Bloomberg: More Fed "stimulus" contemplated

Quote:

---

Federal Reserve policy makers may start weighing additional steps to prop up the recovery after growth fell below 1 percent in the first half of this year and economists began cutting second-half growth forecasts.



“At a minimum, the FOMC will have a serious debate about the policy options -- what they should do, and what they expect to get from it,” said Roberto Perli, a former associate director in the Fed’s Division of Monetary Affairs, referring to the Federal Open Market Committee. “Growth in the first half was dangerously close to zero,” said Perli, director of policy research at International Strategy & Investment Group.

---

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...omy-slows.html

QE3, QE4, QE5, QE6, etc...........

lending money to TBTF banks at effective 0 interest didn't do anything for anybody but TBTB banks.

Barry needs to spend $2T - $3T on infrastructure and other projects,but I doubt the US govt knows how to many those kinds of projects compared with 1930s projects. The country and politics is much more complicated now. And FDR didn't have extreme right-wing anarchist Repugs to deal with

We always lose in these open market negotiations. Nobody ever represents the US worker in them.

US workers are irrelevant, not needed anymore. They're fucked and will be fucked more in the future. I expect unembployment at appx. 9% for many years, structurally unemployed 25M people. The US is on the decline. All it can do is go around beating up other countries while the MIC sucks the citizens into poverty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We always lose in these open market negotiations. Nobody ever represents the US worker in them.

---

You're now pro-unions? That's what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

You're now pro-unions? That's what they do.

---

I knew if I left that open for you, you would either ignorantly or intelligently misinterpret my words with your bias.

Carry on.

Sure you did. :rolleyes

So who's do you think is going to represent the US worker's best interests?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Sure you did. :rolleyes

So who's do you think is going to represent the US worker's best interests?

---

Nobody, until the voters realize they need to elect more people who actually represent the best interests of this nation, rather than the rich vs. the poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Nobody, until the voters realize they need to elect more people who actually represent the best interests of this nation, rather than the rich vs. the poor.

---

And whom those people might be, in your opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

And whom those people might be, in your opinion?

---

That's the problem with democracy now isn't it. It's the worse system ever tried, except for all the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That's the problem with democracy now isn't it. It's the worse system ever tried, except for all the others.

---

So your contention is that democracy has failed... fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

So your contention is that democracy has failed... fair enough.

---

Of course it fails. Just not as bad as other systems.

Care to invent a better one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Of course it fails. Just not as bad as other systems.
Care to invent a better one?

---

I don't think anything needs to be invented. I do think things like allowing campaign contributions to go undisclosed are an affront to transparency, which I think it's vital to a healthy democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I don't think anything needs to be invented. I do think things like allowing campaign contributions to go undisclosed are an affront to transparency, which I think it's vital to a healthy democracy.

---

That aside, do you agree or disagree that the poor will vote to raise the burden on tax payers because it favors them? This percentage who do not pay any federal income tax is about 47%. What could happens when they exceed 50%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That aside, do you agree or disagree that the poor will vote to raise the burden on tax payers because it favors them?

---

I don't know for a fact that poor people take tax considerations as part of the reasoning for picking a candidate. Do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

This percentage who do not pay any federal income tax is about 47%. What could happens when they exceed 50%?

---

They pay other forms of taxes though, like sales tax, etc. I don't know that there's any indication that such percentage will grow either. Ultimately I have no problem with lowering that base somewhat, and stated as much. I also think that the pain should be shared, and that includes across the board increase in taxing if we're going that route. But that effort should be tied with cuts and the goal of a balanced budget much like in the Clinton era.

To be frank, I'm much more concerned with those that have much more money and still don't pay their taxes, like GE. Closing loopholes should be a priority, IMO.

Whatever.

Stay ignorant. I don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

http://coloradoright.files.wordpress...pg?w=424&h=305

---

Okay :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That's the problem with democracy now isn't it. It's the worse system ever tried, except for all the others.

---

I see a lot of you tap dancing around nono's question.

Who is going to represent the "workers"?

who represents workers?

There's will be no candidate who will represent, as his priority, the workers or the middle class or the independents or poor. A Hollywoodian "Mr Smith Goes Washington" to fight, and win, for the lower 95%? GMAFB

Anybody who believes so is living the childish fantasy called The American Dream.

