I just wish people would realize that presidents, whether republican or democrat, really DO NOT have control of the economy...The Fed and Congress have way more sway in it, but presidents always take credit...
Only one head at a time...
Topic: U.S. Dollar Plummets as Bernanke Suggests Further Easing (Read 3384 times)
Only one head at a time...
A principled determined President can get practically anything he wants.
Actually the president has more power than many think in this regard, without permission of congress the president can:
1) Return troops from abroad - cutting expensive foriegn deployments
2) Stop foreign aid to countries where it hasn't been mandated by law - Which is most if not all of it.
3) Stop unmandated entitlement expenditures - which currently unfortunately many of which are mandated by law but not all of them.
4) Propose bills in either house of congress - to pass of course these would need to be Congressionally voted on and approved but a president (with veto power and citizens favor) has a lot of pull.
5) Can veto any bill that comes across his desk, such as increased taxes, increased expenses, etc.
1) Return troops from abroad - cutting expensive foriegn deployments
2) Stop foreign aid to countries where it hasn't been mandated by law - Which is most if not all of it.
3) Stop unmandated entitlement expenditures - which currently unfortunately many of which are mandated by law but not all of them.
4) Propose bills in either house of congress - to pass of course these would need to be Congressionally voted on and approved but a president (with veto power and citizens favor) has a lot of pull.
5) Can veto any bill that comes across his desk, such as increased taxes, increased expenses, etc.
Basically it means he can stop things but he can't really start things right? If the congress refuses a bill that would put America well on track to reducing debt and boosting the economy, but severely impact the congressmen's interest, it's just not going to go through. If the congress keeps pushing bills to improve their own personal positions, all he can do is block and block isn't it? And IIRC, his veto power only means they need to get a higher vote percentage to push it through regardless of his objections isn't it?
My favorite response to "The U.S. will never default on its debt" is from Ron Paul essentially saying the U.S. defaults on it's debt every time it creates more, essentially cutting the buying power of the money it is repaying.... and it's true that is what is happening....
Not to start a political war in here but I really hope Ron Paul gets elected, he seems to be the only candidate running from either party with any real sense AND has the untarnished record to show this has been his view the whole time, not just now when people are starting to speak up....
Not to start a political war in here but I really hope Ron Paul gets elected, he seems to be the only candidate running from either party with any real sense AND has the untarnished record to show this has been his view the whole time, not just now when people are starting to speak up....
I'm just curious as a non-American, would it really make a difference appointing anybody except an absolute monkey as the US president? It seems that whoever is the president, he's basically boxed in by the personal interests of the other politicians and the effect of any decisions he makes on the next guy from his party getting elected as the next president. Whatever good that needs to be done, including hard decisions, it seems like they will never get passed anyway without being shredded down to pointlessness?
I really hope Ron Paul gets elected, he seems to be the only candidate running from either party with any real sense AND has the untarnished record...
And that's why he won't have a chance of winning. Big money interests won't help elect someone they know they can't buy.
LOL don't you love getting called a nutjob for quoting theiR OWN position to them?
fucking animals. they'd walk off a cliff because their head is stuck up the ass of the lemming in front of them.
fucking animals. they'd walk off a cliff because their head is stuck up the ass of the lemming in front of them.
I know. But to be fair these guys are probably very young and misled or just trolls. There are (other) progressives with whom you can talk rationally about things.
LOL don't you love getting called a nutjob for quoting theiR OWN position to them?
fucking animals. they'd walk off a cliff because their head is stuck up the ass of the lemming in front of them.
fucking animals. they'd walk off a cliff because their head is stuck up the ass of the lemming in front of them.
Standard progressive policy is to devalue national currency to decrease labor costs? lol wut Where's your citation for that bit of nutjobbery?
First, you should drop the attitude. You have been proven unable to answer questions about economics. But answering your question:
A quick google search: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/magazine/16Europe-t.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
Its your standard policy to resolve the disequilibriums by inflating away the debt and devaluating the real wages because you argue that wages are rigid (wages being rigid is partly true).
Its quite sad that a lot of progressives are lead by slogans and dont even know the policies they defend.
It's actually a way as Michael Hudson so brilliantly put in a recent interview on "Guns and Butter" to devalue the dollar as to lower the price of labor in this country. Really brilliant interview.
Its weird that you say this becuase this is standard progressive policy.
Standard progressive policy is to devalue national currency to decrease labor costs? lol wut Where's your citation for that bit of nutjobbery?
It's actually a way as Michael Hudson so brilliantly put in a recent interview on "Guns and Butter" to devalue the dollar as to lower the price of labor in this country. Really brilliant interview.
Its weird that you say this becuase this is standard progressive policy.
You hire people who work in the field and have experience. That's the problem with these positions: you basically have to hire the fox to watch the chicken coup, because the fox is the only one who knows what its weaknesses are.
