We are better off than we were 6 years ago!

Tsing Tao said:
I don't know anything about your housing thread, but if it was half as bad as your knowledge of macro economics, then I can just imagine the circus it must have been.

I have more news for you. Regarding the Obama "slow dragging recovery". There's no recovery, Covertibility. None. Oh, sure, stocks are at all time highs because of money printing (yes, I notice how you dodged my response on that), but main street hasn't recovered. Economic metrics like GDP and spending have all mortgaged the future through the acquisition of more debt. More debt cannot solve problems caused by debt, and eventually all you crazies will get that. All you do when you borrow is take money from the future in order to sustain the purchasing power of today. That's it. Unless you plan on forgiving all that debt, someone has to be paid in the future, and with future earnings. Those future earnings are subtracted from future wealth and you're forced to borrow more in order to maintain standard of living.

You are right about one thing, though, it would have been a devastating depression had we allowed the system to reset itself after the financial panic, but we're going to get that anyway. All we've done it guaranteed to make it worse down the line. Printing almost $4 Trillion and spending like we have during the last 6 years to get what little positive we have is proof of this. If we had done this during a real recovery, we'd be soaring around 7-10% GDP. But there are structural flaws that should have been addressed after the crash that never were. Instead, we doubled down on the same corruption, the same rotting financial system devoid of control and proper regulation (I emphasize "proper" because Liberals will leap to the argument that it was the lack of regulation that caused the crash, when it wasn't. It was the lack of enforcement of the existing regulations). We didn't learn our lesson, and so we'll be back at it again soon.

But I love the analogy I heard from Jim Grant (think it was him) a year after the financial crisis occurred: "Personally, I'd rather throw up for 6 months straight rather than opting to be nauseous for 20 years". We've chosen the latter, and then we'll have to do the former.

Anytime, and I mean anytime, you want to debate facts and numbers with me on this, you feel free to start it.
More...
Great post TT
 
Tsing Tao said:
I don't know anything about your housing thread, but if it was half as bad as your knowledge of macro economics, then I can just imagine the circus it must have been.

I have more news for you. Regarding the Obama "slow dragging recovery". There's no recovery, Covertibility. None. Oh, sure, stocks are at all time highs because of money printing (yes, I notice how you dodged my response on that), but main street hasn't recovered. Economic metrics like GDP and spending have all mortgaged the future through the acquisition of more debt. More debt cannot solve problems caused by debt, and eventually all you crazies will get that. All you do when you borrow is take money from the future in order to sustain the purchasing power of today. That's it. Unless you plan on forgiving all that debt, someone has to be paid in the future, and with future earnings. Those future earnings are subtracted from future wealth and you're forced to borrow more in order to maintain standard of living.

You are right about one thing, though, it would have been a devastating depression had we allowed the system to reset itself after the financial panic, but we're going to get that anyway. All we've done it guaranteed to make it worse down the line. Printing almost $4 Trillion and spending like we have during the last 6 years to get what little positive we have is proof of this. If we had done this during a real recovery, we'd be soaring around 7-10% GDP. But there are structural flaws that should have been addressed after the crash that never were. Instead, we doubled down on the same corruption, the same rotting financial system devoid of control and proper regulation (I emphasize "proper" because Liberals will leap to the argument that it was the lack of regulation that caused the crash, when it wasn't. It was the lack of enforcement of the existing regulations). We didn't learn our lesson, and so we'll be back at it again soon.

But I love the analogy I heard from Jim Grant (think it was him) a year after the financial crisis occurred: "Personally, I'd rather throw up for 6 months straight rather than opting to be nauseous for 20 years". We've chosen the latter, and then we'll have to do the former.

Anytime, and I mean anytime, you want to debate facts and numbers with me on this, you feel free to start it.
More...

Ditto!

We've never "taken our medicine" and rectified our behaviors... more and greater pain to come.

:(
 
Ricter said:
So when does the Fed have to redeem all those bonds it purchased, anyway?
More...

Redeem? It can hold them to maturity. Or it can sell them back to the market. Or in the case of MBS, it can write them off.
 
Ricter said:
So when does the Fed have to redeem all those bonds it purchased, anyway?
More...

Doesn't EVER have to. Can just hold to maturity. When/if they sell sooner, would drive interest rates higher.

So, let' say they "hold until maturity". Apparently marketplace would be OK with that for now. But what about the next "go round"? Could they keep increasing their balance sheet ad-nauseum without the rest of the world going "no mas" and trash the $USD?
close.gif
Read more >>​
Options >>​
​

Match: ad nauseam and others.
ad nau·se·am (ăd nô'zē-əm)
pron.gif

adv.
To a disgusting or ridiculous degree; to the point of nausea.

[Latin ad, to + nauseam, accusative of nausea, sickness.]


© Houghton Mifflin Company
Copyright © 2014 Answers Corporation. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Policy IP Notices Disclaimer​
​
 
it's always this saying, "when your friend loses his job, recession. when you do, depression."

i'm selfish, so i don't care about QE193 or 30-year yields at 0% or Dow at 200k. If my accounts go up, good. if not, bad. let's see, 6 years ago to now. I'm better off in some things, worse in others. but overall i wouldn't do the years over again, since my health is very good and i've learned that is paramount. you can make more money, harder to make better health. the macro economy has nothing to do with me, or the micro. i make my choices and i'm pretty much in control of my future. i'm not blaming statistics.
 
istoptime said:
it's always this saying, "when your friend loses his job, recession. when you do, depression."

i'm selfish, so i don't care about QE193 or 30-year yields at 0% or Dow at 200k. If my accounts go up, good. if not, bad. let's see, 6 years ago to now. I'm better off in some things, worse in others. but overall i wouldn't do the years over again, since my health is very good and i've learned that is paramount. you can make more money, harder to make better health. the macro economy has nothing to do with me, or the micro. i make my choices and i'm pretty much in control of my future. i'm not blaming statistics.
More...

Would be awesome if we all lived 6 year lives, had no children and were born at the advent of QE and died when it was over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top