Does quantitative easing really work?

You want me to use more than one line? Why?

 

Libcommie interference in the money and banking sector. Anti-republiclan-capitalists regulations.

 

not according to Milton Friedman perhaps the worlds most important economist and capitalist

 

So this most important capitalist proposes socialism?

 

by your definition, not by the world's definition

 

LMFAO...

You do understand the government not only has an effective monopoly on the money supply but OWNS the money, right?

Seems to fall under your very own definition of socialism.

 

INCOME DISPARITY! WHAZZAT?

Well, if that is the case, then that's where most of the World's Economies are located. A central-bank always OWNS THE MONEY. That's how capitalism works centrally.

But, I am not ranting against "capitalism" per se. That's for jerks who don't know the difference between capitalism and what it replaced - a thing called "barter".

I am complaining mightily about how capitalism has been made perverse by the accumulation of capital derived by an elite group that fiddles Taxation. Remember with the exception of JFK, it was a Replicant president who made the fundamental change of reducing upper-income taxation drastically. (See that here in the history of US tax-rates. What happened during the presidencies of 1960 and 2008? Who was PotUS then?)

If we want to stop the wholesale plundering of our capitalist market-economy, then we must put a cap on taxable upper-income. Becoming a millionaire is a fine achievement that spurs ambition, talents, luck, whatever. But, we've let that dangerous animal get out of hand.

Which has resulted in the greatest Income Disparity of any free-nation on earth ... ours! Don't believe that? See here:


Which after taxation has become this in the US:

 

Wow. According to your chart, it looks like the top 1% contributes nearly 20% towards the nation's income. They sure are contributing more than their fair share. Are you saying that you'd like them to contribute more and have a lower GDP?

 

You need a course in reading charts.

Ignorance is bliss - you wouldn't know "fair-share" if it bit your nose off ...

 

Am I misreading your chart? It looked like the top 1% was contributing nearly 20% of the total GDP. That seems like a fairly sizable contribution, but are you saying you'd like them to contribute less and have a lower GDP?

 

By your response I'm sure some economic neophyte is rallying on about the old income disparity canard not realizing that The Fed and government is responsible for said disparity.

Funny...

 

Contributing What? One does not "contribute" Wealth. One possesses it!

The chart shows the calculation of their Wealth as a percentage of Total Wealth: *"Their" being the "upper" 0.01% of the population, and 20% being the share that they own.
*Which is compared to the 20% of Wealth owned by the bottom 90% of the population.

Which means what?

That only 0.01% of the population owns as much of the National Wealth as the other 90%!

Now give me some BS about "how they earned it fair-'n-square". Especially after both JFK (1960) and Reckless Ronnie (1980) had brought upper income taxation down from 90% to the 30% level ...

 

Quantitative Easing (definition):

You're right, I'm wrong to suggest it entails borrowing from the Central Bank.
The attempt nonetheless is to lower borrowing costs in order to prompt consumer expenditure - which is the swiftest way out of a recession. Because when consumers prefer to spend it takes a major catastrophe to shut the spigot.

Whereas with government stimulative-spending, a budget-cut will stop the money flowing immediately.

However, Central Banks can indeed lower borrowing-costs as well by lowering the cost of money-borrowed, that is, interest rates ...

 

No doubt, giving bankers cash, at face value in exchange for distressed assets, is good for the little guy. Can never make a banker rich enough trying to help the little guy.

 

"Contributing What? One does not "contribute" Wealth. One possesses it!"

Sorry for butting in...

It depends on how you look at it.

If a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet creates, or invests in, a successful enterprise, they could be said to have contributed wealth to employees and other investors.

It's totally dependent on how you choose to define 'contribute'.

 

Contributing to total GDP. GDP is the sum of all incomes. It looks like the to 1% contributes greatly to GDP.

 

Must give rich people money.
Prevent deflation.
Jamie and Lloyd called with their approval

 

non substantive answer indicating you lost debate

 

yes and that huge contribution to our country should not be diminished by taxing it. Tax the people who don't contribute.

 

contributing products and jobs that raise our standard of living is the greatest contribution of all. Then contributing taxes is stupid since it diminishes product and job creation while creating a growing dependent population which cant sustain themselves let alone contribute to society.

 

don't worry about it, in the last recession many big banks went under and owners got wiped out completely. It is still happening all the time.

 

those numbers of course are lies since they don't include the trillions in welfare entitlements set aside for bottom 20%. You use numbers blindly without any concern for the facts!!

 

the definition has to do with owning major industries, not owning money. I own my money.

 

A "banker"? Show me one. They are all large conglomerates nowadays. Which means they need to be broken-up. Especially the link between Commercial and Investment Banking. There has to be more competition!

America was at the beginning of the 20th century "monopolistic", Which is why the Anti-Trust Acts were passed. The Clayton Act is still on the books.The US should get on with implementing it - but with a new sense. A market need not be "monopolised", it need only be oligopolised to a point where market share is agglomerated at the top by just a handful of companies.

That is, as soon as someone in an oligopoly market has a good idea that works, the top-companies rush in to buy it out.

Which halts competition immediately, and non-competitive prices are stabilized. But consumers are screwed by the oligopolistic pricing ... !

 

China's internal Demand is finally picking up, and more of its economy will depend upon it. That does not mean cheaper Chinese-products will not keep entering the US. They will.

But Chinese companies will also have a larger internal market to serve, and some of the pressure will be taken off Chinese imports into the US. What America should be doing is convincing the Chinese that "fair play" means more American services-centered market-offerings should be allowed to setup shop in China! (American companies have a long services-market experience and they do it well. US services companies should be introducing their know-how in China.

(Not waiting for the Chinese to think up companies like Alibaba that peddle their goods into America!)

Rather than increasing tariffs on Chinese imports like Donald Dork does - which will only infuriate the Chinese ...