We're going in circles here. My point is precisely that Abenomics is supposed to be "something else".
Japan has fallen victim to the Keynesian scam
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
What matters more? What something is supposed to be, or what it actually is?
QE was supposed to help main street, too.
Well, do you always know the exact consequences of every single action you perform? I know I don't...
Stop with the bullshit excuses.
Those in the Fed are paid to be experts - are paid to be right. When a program they put in place has the exact opposite effect of their stated intent (helping main st/employment, for example) then they are either incompetent at the very least, or corrupt with malicious intent at the worst.
If I were that wrong in my job, I'd be sacked before I could bat an eye. And in a much, much shorter time frame.
Firstly, I didn't realise that we're now discussing the Fed. I was under the impression that we were still talking about Abenomics. I know I was...
Secondly, if we do talk about QE in the US, you cannot state anything conclusive about the effects of QE unless you can argue the counterfactual (i.e. that without QE the employment-population ratio on your chart wouldn't have been worse). Your logic, in this particular case, is flawed. If you'd like to see more discussions around this exact issue, you can find them out there (Barry Ritholtz has written about it, as have a few others, including academic economists).
Secondly, if we do talk about QE in the US, you cannot state anything conclusive about the effects of QE unless you can argue the counterfactual (i.e. that without QE the employment-population ratio on your chart wouldn't have been worse). Your logic, in this particular case, is flawed. If you'd like to see more discussions around this exact issue, you can find them out there (Barry Ritholtz has written about it, as have a few others, including academic economists).
I mentioned QE, and then you went from there - making the comment that policymakers made a "whoopsie". Regardless of which country you're trying to apply that excuse to, the counter is the same. Policy makers are appointed and paid to know better - to DO better for the citizens of the countries they are supposed to help. Saying "we spent trillions of dollars/yen" to help folks, but we never expected it to work out like that!" is horseshit.
At the end of the day, the Fed, the BoJ and now the ECB have embarked on a horrendously poor campaign of helping the economy, because 6 years into the "emergency policy decisions", we are just as shaky (if not more) than we were before. Massive gaps between the rich and middle class now are worse. Too big to fail is now too bigger to fail. Employment is the same or worse. GDP sluggish. All everyone has done is create yet another bubble.
And here you try to argue - continuously - that the trillions of $$ thrown at the problem were well spent - in any country.
At the end of the day, the Fed, the BoJ and now the ECB have embarked on a horrendously poor campaign of helping the economy, because 6 years into the "emergency policy decisions", we are just as shaky (if not more) than we were before. Massive gaps between the rich and middle class now are worse. Too big to fail is now too bigger to fail. Employment is the same or worse. GDP sluggish. All everyone has done is create yet another bubble.
And here you try to argue - continuously - that the trillions of $$ thrown at the problem were well spent - in any country.
Again, you cannot logically conclude that the various measures implemented since the crisis were ineffective, since you can't argue the counterfactual.
As to the statement that 6 years after the crisis we're just as "shaky", we've had this discussion before w/Maverick, if I am not mistaken... There is just no evidence to support such a statement. Some things are undoubtedly worse (some of these things, such as the decline in employment, are a result of bigger forces that have nothing to do with policy), but there are lots and lots of things that are better. Finally, you'll have to forgive me, but I don't see a bubble, personally. Maybe, in some junky parts of the credit mkt, but not many others.
I am not arguing that the trillions of $$$ were well spent. In fact, I don't see what "spent" means in this context. My point is that Japan needs to do something about a really messy crisis that the country will undoubtedly face somewhere down the road. Abenomics is a serious attempt to do this. Of course, it's by no means certain that it will succeed. In fact, the whole situation might be so hopeless that no policy maker "appointed and paid to know better and to DO better" can save the patient. However, given the circumstances, you might as well try, since you got nothing to lose.
As to the statement that 6 years after the crisis we're just as "shaky", we've had this discussion before w/Maverick, if I am not mistaken... There is just no evidence to support such a statement. Some things are undoubtedly worse (some of these things, such as the decline in employment, are a result of bigger forces that have nothing to do with policy), but there are lots and lots of things that are better. Finally, you'll have to forgive me, but I don't see a bubble, personally. Maybe, in some junky parts of the credit mkt, but not many others.
I am not arguing that the trillions of $$$ were well spent. In fact, I don't see what "spent" means in this context. My point is that Japan needs to do something about a really messy crisis that the country will undoubtedly face somewhere down the road. Abenomics is a serious attempt to do this. Of course, it's by no means certain that it will succeed. In fact, the whole situation might be so hopeless that no policy maker "appointed and paid to know better and to DO better" can save the patient. However, given the circumstances, you might as well try, since you got nothing to lose.
You've been defending the actions of central banks since the crisis began. I can only guess that you were doing it before the crisis as well for Japan. As things get worse and worse from meddling and horribly inept central bankers, it will become harder and harder to hold to that flawed position.
As for not being able to argue the counter fact, I can look at any calamity (war, pestilence) or human caused tragedy and say with a good deal of certainty it would have been better had the event not happened.
"You don't know that Bernard Madoff was a bad man...you can't prove what would have happened if he didn't run a ponzi scheme. It could have been much worse!"
:eek:
Very well, let's continue to agree to disagree on this subject then...