UCA and capitalists own America. Even SCOTUS is fully compromised, as are the various levels of the federal and state judiciaries. They have amassed enormous power ($$$) through the govt policies, laws, rules, regulations pushed through by primarily Repugs, but also Dems.

Your votes don't fucking count. Elections are a fucking charade. NO ONE represents Human-Americans.

perfect example: the FAA shutdown. Who ya gonna vote for who will end such sociopathic Repug shit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I see a lot of you tap dancing around nono's question.

Who is going to represent the "workers"?

---

I don't know yet. It appears nobody has for years. Suggestions?

Some of the new data out lead the Economist to point out one of the reasons why we didn't see much bang from the original stimulus:

It wasn't big enough.

The analogy they used was not knowing how big the fire you are fighting is.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../fiscal-policy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Some of the new data out lead the Economist to point out one of the reasons why we didn't see much bang from the original stimulus:

It wasn't big enough.

The analogy they used was not knowing how big the fire you are fighting is.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../fiscal-policy

---

I dispute that. I personally think it was misdirected. Much like Bush Jr's sending checks home as stimulus. I think a much better investment would've come from financing direct temporary job creation, like infrastructure jobs. They're needed, they're temporary, they create jobs.

It was misdirected for sure, but it was also too small. Its not an either or.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I dispute that. I personally think it was misdirected. Much like Bush Jr's sending checks home as stimulus. I think a much better investment would've come from financing direct temporary job creation, like infrastructure jobs. They're needed, they're temporary, they create jobs.

---

I don't think they would have disagreed entirely with that either.

Given the very pressing need to revamp our aging infrastructure, it would seem to be a no-brainer, borrowed money + taxes or no.

Unlike some, I understand that taxes and government spending don't disappear into a black hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

It was misdirected for sure, but it was also too small. Its not an either or.

---

That's fine, I can agree with that. The problem is that if it's misdirected, then more or less doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Unlike some, I understand that taxes and government spending don't disappear into a black hole.

---

It matters whether or not the money is well spent, regardless. When public resources get malinvested, opportunities are lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

That's fine, I can agree with that. The problem is that if it's misdirected, then more or less doesn't matter.

---

Not true. Misdirection provides a loss in efficiency. A less efficient use of stimulus obviously requires more stimulus to achieve the same results a more efficient stimulus would each with lower levels. As a result, the amount of stimulus is still just as important as the direction.

Obviously, you want to have the best possible efficiency, but if politics prevent that - in this case the desire for tax games that counted as stimulus - then your next option is to increase the overall size.

The short sighted nature of our politics also hurt. Remember the term shovel ready? We'd now be reaping the benefits of programs that could have been started that weren't shovel ready but would have taken longer to get into place but due to the desire to get everything into the system by this point in time (and perhaps to prevent a real resurgence prior to the 12 elections?) those programs were written off before they even had a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It matters whether or not the money is well spent, regardless. When public resources get malinvested, opportunities are lost.

---

I think the ultimate point RG was making was that government investment at least partially pays for itself. As a rough example, if 1000 of government spending results in 500 dollars of worker salary the government recoups some of that money right away in income tax and further amounts later in subsequent taxing.

In other words it goes right into the system. I do agree with your point, I just don't think it was directly related to what RG said.

ok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Unlike some, I understand that taxes and government spending don't disappear into a black hole.

---

Most of the stimulus simply ended up on some bank's balance sheet. Not quite a black hole, but the next closest thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Not true. Misdirection provides a loss in efficiency. A less efficient use of stimulus obviously requires more stimulus to achieve the same results a more efficient stimulus would each with lower levels. As a result, the amount of stimulus is still just as important as the direction.

Obviously, you want to have the best possible efficiency, but if politics prevent that - in this case the desire for tax games that counted as stimulus - then your next option is to increase the overall size.

The short sighted nature of our politics also hurt. Remember the term shovel ready? We'd now be reaping the benefits of programs that could have been started that weren't shovel ready but would have taken longer to get into place but due to the desire to get everything into the system by this point in time (and perhaps to prevent a real resurgence prior to the 12 elections?) those programs were written off before they even had a chance.

---

I think there's also a factor of corruption in there somewhere. Some (political) people associate stimulus with just a mere handout, and it doesn't have to be like that. You can actually plan and address specific economic needs, like, say unemployment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Not true. Misdirection provides a loss in efficiency. A less efficient use of stimulus obviously requires more stimulus to achieve the same results a more efficient stimulus would each with lower levels. As a result, the amount of stimulus is still just as important as the direction.

Obviously, you want to have the best possible efficiency, but if politics prevent that - in this case the desire for tax games that counted as stimulus - then your next option is to increase the overall size.

The short sighted nature of our politics also hurt. Remember the term shovel ready? We'd now be reaping the benefits of programs that could have been started that weren't shovel ready but would have taken longer to get into place but due to the desire to get everything into the system by this point in time (and perhaps to prevent a real resurgence prior to the 12 elections?) those programs were written off before they even had a chance.

---

Spoken like a politician. Just keep throwing money at the problem until the desired result is obtained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Spoken like a politician. Just keep throwing money at the problem until the desired result is obtained.

---

What's the alternative?

Be concerned about efficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Be concerned about efficiency.

---

I would add oversight is key.

Oversight is certainly a part. But you need a good plan from the beginning. The "just throw more money at it" approach is how you end up doing more harm than good. Case in point is the chunk of the stimulus that ended up with the banks. The banks are now sitting on the money, the taxpayers are getting no stimulative benefit from their investment, and they're stuck having to service the debt on that money which is going to be a drag against future growth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Oversight is certainly a part. But you need a good plan from the beginning. The "just throw more money at it" approach is how you end up doing more harm than good. Case in point is the chunk of the stimulus that ended up with the banks. The banks are now sitting on the money, the taxpayers are getting no stimulative benefit from their investment, and they're stuck having to service the debt on that money which is going to be a drag against future growth.

---

Agree. Wouldn't be surprised to hear some TARP money was returned from there.

reading the tea leaves on QE3:

http://dailycapitalist.com/2012/08/2...s-fairly-soon/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I see a lot of you tap dancing around nono's question.

Who is going to represent the "workers"?

---

I've lost track; in regards to Stimulus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I think there's also a factor of corruption in there somewhere. Some (political) people associate stimulus with just a mere handout, and it doesn't have to be like that. You can actually plan and address specific economic needs, like, say unemployment.

---

How? (Seriously would like to hear your idea(s))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

reading the tea leaves on QE3:

http://dailycapitalist.com/2012/08/2...s-fairly-soon/

---

"The Committee will closely monitor incoming information on economic and financial developments and will provide additional accommodation as needed to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labor market conditions in a context of price stability"
I don't see anything infrastructure-friendly in that analysis.:depressed

It's going to businesses.....again.

businesses?

only huge financial entities get loans from the Fed, and that money doesn't trickle down.

Like earlier QEs, they use that to buy taxpayer guaranteed T-bonds, and gamble in the Wall St/international casino (and give to Gecko's campaign).

So now TB :lol is a believer in counter-cyclical Keynesian spending, stimulus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

How? (Seriously would like to hear your idea(s))

---

I thought I touched on that on this previous post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I think a much better investment would've come from financing direct temporary job creation, like infrastructure jobs. They're needed, they're temporary, they create jobs.

---

Another way would be to spend some of that money in re-training some people that are currently unemployed and trained in industries we're just no longer competitive at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

businesses?

only huge financial entities get loans from the Fed, and that money doesn't trickle down.

Like earlier QEs, they use that to buy taxpayer guaranteed T-bonds, and gamble in the Wall St/international casino (and give to Gecko's campaign).

So now TB :lol is a believer in counter-cyclical Keynesian spending, stimulus?

---

You don't pay attention very well. I've always championed an infrastructure approach. Not surprising you can't see thru your confirmation bias filter.

boutons doesn't really read. he just catches at at words and phrases, forces them into his cliche generator and pretends that was your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23, thru the eyes of boutons

boutons is on to our VRWC/MIC/banksters conspiracy against vaginas. he just catches all our evil words and phrases, and forces us into pretending that we're not a bunch of Willard Gecko's minions.

---

:wow

anything we might say to the contrary is just throw off the gullible and naive

I'd recommend a move to essay generator. It appears to be even more effective!

http://www.essaygenerator.com/

An essay on VRWC
Let us commence a journey into the much travelled topic of VRWC. At one stage or another, every man woman or child will be faced with the issue of VRWC. Given that its influence pervades our society, it is impossible to overestimate its impact on modern thought. Crossing many cultural barriers it still draws remarks such as 'I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole' and 'i'd rather eat wasps' from the over 50, who form the last great hope for our civilzation. