Author Topic: Federal Reserve is expected to raise interest rates just before Trump is sworn i  (Read 1262 times)

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9928
  • Gender: Male
With all due respect, that's a simple correlation.  One of the reasons the 50's were such a good time is the enormous deficit spending that occurred just a few years earlier.  Coincidently, private debt was at an all-time low and savings was extremely high.  Interest rates at the time reflected the availability of money.

Today, debt to income ratios are extremely high, savings is extremely low and deficit spending, with the exception of 2016 fell for 5 straight years (2009-2016).

Lastly, the amount banks have to lend has nothing to do with savings.

If you wish to raise rates simply too slow down the immoral profit taking banks, there are other less destructive ways to accomplish that goal.

So you have a problem with banks being profitable. Fine, don't use them.

"there are other less destructive ways to accomplish that goal." So what we would these be?
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Online Solar

  • -
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 53259
  • Gender: Male
So you have a problem with banks being profitable. Fine, don't use them.

"there are other less destructive ways to accomplish that goal." So what we would these be?
Yeah, it's all the bank's fault and never the govt's for over taxation and stifling business growth, noooo, it's the big bad banksters that control our economy. :rolleyes:
He's another perfect example of a little knowledge is just that, very little knowledge, and never enough to grasp the big picture of an overbearing govt, the very thing our Founders tried to contain via a Republic with three separate branches of govt.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9928
  • Gender: Male
Yeah, it's all the bank's fault and never the govt's for over taxation and stifling business growth, noooo, it's the big bad banksters that control our economy. :rolleyes:
He's another perfect example of a little knowledge is just that, very little knowledge, and never enough to grasp the big picture of an overbearing govt, the very thing our Founders tried to contain via a Republic with three separate branches of govt.

Yep. It is the banks' fault the government made them make loans to people who have proven they would not pay them back.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Online Solar

  • -
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 53259
  • Gender: Male
Yep. It is the banks' fault the government made them make loans to people who have proven they would not pay them back.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Good point!
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Econ4Every1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
So you have a problem with banks being profitable. Fine, don't use them.

"there are other less destructive ways to accomplish that goal." So what we would these be?

To the contrary, banks deserve to make a profit, but even Milton Freidman, the laissez-faire capitalist he was, recognized that banks were in a unique position to work against the public interest if left unregulated.  He hoped that someday the solution could be found, but until then he believe that banks, only banks, needed to be regulated.

Banking and profits aren't an all or nothing arrangement.  It's not a binary choice between state-run banks and totally unregulated banks.

As far as what proposals I'd agree with?

I think Warren Mosler covers it pretty well with the following:

Quote
1. Banks should only be allowed to lend directly to borrowers and then service and keep
those loans on their own balance sheets.

2. US banks should not be allowed to contract in LIBOR

3. Banks should not be allowed to have subsidiaries of any kind.

4. Banks should not be allowed to accept financial assets as collateral for loans.

5. US Banks should not be allowed to lend off shore.

6. Banks should not be allowed to buy (or sell) credit default insurance

7. Banks should not be allowed to engage in proprietary trading or any profit making
ventures beyond basic lending.

8. My last proposal for the banks in this draft is to utilize FDIC approved credit models
for evaluation of bank assets.

For a full explanation to each of these proposals, follow this link:  http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/pdfs/Proposals.pdf

I'd also add other things like reinstating the uptick rule and I wouldn't allow corporations to buy back stock simply for the purpose of artificially valuating it, at least the way that it's done today.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 09:47:08 AM by Econ4Every1 »

Offline Econ4Every1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Yeah, it's all the bank's fault and never the govt's for over taxation and stifling business growth, noooo, it's the big bad banksters that control our economy. :rolleyes:
He's another perfect example of a little knowledge is just that, very little knowledge, and never enough to grasp the big picture of an overbearing govt, the very thing our Founders tried to contain via a Republic with three separate branches of govt.

Why the strawman?

I agree, I think the government over taxes.  It may come as a surprise to you, but I'm in favor of virtually eliminating all corporate taxes.  Taxes on corporations are regressive and penalize businesses for doing business.  From a personal tax perspective, I'm not in favor of taxing those with money because they have money.  You won't ever find me advocating ideas like "make the rich pay their fair share".  That's non-sense.  You could take all the wealth away from the top 1% and you'd barely make a dent in "paying for things".  Which is precisely why I don't believe that taxes can be used to pay for spending.

