Quote from piezoe:
Tsing Tao. I have to respectfully disagree. We do not know the amount of printing at this point. It is incorrect to assume ahead of the completion of the QE operation how much net "printing" there will be.
Perhaps, but we sure as hell can look at how much has been done thus far. I'm not pulling these numbers out of my ass, you know. They're widely available. Just look at the Federal Reserve's balance sheet.
Quote from piezoe:
The expansion of the money base that accompanies the intial phase of the QE operation does not necessarily all end up as inflation and monetizing, because in the second phase of the operation the Fed will shrink its balance sheet and the money base will contract some.
It may not end all up as inflation, but it is already monetization. If, at a later date, the Fed is able to pull back (and even some Fed members have expressed doubt that this can happen orderly), then we'll talk. Until then, money has entered the system out of thin air. Call it whatever pithy phrase turns you on.
Quote from piezoe:
The money base of any country is never stagnant anyway. What is ultimately of interest is how much debt will end up being effectively monetized through inflation. We are never going to do the kind of "printing" that a country like Zimbabwe might do, where new money is created and used directly to pay debt. That's illegal in the U.S.
Again, you're hiding behind semantics. As I have said several times now, just because we have a second step where the Fed
requires primary dealers to buy debt it then buys from them, is just bullshit on paper. We're already buying debt with newly created money.
Quote from piezoe:
Secondly only a fool would guarantee the course the Fed has embarked on will work out well. I am only insisting that it is the right path to follow now, compared to the alternative path some of you want the Fed to follow. Those that want the Government to sharply curtail spending right now are wrong. I am convinced that the Keynesian approach that the Fed, Treasury, and administration have embarked on is the correct approach to bring the country out of recession, and I am optimistic that it will work if only those idiots who insist on following failed economic theory don't stand in the way. But will I guarantee that it will work? Of course not.
Great. So while you continue to offer opinions, I'll stick to hard data, if you don't mind. That's what a true debate is.
Quote from piezoe:
I've made it very clear that in my opinion the economic policies followed during the Reagan and Bush years were damaging to the country. (Thatcher Also did this with equally bad results.) These folks followed a misguided "supply side/ deregulation" approach to management of the economy. The success of deregulation requires equilibrium theory to hold true. Sadly for both the U.S. and Great Britain, equilibrium theory is wrong!!!
Aaaand here we go back into this again. You'll pardon me if I stop responding to this, and the rhetorical - yet highly opinionated - statement that followed it in your last post. What
I know, is that
you know very little about this subject. Words are wind.
Quote from piezoe:
The Keynesians have not been proven wrong, not yet anyway.
Ah, I was wrong. There was one thing left commenting on. That's the thing about history - it takes time to happen. But to say "Keynesians have not been wrong yet" is silly. We're going through what we're going through because Keynesians have had their way the last few decades. They seek to perpetuate it endlessly. The reason they don't change is because they don't know what else to do. The textbooks aren't working anymore. Again, math doesn't care what they do. It just is.