Republicans and all hope for more government action to save them from failure. …
…
When it comes to money, ideology goes out the window real quick.[/quote]

I am a liberal but still would like to have free money.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]UR – When Krugman was cheering on ultra-easy monetary policy after the dot com crash (and then bemoaning the slightly less ultra-easy policy in 2004), he was oblivious to the distortions all that money and credit creation were causing (the housing bubble was already raging in 04), and to the problems they’d eventually cause.

Now he’s doing it again. This time around, our own currency is at risk. I agree that no dramatic consequences have happened yet, but I believe they are baked into the cake and that Krugman-esque policy will eventually be looked at as a giant, tragic mistake.

Rich[/quote]
Yeah I get that you don’t like him but I am curious how you see them baked into the cake.

You have described many time the imminence of a pronounced inflationary event (at least that is how I remember it–there was alcohol) but I would really like to see what the model you are using looks like when it is unpacked. I am actually not necessarily in disagreement with it. Its just that he is (in this particular case) better at drawing out his ideas than you have been.

For example do you see the enhanced monetary base getting recklessly lent out at high speed to increase global effective demand at a nominal level?

Or do you see us needing to jack up rates on govt securities to pay paul?

While I often disagree with you, you don’t generally see boogeymen.

Tell me what you are seeing. I have read the other articles on this topic and found them less illuminating than what I am looking for.

I just want an idea of what you see as the steps here.

Putting that differently:
How exactly do we crash the plane into the mountain??

Also, please call me Dan.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]UR – When Krugman was cheering on ultra-easy monetary policy after the dot com crash (and then bemoaning the slightly less ultra-easy policy in 2004), he was oblivious to the distortions all that money and credit creation were causing (the housing bubble was already raging in 04), and to the problems they’d eventually cause.

Now he’s doing it again. This time around, our own currency is at risk. I agree that no dramatic consequences have happened yet, but I believe they are baked into the cake and that Krugman-esque policy will eventually be looked at as a giant, tragic mistake.

Rich[/quote]
Yeah I get that you don’t like him but I am curious how you see them baked into the cake.

You have described many time the imminence of a pronounced inflationary event (at least that is how I remember it–there was alcohol) but I would really like to see what the model you are using looks like when it is unpacked. I am actually not necessarily in disagreement with it. Its just that he is (in this particular case) better at drawing out his ideas than you have been.

For example do you see the enhanced monetary base getting recklessly lent out at high speed to increase global effective demand at a nominal level?

Or do you see us needing to jack up rates on govt securities to pay paul?

While I often disagree with you, you don’t generally see boogeymen.

Tell me what you are seeing. I have read the other articles on this topic and found them less illuminating than what I am looking for.

I just want an idea of what you see as the steps here.

Putting that differently:
How exactly do we crash the plane into the mountain??

Also, please call me Dan.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]UR – When Krugman was cheering on ultra-easy monetary policy after the dot com crash (and then bemoaning the slightly less ultra-easy policy in 2004), he was oblivious to the distortions all that money and credit creation were causing (the housing bubble was already raging in 04), and to the problems they’d eventually cause.

Now he’s doing it again. This time around, our own currency is at risk. I agree that no dramatic consequences have happened yet, but I believe they are baked into the cake and that Krugman-esque policy will eventually be looked at as a giant, tragic mistake.

Rich[/quote]
Yeah I get that you don’t like him but I am curious how you see them baked into the cake.

You have described many time the imminence of a pronounced inflationary event (at least that is how I remember it–there was alcohol) but I would really like to see what the model you are using looks like when it is unpacked. I am actually not necessarily in disagreement with it. Its just that he is (in this particular case) better at drawing out his ideas than you have been.

For example do you see the enhanced monetary base getting recklessly lent out at high speed to increase global effective demand at a nominal level?

Or do you see us needing to jack up rates on govt securities to pay paul?

While I often disagree with you, you don’t generally see boogeymen.

Tell me what you are seeing. I have read the other articles on this topic and found them less illuminating than what I am looking for.

I just want an idea of what you see as the steps here.

Putting that differently:
How exactly do we crash the plane into the mountain??

Also, please call me Dan.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]UR – When Krugman was cheering on ultra-easy monetary policy after the dot com crash (and then bemoaning the slightly less ultra-easy policy in 2004), he was oblivious to the distortions all that money and credit creation were causing (the housing bubble was already raging in 04), and to the problems they’d eventually cause.

Now he’s doing it again. This time around, our own currency is at risk. I agree that no dramatic consequences have happened yet, but I believe they are baked into the cake and that Krugman-esque policy will eventually be looked at as a giant, tragic mistake.

Rich[/quote]
Yeah I get that you don’t like him but I am curious how you see them baked into the cake.

You have described many time the imminence of a pronounced inflationary event (at least that is how I remember it–there was alcohol) but I would really like to see what the model you are using looks like when it is unpacked. I am actually not necessarily in disagreement with it. Its just that he is (in this particular case) better at drawing out his ideas than you have been.

For example do you see the enhanced monetary base getting recklessly lent out at high speed to increase global effective demand at a nominal level?

Or do you see us needing to jack up rates on govt securities to pay paul?

While I often disagree with you, you don’t generally see boogeymen.

Tell me what you are seeing. I have read the other articles on this topic and found them less illuminating than what I am looking for.

I just want an idea of what you see as the steps here.

Putting that differently:
How exactly do we crash the plane into the mountain??

Also, please call me Dan.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]UR – When Krugman was cheering on ultra-easy monetary policy after the dot com crash (and then bemoaning the slightly less ultra-easy policy in 2004), he was oblivious to the distortions all that money and credit creation were causing (the housing bubble was already raging in 04), and to the problems they’d eventually cause.

Now he’s doing it again. This time around, our own currency is at risk. I agree that no dramatic consequences have happened yet, but I believe they are baked into the cake and that Krugman-esque policy will eventually be looked at as a giant, tragic mistake.

Rich[/quote]
Yeah I get that you don’t like him but I am curious how you see them baked into the cake.

You have described many time the imminence of a pronounced inflationary event (at least that is how I remember it–there was alcohol) but I would really like to see what the model you are using looks like when it is unpacked. I am actually not necessarily in disagreement with it. Its just that he is (in this particular case) better at drawing out his ideas than you have been.

For example do you see the enhanced monetary base getting recklessly lent out at high speed to increase global effective demand at a nominal level?

Or do you see us needing to jack up rates on govt securities to pay paul?

While I often disagree with you, you don’t generally see boogeymen.

Tell me what you are seeing. I have read the other articles on this topic and found them less illuminating than what I am looking for.

I just want an idea of what you see as the steps here.

Putting that differently:
How exactly do we crash the plane into the mountain??

Also, please call me Dan.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=peterb]Mostly political mastrubation.[/quote]

The best kind of masturbation.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=peterb]Mostly political mastrubation.[/quote]

The best kind of masturbation.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=peterb]Mostly political mastrubation.[/quote]

The best kind of masturbation.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=peterb]Mostly political mastrubation.[/quote]

The best kind of masturbation.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=peterb]Mostly political mastrubation.[/quote]

The best kind of masturbation.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Krugman lost credibility in 2004 when he chastised Greenspam for raising rates too soon. (Actually he probably lost credibility before that; I don’t read his column, but I happened to hear him an an interview in 04).

He is the standard-bearer for analysts who think there is no consequence to massive indebtedness and money printing.

Rich[/quote]
Yeah?
See I did not see that in what he has written.
Though it is true I have not read all of it.

It seems more like he has said that consequences are more complicated than much of the contemporary hype.

Specifically, he seems to not be averse to a dollar that is internationally weaker and unconcerned about inflation when money supply increase is coupled with a stagnant per capita GDP and increasing unemployment (and thus less effective demand).

While I have mixed feelings about the first assertion, I don’t see anything terribly non-credible about saying that inflation is more dependent upon spending than printing.

Increasing one’s monetary base is of dubious relevance if all the new base is doing is sitting in reserve accounts.

Maybe I am wrong but I don’t see loads of extra cash (a la 2005) floating around and doing a demand-pull on prices.

Still not sure about the international component.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Krugman lost credibility in 2004 when he chastised Greenspam for raising rates too soon. (Actually he probably lost credibility before that; I don’t read his column, but I happened to hear him an an interview in 04).

He is the standard-bearer for analysts who think there is no consequence to massive indebtedness and money printing.

Rich[/quote]
Yeah?
See I did not see that in what he has written.
Though it is true I have not read all of it.

It seems more like he has said that consequences are more complicated than much of the contemporary hype.

Specifically, he seems to not be averse to a dollar that is internationally weaker and unconcerned about inflation when money supply increase is coupled with a stagnant per capita GDP and increasing unemployment (and thus less effective demand).

While I have mixed feelings about the first assertion, I don’t see anything terribly non-credible about saying that inflation is more dependent upon spending than printing.

Increasing one’s monetary base is of dubious relevance if all the new base is doing is sitting in reserve accounts.

Maybe I am wrong but I don’t see loads of extra cash (a la 2005) floating around and doing a demand-pull on prices.

Still not sure about the international component.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Krugman lost credibility in 2004 when he chastised Greenspam for raising rates too soon. (Actually he probably lost credibility before that; I don’t read his column, but I happened to hear him an an interview in 04).

He is the standard-bearer for analysts who think there is no consequence to massive indebtedness and money printing.

Rich[/quote]
Yeah?
See I did not see that in what he has written.
Though it is true I have not read all of it.

It seems more like he has said that consequences are more complicated than much of the contemporary hype.

Specifically, he seems to not be averse to a dollar that is internationally weaker and unconcerned about inflation when money supply increase is coupled with a stagnant per capita GDP and increasing unemployment (and thus less effective demand).

While I have mixed feelings about the first assertion, I don’t see anything terribly non-credible about saying that inflation is more dependent upon spending than printing.

Increasing one’s monetary base is of dubious relevance if all the new base is doing is sitting in reserve accounts.

Maybe I am wrong but I don’t see loads of extra cash (a la 2005) floating around and doing a demand-pull on prices.

Still not sure about the international component.

[Author]

Posts