I never said bankers control the economy.  What I said is that private debt is stifling consumption as the number of people seeing their debt rise relative to income increases.  That means more and more people are paying debt today for yesterday's productivity leaving less to drive demand.

There is an argument to be made (not here, not now) for income inequality, but that's not solved by taking money and wealth away from those at the top, but please, let's not distract ourselves from the point of this thread.

Offline Econ4Every1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Yep. It is the banks' fault the government made them make loans to people who have proven they would not pay them back.

The government and the private sector have a role to play in recent failures.  However, I'd say it all hinged on one simple false belief that both government and the private sector all over the world believed, that the value of real estate would never drop precipitously.   Which lead to the creation of CDS' and the misappropriation of risk and insurance that insured more dollars in mortgage contracts that there is value in all the land in the world.

Banking greed didn't create the crash all by itself, gov had a role to play, but it's like speed in a car accident.  It made it much worse than it would have been had the government made better choices.




Online Solar

  • -
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 53259
  • Gender: Male
Why the strawman?

I agree, I think the government over taxes.  It may come as a surprise to you, but I'm in favor of virtually eliminating all corporate taxes.  Taxes on corporations are regressive and penalize businesses for doing business.  From a personal tax perspective, I'm not in favor of taxing those with money because they have money.  You won't ever find me advocating ideas like "make the rich pay their fair share".  That's non-sense.  You could take all the wealth away from the top 1% and you'd barely make a dent in "paying for things".  Which is precisely why I don't believe that taxes can be used to pay for spending.

I never said bankers control the economy.  What I said is that private debt is stifling consumption as the number of people seeing their debt rise relative to income increases.  That means more and more people are paying debt today for yesterday's productivity leaving less to drive demand.

There is an argument to be made for income inequality, but that's not solved by taking money and wealth away from those at the top, but please, let's not distract ourselves from the point of this thread.
Now is as good a time as any. I really have to hear your reasoning for socialism. :lol:
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Econ4Every1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Now is as good a time as any. I really have to hear your reasoning for socialism. :lol:

First, I'd like to note that you again failed to address my reply, but how do you get socialism from my last reply?

Online s3779m

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
  • Gender: Male
  • Keep looking, it's there
First, I'd like to note that you again failed to address my reply, but how do you get socialism from my last reply?
Read your own replies and you might see where it comes from.

Online Solar

  • -
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 53259
  • Gender: Male
First, I'd like to note that you again failed to address my reply, but how do you get socialism from my last reply?
I didn't address your bull shit because it doesn't interest me in any way.
Do you honestly believe anyone here takes your beliefs seriously?

"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".
So make it, and quit pissing around.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Econ4Every1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
I didn't address your bull shit because it doesn't interest me in any way.
Do you honestly believe anyone here takes your beliefs seriously?

"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".
So make it, and quit pissing around.

I don't care what you think I believe or take seriously, what matters is the arguments you can put up to show I'm wrong.  So far you've offered very little unless you think you're silly and diversionary accusations of plagiarism count as an argument...lol

Clearly what you say and what you do are at odds.

Taxed, isn't interested as he was in the conversations we were having and he has since chosen not to reply.  You, on the other hand, Solar, are very interested despite the fact that you say you are not.  Your actions betray your words.

Now, please address my point.  Where in what I said supports socialism?

Now if you'd like to discuss wealth/ income inequality, create a thread and make your case, otherwise I'm not going to derail my own thread as it's not the point.  It has however allowed you, once again, to deflect from the statements I've made.  Neutral readers will read what I've written and your consistent deflection, name calling, and strawmen as weak an ineffectual and I'm sure they will be curious why you can't address my points despite your conflicting words and actions.

Online Solar

  • -
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 53259
  • Gender: Male
I don't care what you think I believe or take seriously, what matters is the arguments you can put up to show I'm wrong.  So far you've offered very little unless you think you're silly and diversionary accusations of plagiarism count as an argument...lol

Clearly what you say and what you do are at odds.

Taxed, isn't interested as he was in the conversations we were having and he has since chosen not to reply.  You, on the other hand, Solar, are very interested despite the fact that you say you are not.  Your actions betray your words.