Actually hiring the fox will just make things worst. You're feeding and protecting the fox that will kill your chickens at night, and he'll invite all his fox buddies for the kill.
Ok, how about, you hire a physics professor to do a physics problem, an electrician to fix an electrical problem, and a corporate business guy to fix a corporate business problem? There's just no one else to hire who will understand any of the stuff they're dealing with.
You hire people who work in the field and have experience. That's the problem with these positions: you basically have to hire the fox to watch the chicken coup, because the fox is the only one who knows what its weaknesses are.
Actually hiring the fox will just make things worst. You're feeding and protecting the fox that will kill your chickens at night, and he'll invite all his fox buddies for the kill.
It's actually a way as Michael Hudson so brilliantly put in a recent interview on "Guns and Butter" to devalue the dollar as to lower the price of labor in this country. Really brilliant interview.
Elections on 2012. Obama wants the Fed to inflate to create a mini-bubble and give the impression that the economy is improving so he can use it during the campaign.
Yea I guess that's why he's said he's sticking to his promise to not raise the debt ceiling.
Who are you talking about? I dont understand your answer.
Quote
You hire people who work in the field and have experience. That's the problem with these positions: you basically have to hire the fox to watch the chicken coup, because the fox is the only one who knows what its weaknesses are.
As for Bernanke, he follows the same school of economics most other top economists do. Hiring anyone else would result in similar decisions (even Ayn Rand fan Greenspan did Keynesian things when he thought they were prudent).
As for Bernanke, he follows the same school of economics most other top economists do. Hiring anyone else would result in similar decisions (even Ayn Rand fan Greenspan did Keynesian things when he thought they were prudent).
+1
You just have to pull your head out of your ass, maybe actually get news from a source other than infowars, and then you'll understand.
P.S. I was talking about Obama, obviously.
Elections on 2012. Obama wants the Fed to inflate to create a mini-bubble and give the impression that the economy is improving so he can use it during the campaign.
Yea I guess that's why he's said he's sticking to his promise to not raise the debt ceiling.
Who are you talking about? I dont understand your answer.
Quote
You hire people who work in the field and have experience. That's the problem with these positions: you basically have to hire the fox to watch the chicken coup, because the fox is the only one who knows what its weaknesses are.
As for Bernanke, he follows the same school of economics most other top economists do. Hiring anyone else would result in similar decisions (even Ayn Rand fan Greenspan did Keynesian things when he thought they were prudent).
As for Bernanke, he follows the same school of economics most other top economists do. Hiring anyone else would result in similar decisions (even Ayn Rand fan Greenspan did Keynesian things when he thought they were prudent).
+1
Elections on 2012.
...
...
I just wish people would realize that presidents, whether republican or democrat, really DO NOT have control of the economy. They're not like pilots in a plane. At most they're just stewardesses, with no real control over things like unemployment, markets, etc. The Fed and Congress have way more sway in it, but presidents always take credit for when economy improved (Clinton taking credit for Internet and globalization), or get blamed when the economy tanks (Bush and Obama being blamed for things caused by Congress and banks)
Well, for starts, he could nominate some people who AREN'T wealthy banksters into his cabinet and government. Replace Bernanke. Veto anything bad Congress attempts to do.
But of course a president would never do any of those things, so in practice, yes, you are right.
You hire people who work in the field and have experience. That's the problem with these positions: you basically have to hire the fox to watch the chicken coup, because the fox is the only one who knows what its weaknesses are.
As for Bernanke, he follows the same school of economics most other top economists do. Hiring anyone else would result in similar decisions (even Ayn Rand fan Greenspan did Keynesian things when he thought they were prudent).
Elections on 2012.
...
...
I just wish people would realize that presidents, whether republican or democrat, really DO NOT have control of the economy. They're not like pilots in a plane. At most they're just stewardesses, with no real control over things like unemployment, markets, etc. The Fed and Congress have way more sway in it, but presidents always take credit for when economy improved (Clinton taking credit for Internet and globalization), or get blamed when the economy tanks (Bush and Obama being blamed for things caused by Congress and banks)
Well, for starts, he could nominate some people who AREN'T wealthy banksters into his cabinet and government. Replace Bernanke. Veto anything bad Congress attempts to do.
But of course a president would never do any of those things, so in practice, yes, you are right.
Elections on 2012. Obama wants the Fed to inflate to create a mini-bubble and give the impression that the economy is improving so he can use it during the campaign.
Yea I guess that's why he's said he's sticking to his promise to not raise the debt ceiling.
I just wish people would realize that presidents, whether republican or democrat, really DO NOT have control of the economy. They're not like pilots in a plane. At most they're just stewardesses, with no real control over things like unemployment, markets, etc. The Fed and Congress have way more sway in it, but presidents always take credit for when economy improved (Clinton taking credit for Internet and globalization), or get blamed when the economy tanks (Bush and Obama being blamed for things caused by Congress and banks)
Excellent point and very true. I think that people like to feel that "someone" is in charge of things, even if they don't agree with the policies. It's hard for people to comprehend spontaneous order, let alone trust in its ability to manage resources.
