Attention, ages 20-30

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course, with Keynesian economics, which dominates the Fed, only the short-term matters. Never mind those questions about unintended consequences and long-term problems. STOP COMPLAINING, says Bernanke. I mean, he's an economist! How can you argue against that!

So if we keep pumping money into the financial sector, surely, unemployment will decrease, investment will increase, production will increase, exports will increase, and the Boom will be back, baby! And if that doesn't happen, then we'll keep pumping money into the financial sector. And if it doesn't happen sufficiently, guess what? We'll keep pumping money into the financial sector. Same marginally weak outcomes??? Keep pumping that money into the financial sector! Yeah, works like a charm. That's why GDP is at the long-run growth rate of over 3%, and unemployment is down to 5%, amirite?

How I can I be wrong? My econometrics say that I must be right! No, never mind that the Fed recently published two of my papers discussing how beautiful Bernanke's bald head is! Controlled experiments are impossible with econometrics? Yeah, so what. Several highly aggregated economic indicators do not explain reality? SILENCE!!!


Four words: stochaistc dynamic equilibrium models. YEAHH!!! Sounds sexy! Surely, this economic model is correct! Look at how we saved the economy! We just need more stimulus.... UHHGHGHHH... more stimulus. More... Easy credit into the financial sector! That'll do the trick! Look at the jobs SOAR!!! (to foreign countries or off the government-calculated employment rates).

Macroeconomics is a SCIENCE!! Never mind that our equations hold no known constants. Never mind that these constants are inaccurately estimated, thus faulty for future predictions!! Keynesianism is a SCIENCE!! A SCIENCE!! A SCIENCE!!!!!

[Neoteny]

Also, Japan will fail in the next three to five years.

[john9blue]

Of course, with Keynesian economics, which dominates the Fed, only the short-term matters. Never mind those questions about unintended consequences and long-term problems. STOP COMPLAINING, says Bernanke. I mean, he's an economist! How can you argue against that!

So if we keep pumping money into the financial sector, surely, unemployment will decrease, investment will increase, production will increase, exports will increase, and the Boom will be back, baby! And if that doesn't happen, then we'll keep pumping money into the financial sector. And if it doesn't happen sufficiently, guess what? We'll keep pumping money into the financial sector. Same marginally weak outcomes??? Keep pumping that money into the financial sector! Yeah, works like a charm. That's why GDP is at the long-run growth rate of over 3%, and unemployment is down to 5%, amirite?

How I can I be wrong? My econometrics say that I must be right! No, never mind that the Fed recently published two of my papers discussing how beautiful Bernanke's bald head is! Controlled experiments are impossible with econometrics? Yeah, so what. Several highly aggregated economic indicators do not explain reality? SILENCE!!!


Four words: stochaistc dynamic equilibrium models. YEAHH!!! Sounds sexy! Surely, this economic model is correct! Look at how we saved the economy! We just need more stimulus.... UHHGHGHHH... more stimulus. More... Easy credit into the financial sector! That'll do the trick! Look at the jobs SOAR!!! (to foreign countries or off the government-calculated employment rates).

Macroeconomics is a SCIENCE!! Never mind that our equations hold no known constants. Never mind that these constants are inaccurately estimated, thus faulty for future predictions!! Keynesianism is a SCIENCE!! A SCIENCE!! A SCIENCE!!!!!

you've finally gone off the deep end...

[Phatscotty]

Where is Keynesianism today? Fake Alien Invasions!

[nietzsche]

Yes, Keyneisisim

[Crazyirishman]

I still don't see why shiny metals are so valuable, can somebody explain this to me? I really see corn and wheat as more valuable/tangible/useful than gold and silver, but I feel like I'm the only one.

[Symmetry]

Lepre-corn?

[Army of GOD]

I still don't see why shiny metals are so valuable, can somebody explain this to me? I really see corn and wheat as more valuable/tangible/useful than gold and silver, but I feel like I'm the only one.

They're different types of goods.

Don't ask me why because I don't care about gold/silver/platinum but people want them. They want to look at them; they want to have them. And since they're all relatively rare people will pay good money for them.

Food on the other hand is a lot more bountiful and one can make it themselves.

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course, with Keynesian economics, which dominates the Fed, only the short-term matters. Never mind those questions about unintended consequences and long-term problems. STOP COMPLAINING, says Bernanke. I mean, he's an economist! How can you argue against that!

