You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Negative Interest Rates Implications - deflationary and inflationary
- Thread starter TraderD
- Start date
M
morganist
Quote from dtan1e:
wow, fancy u even dare ask that, u quote all the fancy supply side, austrian, chimera sh*t but ask such basic stuff
You make the assumption it will be US that will be China's main trader in the future. This is not what I think will happen.
You are looking at it from a perspective that I do not agree with. There are many other things going on that you are not taking into appreciation. You are reading the text view of economics and have missed things in my opinion. I have made my predictions and views clear in time you will see.
I will say one more final thing about this. You are looking at it purely from a public side not the private debt and the long term ability to pay debt back and the impact that will have on aggregate demand in the future. You have not noticed the limitations of the current banking system and the calculations that it is based on and in turn central banks are based on.
All of you arguments are from a book or from articles other people have written rather than a technical understanding of the fundamentals of banking and interations with the customers and the use of the calculations.
Time will see. I will say nothing more.
Look here is another article. With another opinion. They are ten a penny.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/mar/30/us-economy-china-debt
Jesus - quite positing about the future - we are talking about the present - and things that have happened in the past. What does the future have to do with it.
I really hope you are just being so willfully stubborn because you really don't want to be wrong and are just being an asshat. The alternative - that you actually believe what you are saying - is far far more sad.
I really hope you are just being so willfully stubborn because you really don't want to be wrong and are just being an asshat. The alternative - that you actually believe what you are saying - is far far more sad.
Quote from morganist:
It could change that in coming years. It does not and will not stay static.
M
morganist
Quote from DontMissTheBus:
Jesus - quite positing about the future - we are talking about the present - and things that have happened in the past. What does the future have to do with it.
I really hope you are just being so willfully stubborn because you really don't want to be wrong and are just being an asshat. The alternative - that you actually believe what you are saying - is far far more sad.
There are lots of views on things. Read my last post. You think that your view is an absolute. I think that there are more issues than you are aware of. In time we will see.
Again - the question is about things that has happened from the past to the present, not from the present to the future.
What is it about that that requires "In time we will see.".
You behave like a child. I suspect you must be.... 18ish?
What is it about that that requires "In time we will see.".
You behave like a child. I suspect you must be.... 18ish?
Quote from morganist:
There are lots of views on things. Read my last post. You think that your view is an absolute. I think that there are more issues than you are aware of. In time we will see.
Quote from DontMissTheBus:
Again - the question is about things that has happened from the past to the present, not from the present to the future.
What is it about that that requires "In time we will see.".
You behave like a child. I suspect you must be.... 18ish?
u r a real kind soul, such patience
M
morganist
Quote from DontMissTheBus:
Again - the question is about things that has happened from the past to the present, not from the present to the future.
What is it about that that requires "In time we will see.".
You behave like a child. I suspect you must be.... 18ish?
The only person behaving like a child is you. If you look at my posts I merely put forward my views. I put I think or in my opinion. You put absolutes and make ad hominem attacks. You also swear and cannot accept that some else has an opinion. I have courteously replied to your comments and you have persisted to argue and insult me on a personal level. The articles you have put up are articles that argue against other economist, which means that someone else agrees with my view point.
You have also twisted the comments I have made and jumped from subject to subject to try to win an argument. You want nothing else but to argue with people. You are not interested in listening to other peoples opinion and assume yours is correct. I always state it is my opinion or that I believe there is no absolute just my view.
There are things you are missing from your analysis and your understanding is hash up of the neo-classical synthesis. If you went to a meeting with other economists they would not agree with you due to this hash up of views.
My work is original that gives me the ability to look at things from different view points. You are using an understanding of economics that has flaws and will fail because of them.
Like I said time will see, whether the Chinese continue to invest in America. I don't think it will. Time will also see if there is a future credit crunch. I think there will. It will also see whether there are future bank runs and on a large scale. I think there will. I also think pension funds and insurance funds could collapse.
These are my predictions and I this will underpin my understanding of economics. If they come to fruition then there must have been some fundamental understanding of economics I have you don't.
There is nothing else to say but wait.
I asked you a simple macro economic question from something that has happened (not something that will happen). You don't know the answer. Then when the answer is given, you predicatively starting going on and off about "opinions" and as such - even though it's a very technical question with a very technical answer.
Then you start spouting that you were giving your views about the future. Note - the discussion was about something that happened in the past. Had you said "I'm not going to answer that question" - then fair enough. But you didn't.
Who gives a shit about your "system". The question is on a technical matter and its cause. It's like asking why offer is higher than the bid you going off on a tangent about how prices will change in the future and the future bid might be higher than today's offer.
You tried. You were wrong. Now you are trying to weasel out using 2nd grade logic of "that's what YOU think".
This is how every macroeconomic discussion you participated in has worked out for you: people more knowledgeable than you came in and point out your are a buffoon...
Then you start spouting that you were giving your views about the future. Note - the discussion was about something that happened in the past. Had you said "I'm not going to answer that question" - then fair enough. But you didn't.
Who gives a shit about your "system". The question is on a technical matter and its cause. It's like asking why offer is higher than the bid you going off on a tangent about how prices will change in the future and the future bid might be higher than today's offer.
You tried. You were wrong. Now you are trying to weasel out using 2nd grade logic of "that's what YOU think".
This is how every macroeconomic discussion you participated in has worked out for you: people more knowledgeable than you came in and point out your are a buffoon...
Quote from morganist:
...
M
morganist
Quote from DontMissTheBus:
I asked you a simple macro economic question from something that has happened (not something that will happen). You don't know the answer. Then when the answer is given, you predicatively starting going on and off about "opinions" and as such - even though it's a very technical question with a very technical answer.
Then you start spouting that you were giving your views about the future. Note - the discussion was about something that happened in the past. Had you said "I'm not going to answer that question" - then fair enough. But you didn't.
Who gives a shit about your "system". The question is on a technical matter and its cause. It's like asking when the offer is higher than the bid you going off on a tangent about how prices will change in the future and the future bid might be higher than today's offer.
You tried. You were wrong. Now you are trying to weasel out using 2nd grade logic of "that's what YOU think".
This is how every macroeconomic discussion you participated in has worked out for you: people more knowledgeable than you came in and point out your are a buffoon...
No you put a guessing question that could have many answers some of which are even more justified than the one you put. You then put an article up from an obscure economist criticising economists that are well known agreeing with what I put.
Also there you go again. "There is a wrong. There is a right." And of course you are always right and if anyone contests you swear. It not only shows you have a limited view of the world but that you also have a personality disorder.
Paul Krugman... who has a nobel prize in economics, is obscure??
Also, let me pull this quote from the guardian article YOU posted:
"In other words, if Wen was threatening to stop buying dollar-denominated assets and therefore let the yuan rise against the dollar, he was threatening to do exactly what the US government has been demanding that China do. He will stop "manipulating" China's currency â meaning he will stop deliberately intervening in the market to keep the yuan's value from rising."
I think you don't really understand any of things you read or quote.
Also, let me pull this quote from the guardian article YOU posted:
"In other words, if Wen was threatening to stop buying dollar-denominated assets and therefore let the yuan rise against the dollar, he was threatening to do exactly what the US government has been demanding that China do. He will stop "manipulating" China's currency â meaning he will stop deliberately intervening in the market to keep the yuan's value from rising."
I think you don't really understand any of things you read or quote.
Quote from morganist:
You then put an article up from an obscure economist criticising economists that are well known agreeing with what I put.