|
Veskit posted:What would happened if Obama came in and gave a target of 5% inflation over the year? Nothing because he doesn't have that authority over the Fed ColoradoCleric posted:Well right now the U.S. economy should be undergoing some decent inflation It is not, the U.S. is facing borderline deflation right now
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
Monetary policy isn't a good way to address the wealth gap anyway, especially given the statutory constraints put on it in the U.S.. That's more fiscal and regulatory policy's domain.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:When skullfucking a child, I like to do it through the mouth so I can watch the life slowly drain from their eyes while they choke, but my hedgefund manager buddies tell me that is a scrub move and the real deal is when you puncture the temple and gently caress their still warm, dead body through that hole. what the gently caress is wrong with you
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Is there a crafty way to sell to the public on issuing debt? How would it work if the Federal government wanted to issue public bonds for infrastructure? Do we already do that I can't remember if it's a federal thing or not to specify the bonds. The federal government already subsidizes certain state and municipal bonds by allowing income gained by creditors from them to be tax exempt. The government could theoretically find other stealth tax breaks to encourage this kind of spending, but any kind would contribute to the deficit in the short term. This however is not sufficient for the kind of infrastructure spending America would need because states and municipalities still need to finance those bonds through taxes, which are generally politically unpopular. The federal government could of course do straight up fiscal transfers for spending on municipalities, like they did with the stimulus, but that contributes to the federal deficit which, again, is politically unpopular. Essentially the only way to make this kind of thing work is to convince the voters that investing in the future is worth it. Which would mean overcoming a Sisyphean mountain of shortsightedness in a country that cannot even agree that climate change is real or worth dealing with.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:China has sustained growth through periods of US and western recession. And at this stage the first world is diminishing in terms of its share of world consumption. Chinese growth was largely built on exports to the West (notable exception being Chongqing, which grew through catering to domestic demand for goods) and when the Western economy collapsed in 2008, China shored up demand through massive government spending. So it fails like every point of the question he's asking. The only exceptions to Helsing's requirements are countries that grew through commodity bubbles and not asset bubbles, like the various countries that have relatively recently discovered oil wealth or other natural resource wealth (e.g. Botswana and minerals)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:First, there are other recessions such as 2001. And other examples of sustained export led growth of say the other Asian tigers which spanned a range of global financial conditions. That recession barely impacted exports from China to U.S. you retard
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:The gold standard is considered a form of tight money policy, yes? Yes, the gold standard is used to tie the growth of the money supply to the extraction of gold. It was extremely disastrous when used and the lack of monetary policy tools because of it led to frequent catastrophic recessions in the United States, and the bimetalism movement of the late 19th and early 20th century was an attempt to inflate currency and expand the money supply in order to benefit debtors
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:That bubbles don't explain most growth in the last few decades and "juicing" needs a definition before we probably conclude the same thing about it. By "juicing" he means fiscal (stimulus) and monetary (e.g. QE) expansion of demand and money supply are you that thick
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
My takes on some of your questionsVeskit posted:
No unless they were doing extremely poorly but the board wouldn't remove them for whatever reason. There's a perception that good executives are crucial to a company running well and getting a good shareholder value, drat the costs. quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Oct 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is a bit terrifying in how many of the candidates don't really seem even give a poo poo about basic details of what they intend to do at this point. He wants a flat tax but has a hard time even coming with a general ballpark number. Well now that the debate happened the moderator forced a number out of him, he decided 15%. He based this on the premise that you can just tax the entire GDP 15% somehow and it would work out
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 08:19
|
|