So if we keep pumping money into the financial sector, surely, unemployment will decrease, investment will increase, production will increase, exports will increase, and the Boom will be back, baby! And if that doesn't happen, then we'll keep pumping money into the financial sector. And if it doesn't happen sufficiently, guess what? We'll keep pumping money into the financial sector. Same marginally weak outcomes??? Keep pumping that money into the financial sector! Yeah, works like a charm. That's why GDP is at the long-run growth rate of over 3%, and unemployment is down to 5%, amirite?

How I can I be wrong? My econometrics say that I must be right! No, never mind that the Fed recently published two of my papers discussing how beautiful Bernanke's bald head is! Controlled experiments are impossible with econometrics? Yeah, so what. Several highly aggregated economic indicators do not explain reality? SILENCE!!!


Four words: stochaistc dynamic equilibrium models. YEAHH!!! Sounds sexy! Surely, this economic model is correct! Look at how we saved the economy! We just need more stimulus.... UHHGHGHHH... more stimulus. More... Easy credit into the financial sector! That'll do the trick! Look at the jobs SOAR!!! (to foreign countries or off the government-calculated employment rates).

Macroeconomics is a SCIENCE!! Never mind that our equations hold no known constants. Never mind that these constants are inaccurately estimated, thus faulty for future predictions!! Keynesianism is a SCIENCE!! A SCIENCE!! A SCIENCE!!!!!

you've finally gone off the deep end...

It's a recession, john. I need a bailout! My ego is too big to fail!

[BigBallinStalin]

I still don't see why shiny metals are so valuable, can somebody explain this to me? I really see corn and wheat as more valuable/tangible/useful than gold and silver, but I feel like I'm the only one.

Monetary value is relative, as in the price of a US dollar depends on the prices of other currencies and monies. Money is any medium of exchange. Corn and platinum can be used as money.

Then, each type of money has intrinsic qualities which make it inherently useful. Gold has been used as a money for centuries because it's easily divisible into smaller coins, its very durable, lasts perhaps forever, is fungible (i.e. each piece of gold is practically the same as any other), etc.

Corn is bulkier, thus more is needed to trade for something. It rots, must be preserved at a higher cost, its quality varies, its weight varies, etc.


Lately, the demand for precious metals has been rising because investors are hedging their bets against higher inflation of the fiat monies (the paper currencies, e.g. US dollar, Euro, etc.). Think of it this way: you can't "print" gold as easily as US dollars. Gold's relative value increases compared to the fiat currencies, because all these past and ongoing monetary stimulus programs depreciate the values of their currencies.

[saxitoxin]

Corn is bulkier, thus more is needed to trade for something. It rots, must be preserved at a higher cost, its quality varies, its weight varies, etc.

Shows what you know. I've been investing 100% in seeds: 50% corn seed, 20% tomato seed, 20% alfalfa seed and 10% PhatScotty seed (with which to grow my post-collapse warrior army).

[BigBallinStalin]

Corn is bulkier, thus more is needed to trade for something. It rots, must be preserved at a higher cost, its quality varies, its weight varies, etc.

Shows what you know. I've been investing 100% in seeds: 50% corn seed, 20% tomato seed, 20% alfalfa seed and 10% PhatScotty seed (with which to grow my post-collapse warrior army).

All your seed are belong to us.

[rdsrds2120]

Yes, Kanyeisim

Bold move, nietzsche.

BBS, should I now delay on paying back my student loans with money I make today? Can I short the money system?

BMO

[BigBallinStalin]

The recent monetary stimulus allows some people to refinance their mortgages at lower interest rates. The Fed is estimated to be owning about 55% of all monthly mortgage assets by the end of the year. Talk about "monopolistic" practices!


Anyway, did you make those loans with the government? If so, then you're likely to be screwed, sorry. As much as people bitch about markets and loans, the government and its subsidized student loans is oddly missing from that criticism.

[patches70]

The recent monetary stimulus allows some people to refinance their mortgages at lower interest rates. The Fed is estimated to be owning about 55% of all monthly mortgage assets by the end of the year. Talk about "monopolistic" practices!