Now, please address my point.  Where in what I said supports socialism?

Now if you'd like to discuss wealth/ income inequality, create a thread and make your case, otherwise I'm not going to derail my own thread as it's not the point.  It has however allowed you, once again, to deflect from the statements I've made.  Neutral readers will read what I've written and your consistent deflection, name calling, and strawmen as weak an ineffectual and I'm sure they will be curious why you can't address my points despite your conflicting words and actions.
You do not dictate the rules of the forum. You broached the topic, so you are obligated to address it. If you do not want to address it here, then fine, start another thread, but it's not incumbent upon me to make your case for you.
You started it, now back up what you are claiming.

As to this thread, it doesn't interest me in the least, because truth is, everything the Marxist does, is designed to hurt capitalism.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20452
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Taxed, isn't interested as he was in the conversations we were having and he has since chosen not to reply.  You, on the other hand, Solar, are very interested despite the fact that you say you are not.  Your actions betray your words.

I love discussing economics, business, etc., but you don't even have a basic understanding of such topics, so it's more fun for me to watch Solar smack you around like a hooker who didn't come up with his money.

E4E, some of us have made money in business and investing.  You haven't.  To put another way, you literally have the business experience of my 4 year old nephew.  As a man in my 40s, I wouldn't be able to handle knowing I was just a drone my entire life, never having the confidence to put my money where my mouth is.  You never did that because you don't know how to, and would have no idea where to start.  You never did venture into the business world because [insert your excuse here].  There's nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend you know more about doing than those of us who have done.

If you want to safely gain some experience, maybe start small, like a lemonade stand.  It would be low risk, so you wouldn't have to cut your dependency on those who actually took risk and started the company you work for, but you'd baby-step into entrepreneurship.  The only trick would be to convince your bosses to let you out of work early enough to catch people coming home from work to sell them some lemonade, but you think you're smart, so you should be able to pull that off.  Until then, listening to you about economics and business is like taking business advice from the homeless man in back of the gas station.  If you could do, you would have done, so until then, keep telling your wife how you coulda' woulda' and your kids who are jealous of their friends who have daddies who were man enough to venture out and become successful business owners.  I'm glad you acquired enough of a skill to provide for your family, but don't pretend you have any insight beyond that, because you don't.  Instead, know your place and continue to be envious of people like us who are self sufficient.

Now go play son, because you're not in my league.
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Offline Econ4Every1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
I love discussing economics, business, etc., but you don't even have a basic understanding of such topics, so it's more fun for me to watch Solar smack you around like a hooker who didn't come up with his money.

E4E, some of us have made money in business and investing.  You haven't.  To put another way, you literally have the business experience of my 4 year old nephew.  As a man in my 40s, I wouldn't be able to handle knowing I was just a drone my entire life, never having the confidence to put my money where my mouth is.  You never did that because you don't know how to, and would have no idea where to start.  You never did venture into the business world because [insert your excuse here].  There's nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend you know more about doing than those of us who have done.

If you want to safely gain some experience, maybe start small, like a lemonade stand.  It would be low risk, so you wouldn't have to cut your dependency on those who actually took risk and started the company you work for, but you'd baby-step into entrepreneurship.  The only trick would be to convince your bosses to let you out of work early enough to catch people coming home from work to sell them some lemonade, but you think you're smart, so you should be able to pull that off.  Until then, listening to you about economics and business is like taking business advice from the homeless man in back of the gas station.  If you could do, you would have done, so until then, keep telling your wife how you coulda' woulda' and your kids who are jealous of their friends who have daddies who were man enough to venture out and become successful business owners.  I'm glad you acquired enough of a skill to provide for your family, but don't pretend you have any insight beyond that, because you don't.  Instead, know your place and continue to be envious of people like us who are self sufficient.

Now go play son, because you're not in my league.

You guys are so adorable.  Nice passive-aggressive rant.

Here's the problem, you think because you've run a business, that makes you an expert in economics.  It's sort of like believing that because you know how to drive a car makes you a master mechanic.  What's really laughable is that you can't see the difference. 

Now, any time you'd like to debate economics, you let me know, or you keep pretending, like Solar to be disinterested to keep from actually having to have your ignorance exposed.

 

Powered by EzPortal