Put all the responses in one.
I'm somehow reminded of that quote: "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"
Please tell us, who is cooking these books ?
Can't recall the excat office off hand (too many government offices!): BUT, CPI has had several indicators (very much useable) removed, by the Federal gov.
No different than saying people can't commit suicide and expect a hefty insurance payout, or that smokers have to pay more insurance premium. If you want the government to be involved, it gets to be involved anything else is hair splitting.
And I never said that was wrong on WHO is being insured. Period. But, telling those who directly 'own' the debt (in banking terms, your checking/savings account is a DEBT on the bank) what to do is what I'm pointing out.
I'm ALL in favor of a restored Glass Segal, after all.
This is more easily explained as the transfer of manufacturing overseas, and the inability for financial services / services / business industry to handle all of that. Yes it was a bubble, it popped in 2008, but it was a long time coming. Now you have men like this
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/04/news/economy/america-left-behind-white-men/ now for men like this, how can you blame Ben Bernanke or any sort of cooked books or government interference? The problem is specific and direct -- inability of the economy to absorb people without information age skills.
Some disagree (I think it's more complex than that, btw, but that's my view.). Note that I never specifically defined WHAT the credit crunch in 2007 was. I can see about a half dozen (including several issues NOT discussed on the board) reasons for the Capital crunch. Suffice it to say, my view of the credit crunch is a LOT different than your theory. Note exactly what I stated: I called the 2007 event a _capital_ crunch. Never on what CAUSED it.
I assume by mentioning cooked books and Volcker Rule, you are trying to say right now is stagflation. Well, the reason why I asked you how bad it could get, is to see if you could compare to the recessions of the 90's or the 70's. Anyone who was around at that time can tell you, it was much, much worse then with much lower economic growth and opportunities. If you want to say "cooked books" and go on about how contracting the money supply and stopping inflation could make 2008 better, the onus is on you because all the public numbers say different and more importantly there are more basic explanations for America's problems. Things look pretty bright right now, unless you have the skills of the men in that article. The solution would be a GI Bill-esque retraining program (more government intervention).
No, I am NOT trying to say. I'm going to mention this elsewhere, but I'm going to make a very pointed point: "Don't assume. Do not read more than I'm acutally saying" I'm the LAST person to do that with because I know ALL too well how implicit and side speech works, and how screwed up it can be.
Are we in stagflation? Ask me in 8-10 years. As for being around in the 70's... I was, Sorry! And looking for a job then too. (Yep, I'm that old): Let me say this. What _I_ see? See with my own eyes, talking to people, and acutally those on the lower end of the pole: I don't know if we're worse than the 70's. I suspect we might be. I do know that small business starts are _way_ down. BELOW the 1970's levels.
>> And as noted, new jobs come from them. Take it for what you will.
Still doesn't change the fact that Bernanke is a world hero, at least by accident if not on purpose. You can disagree if you want, but I do not want to live in a world where the money supply contracts. If you don't believe in economics and like history better, just use your common sense. What happens if the money supply contracts? What do you think happens when there is less money around? Do you think there will be more economic transactions or less? Worse still, what happens to people who have mountains of money (hint -- they get more wealth FOR FREE)? These are the questions you should answer, instead of saying "printing money is wrong" by default.
By who's words? I know people who absoultly hate him. PhD's in Business AND in economics, some billionaires, too. SOME people think he's a hero. I never stated ETHEIR WAY. I dislike the fawning he _gets_, when WE DON"T KNOW yet. My view: he did the best he could with his paradigm and the situation he understood, with the amount of issues he had. Do I think he did the right thing? I disagree with it, but _he might have been right_. (and I will even state for the record, that QE, ie, direct buying of T-bills, IF they're held to time, by the FR, given laws we have on the books, _might be the best solution for the US Debt problem!_) Time will tell. My view IS NOT OF AN ECNOMIC major. I stated previously: HISTORIAN.
Meaning, I don't make snap judgements or call a man a hero or a villain til a good bit of time afterwards.
It's why I might _STATE_ I BELIVE XYZ is going to be revered or judged badly, but it's a BELIF. Not the truth, and that's subject to change.
>> As to answer what I think happens when there's 'less' money in the system, gee: RECESSION. What do you think Capital crunch means?
Again, see below. I'm getting _really_ tired of people reading more into what I state, and NOT reading what I state to see what I mean. I flat out stated, that some recessions are an credit/capital crunch, meaning _less money_.