Oh, it gets worse than that, BBS, with this QE4.....er, I mean QE3 <wink wink>, The Fed's balance sheet is going from the current $2.8 trillion to $4 trillion by the end of 2013 and is estimated to hit $5 trillion by the end 2014. I should post the charts, but meh. Why bother?

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's my favorite:

1. There's about $1.6 in excess reserves sitting in the federal reserve. (this is money which banks own but aren't willing to lend it out).
2. The Federal Reserve pays the banks to keep that money in there (otherwise, if it was all lent out, you'd get serious inflation).
3. The problem:

What happens when the economy starts recovering significantly? The banks will want to lend those excess reserves out, so the potential for inflation will keep increasing, but the Fed knows this, so they'll raise their interest rates on the excess reserves.

How will people like it when they realize that the Fed is simply transferring money from taxpayers into banks for reasons which the Fed caused?

[thegreekdog]

How will people like it when they realize that the Fed is simply transferring money from taxpayers into banks for reasons which the Fed caused?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they won't care enough to do anything about it.

[BigBallinStalin]

How will people like it when they realize that the Fed is simply transferring money from taxpayers into banks for reasons which the Fed caused?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they won't care enough to do anything about it.

I would agree with you until more people start showing how monetary policies by the Fed ruin their savings and transfer wealth to the banks.

Do a sensational enough piece on this, and people would listen.


As far as action goes.... I don't have much of an argument against that. People will vote for either main party anyway so, <shrugs>. But I'd imagine that it would create further division and mistrust between people and the federal government, which to me are good things.

[thegreekdog]

How will people like it when they realize that the Fed is simply transferring money from taxpayers into banks for reasons which the Fed caused?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they won't care enough to do anything about it.

I would agree with you until more people start showing how monetary policies by the Fed ruin their savings and transfer wealth to the banks.

Do a sensational enough piece on this, and people would listen.


As far as action goes.... I don't have much of an argument against that. People will vote for either main party anyway so, <shrugs>. But I'd imagine that it would create further division and mistrust between people and the federal government, which to me are good things.

Yeah, I don't think it will cause further division and mistrust between people and the federal government. One would think there would be many more people mistrusting the federal government given the recent history. Given the lack of widespread information on these subjects and given the failures of the federal government in the past without repurcussions, I'm not hopeful.

[BigBallinStalin]

How will people like it when they realize that the Fed is simply transferring money from taxpayers into banks for reasons which the Fed caused?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they won't care enough to do anything about it.

I would agree with you until more people start showing how monetary policies by the Fed ruin their savings and transfer wealth to the banks.

Do a sensational enough piece on this, and people would listen.


As far as action goes.... I don't have much of an argument against that. People will vote for either main party anyway so, <shrugs>. But I'd imagine that it would create further division and mistrust between people and the federal government, which to me are good things.

Yeah, I don't think it will cause further division and mistrust between people and the federal government. One would think there would be many more people mistrusting the federal government given the recent history. Given the lack of widespread information on these subjects and given the failures of the federal government in the past without repurcussions, I'm not hopeful.

TGD! You're turning into a grouchy old man! Where's your youthful optimism!?

[thegreekdog]

How will people like it when they realize that the Fed is simply transferring money from taxpayers into banks for reasons which the Fed caused?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they won't care enough to do anything about it.

I would agree with you until more people start showing how monetary policies by the Fed ruin their savings and transfer wealth to the banks.

Do a sensational enough piece on this, and people would listen.


As far as action goes.... I don't have much of an argument against that. People will vote for either main party anyway so, <shrugs>. But I'd imagine that it would create further division and mistrust between people and the federal government, which to me are good things.

Yeah, I don't think it will cause further division and mistrust between people and the federal government. One would think there would be many more people mistrusting the federal government given the recent history. Given the lack of widespread information on these subjects and given the failures of the federal government in the past without repurcussions, I'm not hopeful.

TGD! You're turning into a grouchy old man! Where's your youthful optimism!?

The only explanation is that I turned 33 yesterday. Perhaps 33 is the new 73.

[john9blue]

i swear half the world is born this week. me and 3 of my cousins (and a decent number of facebook friends) have all have had birthdays this past week

[Phatscotty]

i swear half the world is born this week. me and 3 of my cousins (and a decent number of facebook friends) have all have had birthdays this past week

Half the world gets it on over Thanksgiving and Christmas break.