Does quantitative easing really work?

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Bic_Cherry, May 8, 2018.

  1. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree, it depends upon how one choses to define contribute. Let's look at the meaning:
    I doubt that either Gates or Buffet ever "contribute" to financing ventures that are profit-motivated. The proper word, given the context, is "invest".

    PS: Gates "contributes" to the Rotary Club funding of polio-shots in Africa where the illness is resurgent ...
     
  2. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well instead of being liquidated as they should have been, they were bailed out by taxpayers and given $1.3T per year for 4 years running by the FED in the form of QE, exchanging underwater distressed assets worth pennies on the dollar for cash at face value.
    Every bit of monopolistic power they have has been firmly established with the assistance of government
     
  3. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree in the sense that these companies were irresponsible and allowed the Subprime Mess to happen. But it was also the governments fault that the SubPrime Mess occured during a Replicant administration - see here (from the WikiP article on the SubPrime Debacle:
    Decreased regulation of financial institutions - excerpt:
    If we cannot learn from our own mistakes, and we continue to repeat them, then as a nation we are headed for the dustbin.

    Somebody, quick!, tell that to Donald Dork ...
     
  4. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which government? Most of the mistakes made were Replicant Administrations who think that there should be no hindrance to business "to grow".

    Growing means, in a finite market, that without taming oligopolies (by means of legal oversight) they dominate markets, making unfair profits, and such markets ultimately fail.

    Meaning Mr. & Mrs. America are put out of house-&-home.

    Do you want that to happen again? It will for as long as we accept oligopolies to dominate consumer markets "just because it is profitable" .

    We suckers, the consumers, always pay the cost of such market manipulations (most often in terms of recessions that they can cause) ...
     
  5. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Make fractional reserve banking illegal and get rid of the FDIC and these banks will shrink back down to a reasonable size.

    Stop giving them government privilege.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
    squidward likes this.
  6. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You went right for the Republican thing instead of recognizing the bipartisan nature of the issue. Ruben authored Gramm Leech Bliley, Clinton signed it, bipartisan passage in house and senate.
     
  7. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The bank bailout and QE happened under "Replicant" admins?
    As long as people keep jumping straight to the partisan crap, the corporatists will always win
     
  8. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what does that even mean?? You want a law to prevent a capitalist banker from making loans beyond his deposits even when his capitalist depositors wants him to make the loans????
     
  9. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if true why is the liberal so afraid to name the oligopolies??? What does the liberal learn from his fear?
     
  10. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and then they became worth more, Fed made money on them rather than let the major banks go bankrupt and cause a worldwide massive depression that would have bankrupted millions of small capitalist businesses needlessly.
     
  11. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, that's precisely what I mean.

    But if you don't like that, then I have an alternative idea. Make it illegal to bail out such stupid capitalist depositors when the can't get their money back from their capitalist banker when the loans go south.
     
    squidward likes this.
  12. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They're still on the books of the FED
     
  13. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Private banks were so wreckless that they might cause a massive depression and you think the only solution was to reward them.
    You call yourself a capitalist? Too funny
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
    Longshot likes this.
  14. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why is a capitalist so eager the have government prop up failed entities?
    Socialist much?
     
    Longshot likes this.
  15. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The last one was caused by a Replicant Administration, and handed on a silver-platter to Dem Administration.

    Which did solve the immediate problem (of employment) - but not the long-term matter of the inadequacy of today's American work-force to provide the kind of qualified individuals that our present market-economy is needing.

    As I never tire of telling. Wakey, wakey! The Industrial Age has passed on and we are now in the Information Age ...



    Yes, as regards politics-in-America you are quite right.

    But the problem lies with the fact that most Americans do not learn about how this country is run in a Civics Class. Where was it ever covered in YOUR CLASS

    the historical relevancy of the Electoral College - that is, the why and how it became a central piece of the Constitution without which the southern-states were refusing to sign it!