Amazing that.
Do NOT assume, do not read more into what I'm saying than anything. That way leads madness.
What happens when less 'money' (note the quotes) is deflation: Borrowers get screwed, savers are rewarded. (Side note, the US for the majority of it's first 150 or so years had deflation, very mild, but deflation)
Inflation is the reverse.
Again, you assume that I like one of them. I don't. I don't dislike one or the other. My preference is for zero inflation or deflation, but in the situation the Federal balance books are(assuming they're right), I'd lean towards inflation as being MUCH better than deflation.
It's an implicit argument you are making by disagreeing with "printing" money. You just don't want to connect the dots, because it would lead to the inevitable conclusion that macroeconomics isn't the same as personal finances. Moral hazard is always a problem, but when the Fed Chairman (supposedly objective party) doles out cheques and in the end it is all paid back, moral hazard is a moot point.
Those are YOUR dots. You again, assume. Don't. And no one's objective. EVERYONE is Biased. Everyone. Me, you, EVERYONE. That's what the term paradigm means.
The trick is _understanding_ that.
I've never brought morality into this discussion, nor will I. Simply because I don't think it's needed, nor the point I'm discussing.
Though I'll point out: "WHO pays back the checks, and how?"
I've been very careful NOT to bash anyone, nor state some things that I do think are true, but have no proof or validity, except a hunch or two.
I Dislike printing money for a completely DIFFERENT reason, from my HISTORY focus.
Printing money has the PROVEN potential to be abused, far more often than it helps. (or do the words hyperinflation mean anything to you?) Generally(NOT ALWAYS, to be clear!), when nation-states 'print' money, it destroys the confidence IN The currency. Both externally, AND INTERNALLY. We see this in Venz. RIGHT now.
Money, at it's heart (ANY MONEY, GOLD INCLUDED!) is in the end, _trust and confidence_ based. Printing money has the severe proven potential to destroy that trust.
THAT's why I don't like it. I even admit at times, CAREFUL (it's possible, I guess, and one could say the post WW2 history has been exactly this on a grand scale.) printing of money CAN work, and SHOULD be done. (Note my point about QE's long term possible effect)
I can give you a list on them. My view is this: CAREFUL 'debasement' of a currency MIGHT help. How often are people careful?
Again, I'm not a Neo-Kenysian, I'm an Austrian (somewhat, to be honest, I disagree with some aspects of the Austrian schools, as well as some aspects that they take it to. There are some neo-Kenysian theories that are proven to WORK, too. I did point out the GI bills of post WW2, did I not? Lazzie-Fair is JUST as bad as command economy to me. That way leads what I hate the most: Crony Capitalism WHICH is what I
think we're AT right now.) type thinker, in economic terms. Process that, WITH a _HISTORY_ focus before you leap to assumptions that aren't right.
Again, do not assume. If you're thinking I mean one thing, where I didn't type it, there's a good chance you're wrong, without a clear cut view of my paradigm.
Inflation, like interest, compounds over time. A very low inflation rate of 2% adds up to 22% over 10 years; 2.5% is 28%. In addition, prices of certain goods will be above and below the overall figure. There's nothing nefarious going on, and certainly no cooking of the books. In any case, a little inflation is better than deflation, which leads to very bad things when people expect the value of things to drop and they start deferring consumption. By any reasonable measure, inflation over the past two decades has been quite modest. Ask someone who lived through the 1970s what real inflation looks like.
Yet... gas, after I deduct for taxes: about 35% higher, concede that is partially due to oil prices being batshit insane off and on, and in flux.
Better examples:
Hamburger: 1.49 a pound in '06 (CA), now, 2.79 in SD!
Bread: average about .99, now about 1.59.
SAME BRAND. AND _less ounces per package_. (I had the maker CONFIRM this to me, personally)
I can go on, do you want me to?
Again: If I did my math right, per what the US government has released: My prices PER OUNCE on staples should be about 19-21% higher.
Average price per ounce? About 35%. (I know it's more than 30%, less than 40%)
Personal experience. You tell me.
Again: I lived in the 70's. Was a teen, yes, but I did. And so did my uncle, and mother: BOTH of which are saying to me: "Huh, this is familiar." Is it as bad? not 100% sure, honestly. I don't THINK it is, but it's not _good_ either.
