On the Fed's ability to control unemployment, and other silly Ricter thoughts...
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
The general opinion around here about you seems to be uncomplimentary. The consensus is that you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I have the luxury this morning of cooking for one so its coffee and an omelette to your bag of little chocolate donuts. Everyone reckons that you got lost while looking for the thread about duck blinds because you certainly don't belong in this thread.
A little organic shade grown Ethiopian ground in my Rancilio Rocky and brewed in my vintage Technivorm and all is right in the world.
Quote from 377OHMS:
The general opinion around here about you seems to be uncomplimentary. The consensus is that you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I have the luxury this morning of cooking for one so its coffee and an omelette to your bag of little chocolate donuts. Everyone reckons that you got lost while looking for the thread about duck blinds because you certainly don't belong in this thread.
bigarrow, 377 put me on ignore because I heated his arse so badly that he could not handle it. Don't let this racist psychopathic loser get the better of you man.
I like fucking with 007. He can't stand that someone with different religious views (not a brain dead rightie) can outwit him time and again. He's my little donut boy and follows me everywhere.
What he and his slow witted buddy failed to notice is that I'm the only one who pointed out specific flaws in bath Tao ideas as expressed in Tao's cut and paste. Did I mention Tao is great at cut and paste.
I put RCG on ignore because of his constant racism and his pathological tendency to fabricate and lie. I've also noticed that he is one of those guys who really flips out when ignored so I suppose that is another reason.
Stupid people, like you bigarrow, don't merit being put on ignore because, well, they're just stupid and don't represent any real problem. If you were to start lying like RCG I guess I would put you on ignore as well. Stupidity is reasonably harmless.
Yeah, I can see how that would appear confusing to someone - someone who has no fucking comprehension how anything in monetary policy actually works.
See, the problem, my old Texas road construction friend, is that these articles are written with the assumption that the reader already understands the back story. This way, lots of points can be rattled off on the premise that the previous proofs have already been established and generally accepted. That is a major flaw of the financial blogs, of course. They hope the reader has the basic grasp of economics, banking and the flow of money so that the article doesn't have to have a 20 page back drop. Now, when someone like yourself with the a reading venue of "Pull Tab To Open" shows up, it doesn't always flow that well, which is why sometimes you see these folks in the comment section writing "wtf are you guys talking about". These commentators are then eviscerated.
But alas, I understand where you're coming from, because I was once in that boat when I was 18 or so, and I remember. You're what, 55 or 60 or something? You may not have all that much time to embark on a Knowledge Pursuit in your mediocre life, but that doesn't mean you can't still try.
What the author is doing is speaking to two sets of circumstances - what the Fed's limitation is: Fed policy can lower interest rate policy in order to make banks find it cheaper to lend to marginal borrowers, and then in a healthy environment, these banks will lend to lower credit scores folks who are more likely to default just like they did during the housing boom.
The problem, of course, is that now bank's balance sheets are so impaired and rotten that they won't even do that - because they know these borrowers will have a much greater chance of defaulting, and they cannot handle that. This is, of course, assuming these borrowers are willing to take out more loans - which evidence shows they are not (as a whole). IE, the whole, you cannot force people to take more debt idea that Shedlock writes about. So instead, the bankers park these monies at the Federal Reserve and speculate in the marking using them. Hence, the comment about maybe creating a few jobs at trading desks. After all, why lend to marginal buyers at 5% when you can make 10% on oil futures? (these numbers are for illustration only, mind you).
So now that I've given you the primer, maybe going back and re-reading might help a bit. Don't worry, even if other teachers have thought you were a lost cause (probably why you are in the field you are), I won't give up on you!
Big smile, k?
Oh, and bigarrow, just curious, but what is "bath Tao" supposed to mean? Is that some reference to your belief that I don't shower often? Or maybe I used to be in Sadam's Baath party?
Just curious, because I saw it on a few of your posts. Oh, wait...it just occurred to me - is it a play on words for Bath Towel? Just trying to get into that level of humor. Funny stuff!
Paper Tao
Just curious, because I saw it on a few of your posts. Oh, wait...it just occurred to me - is it a play on words for Bath Towel? Just trying to get into that level of humor. Funny stuff!
Paper Tao
You see, not even the balls to address me directly
Loser gun nut, that one is.