Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 89. (Read 907212 times)

Dear god, you think liberals give 2 shits about the average joe? Hows that war on poverty with trillions spent, taking from one and giving it to another? Get your god damn hands out of MY pockets to give that money to someone else.

He suffers from selective hearing.

Edit:{
"We will keep the exchange rate stable."
means: }

(National/European)Central Bank buys foreign currency by (national)currency. There is no limit on the volume of purchases, as (National)Central Bank is printing  (national)currency itself in paper and electronic form.

I'm not not sure who is lunatic.

I had to look back at my prior post (that you snipped and summarized in your own words) to attempt to figure out what the fuck you are talking about.

In any event, I have NOT quite figured it out yet, but I did put back in the proper quote below for ease of reference, just in case anyone may want to attempt to figure it out  - probably NOT for me...      >>>>

 

this guy is good. I hope you command a high salary for such professional trolling

Akh...  Problems with authority, a.k.a. "daddy issues."  You realize how unattractive such bilious talk is?

For a bankrupt country, we're doing pretty well.  Which irrelevant backwater do you hail from?

True.

I like to think of it in these simple terms.

2008 was the end of the recent credit bubble supercycle, the previous one ended with the great depression in the 1930's. The consumer cannot borrow any more money to support more lending and bidding up of asset prices. To prevent a deflationary spiral with collapse of global total credit the central banks were forced to make a choice.

They chose to maintain asset prices by slashing interest rates to near zero, taking all the private banks bad assets (mortgage backed securities) on their balance sheets in exchange for cash to bail out virtually every major trading house in the western world, and printing money and buying government deficits (maintaining ultra low rates and allowing governments to dramatically increase state expenditure during the great depression mark two).

Now I think this was actually a genius move. The money that the UK gov or US treasury owes the central banks, that extra 50% on the national debt will never be repaid, the bond payments are passed straight back to the government. Last time I checked the BOE owned over 30% of british bonds (gilts) LOL. True banana economics. Meanwhile negative real interest rates for 10 or 20 years will gradually weaken the currency (compounded) and allow the truly epic size of the credit mountain to slowly deflate relative to real world goods, effectively a soft devaluation of Western currencies.

This graph shows what the central banks need to keep from collapsing, and they are doing it by spewing money through government deficits into the real economy until credit can grow again.



All the while money velocity is falling.



So lambchop the answer is yes. Not hyperinflation certainly, but negative real interest rates are going precisely nowhere for a very long time.

I wouldn't give a shit but in the UK this policy has forged an unbreakable intergeneration wealth gap which never existed before.

Edit: couldn't get the fed or best graph links to work..this one isnt great but does demonstrate the run up in credit to 2008.

The USA govt. is NOT even close to practicing any version of Keynesian economics, even if some officials may pay lip service to such.

The practice is more like croney capitalism that allows banks and various rich people to take and continue to take dollars, assets and wealth from regular people... in the name of supposed trickly down economics that has been proven NOT to work but it is still practiced as if giving boat loads of money to rich people is gonna save the economy.. .. that is NOT anywhere near keynsianism and more likely getting close to the exact opposite of keynsian economics.

Slow and steady on the way up I much rather have than a sudden jump... the slow one makes it seem much more of a healthy growth in price in my eyes.

There's NOTHING wrong with you deciding to invest in dollars, if that is what you want to do.  However, why do you feel that it is worth your time to be attempting to convince others of such investment direction forward?

That's why no one should be so fucking stupid as to put all of their money into a volatile asset (especially after it had just appreciated over 1000x over the previous years).

Also, we do NOT assess the likely future price performance of any asset merely from the point of its previous ATH peak.. and make a judgement regarding its overall likelihood of success (in terms of future price performance) based on that selective snapshot.

Can you at least attempt to be less selective (and predetermined) with your factual presentation(s) and/or the speculations you make based on such?

I agree. It's just that the debt-based system of buying bonds from the U.S. Treasury on a zero balance is a bit too inherently greedy for my taste. Whether on not that process can be amended without an economic meltdown is a different question. Probably not, so we might as well let the process work itself out.

Its printed because it has to be, because its the only way to keep things going. I think there is less malice behind QE than people might think. I believe that they are printing money because they have very little choice in the matter. I don't think *anyone* wants the dollar to fail, I'm just not sure that it can really be avoided. Running the presses has to happen so that the actual money supply can keep up with the electronic money that has been 'created' through interest payments, thats about as simple as it gets. Everything else is just complexity that masks that fundamental property of a system based on debt.

^Such venom
Remember, greed is good!  The bankster scions inherited their uncountable riches from their august predecessors, who have, in turn, acquired those in the unregulated free markets of yesteryear.

I believe it is printed based on the ideas of Keynesian economics blended with a heaping dose of greed and just a pinch of rational thought and consideration for the future.

But if you want to get into a semantics game about what "at will" means and how it applies to the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury, I will resist the alluring waste of time.

Is it not?

Faith can't buy you anything in the real world.
"Full faith and credit of the US government," of course, has little to do with faith.  It's sort'a a complicated thing, you can start learning about it here[/iur]

Hope this helps.

The red makes it easier to spot.

But really, what can faith buy me in the real world?

Reserves of what?  You lunatics think fiat is printed at will anyhow, so they'll just add a few zeros to the plates and keep the presses running longer, amirite?