One thing _everyone I've talked to_ who was over 22 in 1970, and working: "It seems our paycheck isn't going as far as it did back then..." _everyone_.
Stagflation technically is when _wage growth_ keeps enough pace with inflation.
meaning _PURCASCING POWER_ hasn't fallen in work hours.
That's why I've been careful to mention _PPP_. NOT actual 'cash'
I, myself, have a good job, and my paycheck has gone up more than my costs (it's nice getting promoted)
But what _I_ am hearing? Isn't good at all. You might hear differently, but this is what _I_ hear, and what _I_ see, and what my records show.
Take it for what it's worth.
education for your information: PhD History (Speicality: Asian), PhD Political Science (IR). I do have a minor in econ, but that was 15 years ago, so.
One thing why I dislike the comparison to the 70's: The situations are NOT the same (sorry, in some ways the _results are the same, agreed!_)
In the 70's, work force PARTIPATION PERCENTAGE (note this, the number of people looking/having work vs. total working age population, however defined) was _INCREASING over that decade, from the 58.x% or so of average American 1900-1967 period, to the 66.x% peak. This combined with the baby boom generation FULLY hitting the workforce, _at the same time_ their elders were STILL IN IT, and NOT getting out in the numbers expected, AS WELL as the start of the massive electronics boon, for productivity. Not to mention as well as Japan, Europe, et al finally recovering from post WW2 issues, and US companies _not being nimble enough to adapt FAST_.
Ergo: Yes, there were less jobs for each worker, because as a function of the work force %, there WERE. 70's recessions to me, were the classic oversupply recession, due to oversupply of LABOUR. 07's event is a bit different, as I've stated.
In this recession/depression (depends how you define it) we have _shed_ 4% of that number. Is it good? Is it bad? I _don't know_. History argues that it MIGHT be. (Again, I keep pointing this out: the 70's to 2007 part. rates are an abnormality, in some ways)
One other point: I DO NOT LOOK at what's good for 6-18 months.
I look at the _DID IT WORK OVER LONG TERM_. Hades, I'm not even sure PERSONALLY, Vockner's rule WORKED for Regan, as much as his "Let's confront the Evil Empire and push their economy to breaking" theory.
THAT"s why I feel calling Ben a hero _now_ is wrong. I'm also not calling him a villain. His QE/keeping capital flowing _might have been the right solution LONG TERM_. I don't know. I don't _THINK_ so, but I honestly don't think it's his fault if so, and I'm quite prepared (happily so, even!) to be proven wrong here, in 10-20 years.
If you go "For that moment" ala, Ben acting as a ER doc? I can concede with no problems he likey is a hero.
But, for _long term_ ala Internists? That's what bugs me. Bugs me a LOT.
And to be even MORE fair to ANY Fed Chairman: They can't do it alone, or even do half, hades, a THIRD of the lifting, and I have serious issues with several other people who have the power to affect the economy.
For your information: My general view of the role of the government in economy:
1: Provide a LEVEL playing field. (No winners or losers, folks, gov's track record isn't the best here, historically! (Not that they haven't done on occasion well, btw.))
2: Spend money the most effective way to attain the goals that the people who consent to the goverment's existence/goverance want.
(Yes, THIS DOES mean if it's cheaper/more effective, even with Gov's built in ineff's. to own a shipyard, or tank plant, the gov SHOULD)
(Yes, this does mean, I belive the gov't has a role in social services/social net, I might argue on WHAT it is, but I don't disagree that it has a role)
That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
So: Back to the bank one.
Yes. It is a desire of the governed, to have their deposits protected. The Feds should, if no private companies have stepped up (which they did not!) to insure them. Yes, the Feds _can_ and _should_ (FOR SELF INTREST, and PROTECTING the Taxpayer's money! It's NOT THE GOVERMENT'S, it's the TAXPAYER'S!) establish conditions to BE insured ON THE BANKS ALONE. And the banks SHOULD have the right to -refuse- those conditions, on the condition that they don't get insured, and their deposits ARE NOT PROTECTED.
If you read: "You don't think the gov't's job is to bail out corps, you're right." Outside EXPLICT NATIONAL INTREST, the gov't has no reason, or need to pick winners or losers in the market.
Apollo IMPLIED (and if he did not intend so, I apologize to him, because it's wrong to do so) that Gov't has the right to say what's done with each individual account, that's where I disagree. If he did not intend such, again, I apologize.