Elections on 2012.
...
...
I just wish people would realize that presidents, whether republican or democrat, really DO NOT have control of the economy. They're not like pilots in a plane. At most they're just stewardesses, with no real control over things like unemployment, markets, etc. The Fed and Congress have way more sway in it, but presidents always take credit for when economy improved (Clinton taking credit for Internet and globalization), or get blamed when the economy tanks (Bush and Obama being blamed for things caused by Congress and banks)
The U.S. debt is in dollars guys, if the U.S. Treasury cannot redeem the debt by using tax revenue or more debt then holders of U.S. debt will simply sell their securities to the Federal Reserve:)
And for a remote reason the investors don't want to lend to the U.S. government the Fed will do it. The result in both cases would be quantitative easing on a scale never seen before, this would be incredibly bullish for U.S. and world stock markets. The U.S. government will never default on its debt. The U.S. debt ceiling negotiations is just a comic.
And for a remote reason the investors don't want to lend to the U.S. government the Fed will do it. The result in both cases would be quantitative easing on a scale never seen before, this would be incredibly bullish for U.S. and world stock markets. The U.S. government will never default on its debt. The U.S. debt ceiling negotiations is just a comic.
Actually, during the 70's there stagflation. The Fed was loose but because the capital structure was so distorted from the inflation from previous years, the stock market did not do that good. The money flowed into other areas. So watch out, with stagflation the stock market wont collapse but it will hardly keep up with price inflation. Some stocks will do good (specially the ones related with commodities), but overall I dont think it will be that good.
The U.S. debt is in dollars guys, if the U.S. Treasury cannot redeem the debt by using tax revenue or more debt then holders of U.S. debt will simply sell their securities to the Federal Reserve:)
And for a remote reason the investors don't want to lend to the U.S. government the Fed will do it. The result in both cases would be quantitative easing on a scale never seen before, this would be incredibly bullish for U.S. and world stock markets. The U.S. government will never default on its debt. The U.S. debt ceiling negotiations is just a comic.
And for a remote reason the investors don't want to lend to the U.S. government the Fed will do it. The result in both cases would be quantitative easing on a scale never seen before, this would be incredibly bullish for U.S. and world stock markets. The U.S. government will never default on its debt. The U.S. debt ceiling negotiations is just a comic.
Elections on 2012. Obama wants the Fed to inflate to create a mini-bubble and give the impression that the economy is improving so he can use it during the campaign.
Nixon did the same with Arthur Burns and the USA then went into stagflation: http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.20.4.177
I hope you're not right that history is repeating itself Nixon did the same with Arthur Burns and the USA then went into stagflation: http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.20.4.177
Elections on 2012. Obama wants the Fed to inflate to create a mini-bubble and give the impression that the economy is improving so he can use it during the campaign.
Nixon did the same with Arthur Burns and the USA then went into stagflation: http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.20.4.177
Nixon did the same with Arthur Burns and the USA then went into stagflation: http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.20.4.177
Amazing how economists and traders interpret the slightest intimation and move the market based on that!
It's not even economists or traders. It's bots.
http://www.dailyfx.com/forex/market_alert/2011/07/13/U.S._Dollar_Plummets_as_Bernanke_Suggests_Further_Easing_on_Horizon.html
"Quantitive Easing" is a euphimism for printing more money in a modern economy where currency is digital. Essentially; the Fed is creating inflation to try to stimulate the economy. This of course devalues the dollar.
What's important for us in the Bitcoin economy to realize is that the perception of Bitcoin value is related to the dollar in the same way it is other currencies. People value the nearly everything based on its scarcity. More dollars = less value per dollar. Bitcoin is by nature a predictable scarcity. Thus, as the dollar goes down in value theoretically the value of BTC/USD goes up.
Quote
Chairman Bernanke noted, that “[T]he most recent data attest to the continuing weakness of the labor market: The unemployment rate increased to 9.2 percent in June, and gains in nonfarm payroll employment were below expectations for a second month.” Furthermore, he stated that long-term unemployment is a potentially severe problem for the country, as it leads to “an erosion of skills of those without work,” while simultaneously reducing “the productive potential of our economy as a whole.”
Amazing how economists and traders interpret the slightest intimation and move the market based on that! "Quantitive Easing" is a euphimism for printing more money in a modern economy where currency is digital. Essentially; the Fed is creating inflation to try to stimulate the economy. This of course devalues the dollar.
What's important for us in the Bitcoin economy to realize is that the perception of Bitcoin value is related to the dollar in the same way it is other currencies. People value the nearly everything based on its scarcity. More dollars = less value per dollar. Bitcoin is by nature a predictable scarcity. Thus, as the dollar goes down in value theoretically the value of BTC/USD goes up.
Jump to: