Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not think that such disproves what naysayers have been naysaying about the economy. I actually tend to agree with a lot of what they are saying. Everything that I know and understand about economic and economic models tells me that prolonged zero interest rate policies, money printing and a GDP maintained and grown ONLY via the increase the rate of debt, is not only untenable, but can produce calamitous repercussions depending on how long such behavior exists. I had a minor in economics while in college.
The thing is this. We do not know how counties and foriegn central banks are colluding to keep the US economy afloat. If the US economy tanks, given that the dollar is the worlds reserve currency and so many economies are dependent upon exports to our market, it would drag down the world economy right with our own. Thus, countries and central banks around the world might be acting in a way that seems counter intuitive for their interest, which in turn is helping to keep the US economy propped up.
The world knows that if we go down that the world goes down and if they do not know that......you can be sure it has been communicated to other countries in the tone of a threat.
Interest rates won't remain "at zero" forever - though they will likely remain "low" for a couple of more years.
"Money printing" is not what is happening with QE.
The deficit is falling and is now been pretty much cut in half from it's peak.
Worldwide, banks DO have a vested interest in an economy that's not in collapse - so?
A "more honest economy"????
LOL
The Libertarian vision of an "honest economy" doesn't exist anywhere on earth.
There's a REASON for that - it DOESN'T WORK.
Libertarianism is no more realistic or workable than Communism.
NEITHER exist anywhere on earth, and NEITHER ever will because BOTH go against basic human nature.
Ken
What are you talking about? Who said anything about Libertarianism?
I'm talking about letting corrupt institutions fail instead of rewarding them, so more honest ones can organically take their place.
That is what free market capitalism is.
Maybe you should take note with how Iceland has handled their leeching bankster class:
I know you're all about protecting power and the status quo but the people will never have complete faith in the economy again until banksters are jailed and the collusion is put to an end. It may require drastic measures like breaking up the "too big to fail" banks and taking power away from The Federal Reserve and restoring it back to the people via debt free currency-but at some point it will need to be done, no matter how many Trillions you think it will take to keep the illusion intact.
Nothing is gained without something else being lost, in a closed system.
Thus, the question is what are the reactions and what is being lost from the recent actions to keep the economy afloat?
Progress or growth if often the illusion created from getting the benefit of something, before having to pay the compete cost. Time is the facilitator of the illusion of growth.
Nothing you've written in any way shows that the currently economic growth is illusionary.
What are you talking about? Who said anything about Libertarianism?
I'm talking about letting corrupt institutions fail instead of rewarding them so more honest ones can organically take their place.
That is what free market capitalism is.
Maybe you should take note with how Iceland has handled their leeching banksters:
I know you're all about protecting power and the status quo but the people will never have complete faith in the economy again until banksters are jailed and the collusion is put to an end. It may require drastic measures like breaking up the "too big to fail" banks and taking power away from The Federal Reserve and restoring it back to the people, via debt free currency.
The problem with your plan is that collapse of key institutions brings down EVERYONE. Not a lot of sense in "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
Regarding the lack of prosecutions - well the problem is the way the laws are set up it's pretty darned difficult to find someone who has actually committed a crime in regards to the banks. I don't like it EITHER but that's the way it is. You can't just throw people in jail because you don't LIKE what they DID, you have to actually be able to PROVE that they KNOWINGLY BROKE US LAW (imagine that). Corporations - by their very nature - tend to diffuse responsibility (that IS part of the REASON they were CREATED to begin with - the corporation ITSELF is considered a "person" - which tends to deflect legal responsibility from the leadership to the company itself. I don't really like that but that's the way corporate laws are set up.
I DO think we need to break up some of these banks, but that's a different story.
$75,000,000,000.00 still getting pumped into the economy this month alone. Seems like a lot of QE economic stimulus...why would we see a huge downturn?
Nothing you've written in any way shows that the currently economic growth is illusionary.
Ken
Net Debt is the illusion that you have more than you actually earned at a particular moment in time. Hence, if a country is 17 trillion in CURRENT debt and 60 trillion in the whole for unfunded liabilities, assuming generally accepted accounting practices......THAT IS AN ILLUSION that we are more as a nation that we really are.
Nothing you've written in any way shows that the currently economic growth is illusionary.
Ken
Look. If the FED was not there for the Big Wall Street Banks starting with TARP and the continuous QE, a lot of Banks would go down. That means they are propping them no matter how you try and spin it.
Main Street can exist without Wall Street, but Wall Street cannot exist without Mainstreet.
It is fine if your stocks are doing great, but from where I stand, Main street is not doing so great.
There are many people hurting because of the reckless and irresponsible financial and economic policies passed by Banker Scum to their cronies in DC.
Look. If the FED was not there for the Big Wall Street Banks starting with TARP and the continuous QE, a lot of Banks would go down. That means they are propping them no matter how you try and spin it.
Main Street can exist without Wall Street, but Wall Street cannot exist without Mainstreet.
It is fine if your stocks are doing great, but from where I stand, Main street is not doing so great.
There are many people hurting because of the reckless and irresponsible financial and economic policies passed by Banker Scum to their cronies in DC.
"Main Street" is doing fine. Corporations are making healthy profits and have near-record cash on hand and very low debt. How is that "not doing so great"?
You can argue that "the man is the street" is still struggling, but the business community (especially larger firms - like those that make up the stock market) are very healthy indeed.
TARP helped prop up the banks (that WAS it's purpose after all), but QE is NOT doing so. QE is simply helping to keep interest rates low. The BANKS would be doing JUST FINE without it, they would simply raise mortgage rates to whatever they needed to in order to create mortgage-backed securities that provided an attractive rate of return to those who might buy them - so it's NOT BANKS who would "suffer" without QE, it's PEOPLE getting mortgages (they've end up with higher mortgage rates) so in the final analysis , it's NOT BANKS that QE is helping, it's homebuyers and (as a rippled effect) anyone who wants/needs to borrow money for ANY REASON. Banks would manage to make their profit regardless (they would simply pass on the higher costs to the consumer).
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 01-02-2014 at 11:59 AM..
Nothing you've written in any way shows that the currently economic growth is illusionary.
Ken
You do realize that stock market performance and GDP is not related, don't you?
There is something called a linear regression model. You can run your own or you can look up evidence of previous models run in the past that show there is no correlation between GDP and stock market performance.
Net Debt is the illusion that you have more than you actually earned at a particular moment in time. Hence, if a country is 17 trillion in CURRENT debt and 60 trillion in the whole for unfunded liabilities, assuming generally accepted accounting practices......THAT IS AN ILLUSION that we are more as a nation that we really are.
Debt is a relative thing and what is "excessive" is fully dependent upon what your level of income/assets are. If I had $1 million in debt, I'd be in BIG trouble, but if Bill Gates had $1 million in debt it's no big deal. The US debt/GDP ratio - while admittedly high at the moment is NOT the highest it's been. It was considerably higher back at the end of WWII and WWI - and that debt to GDP ratio is now DECLINING.
You are simply focusing on the SIZE of the debt but IGNORE that fact that not only the debt HUGE, so is the SIZE OF THE ECONOMY.
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