    Because in the latter part of the 18th century, when America was born, the prevailing age was "Agricultural". And slavery was the mainstay input to the production of cotton without which the southern states had no real "industry".

    Which is why they insisted on the manipulation of the popular-vote by the Electoral College that consistently gives southern states more of a voting-edge regarding the selection of the PotUS. Of the first twelve presidents only three are from the "north", all the rest beginning with Washington (from Virginia) were from southern states.

    PS: And then, there is also the matter of "gerrymandering" voting districts - which comes from the same frame-of-time. That is, around 1812 when it was first used in Massachusetts. (And there is also the matter of how "commercial publicity" is able to manipulate votes as well - both of which are other subjects for another time.
     
  16. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Get rid of the FDIC and all hell will break loose. From here:
    Which means "ordinary people" (and obviously not you) would have their property seized to recover any negative bank account. Moreover, when push comes to shove as it did in the SubPrime Mess then a lot more people get hurt if they have accounts with banks that have failed.

    So, you are suggesting that the insurance be disallowed to punish those banks who "go negative" because of too much lending. And I suggest that we solve the problem of wildfire real-estate lending at the very beginning by punishing banks that show unsubstantiated "quality-control" of borrowers.

    For instance, showing that you are still employed and proving your revenue source by showing current pay-slips or bank accounts of your revenue-business. Showing your last tax-filing document? Etc., etc. etc.

    Wouldn't an improved selection-process of borrowers be better for bank solvency and less of a general threat to the economy ... ?
     
  17. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    perhaps you should read about Brooksley Born.
     
  18. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You completely overlooked half of my solution, which was to make fractional reserve banking illegal.
     
  19. Wildjoker5

    Wildjoker5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,237
    Likes Received:
    4,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hope this has been brought up, but inflation of price of good, IS deflation of your currency. Also, Venezuela tried printing money, now I can spend $10 and but enough Venezuelan currency to wipe my arse with for the next 2 years.
     
  20. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When will you ever learn that one-liners are "fractional" in real debate?

    Explain yourself, if you can ...
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018
  21. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You understand fractional reserve banking, no?
     
    Longshot likes this.
  22. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fractional reserve banking sets up the impossible situation of two different parties (the depositor and the bank) having sole ownership to the the exact same dollar. It is inherently unstable and puts the depositor at risk. It should be eliminated. Once it's eliminated, there would no longer be need for the FDIC.
     
  23. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yes, I know the highlighted section is not legally accurate. The depositor no longer owns the dollar. And that, in itself, is why fractional reserve banking should be made illegal.
     
  24. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The government has now allowed the banks to reclassify depositors as unsecured creditors. Isn't that special?
     
    Longshot likes this.
  25. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not just now. This is the way it has always been, legally. A deposit is considered a loan to the bank and becomes the bank's property. The bank becomes a creditor to the depository.

    Here's an excerpt from an article in the Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law ( https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&context=jcfl )

    A client walks into a bank with the intention of depositing personal
    or business funds. The bank’s teller gladly accepts the deposit, credits
    the client’s account accordingly, and the client departs content that what
    transpired was an ordinary-course banking transaction. Simultaneously,
    however, a curious phenomenon occurs, one which effectively
    transforms the legal nature of the transaction into something very
    different from that which our unwary depositor intends. That curious
    phenomenon, which willfully ignores the nature of the deposit as
    understood by both parties, subverts the intentions of only one party.
    What the depositor intends to be in the nature of a bailment, the law
    transforms into a loan; where ordinary people expect a bailor-bailee
    relationship, the law creates a creditor and a debtor. Title to the
    deposited funds passes from the depositor to the bank, and usually only
    the bank knows it. Upon this legal transformation is built the leviathan
    that is the global banking system


    This is why fractional reserve should be made illegal. Bank deposits should be bailments, not loans. But the banks love the fact that the government has set up a situation where the middle class unwitting banks every last dollar they own.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018

Share This Page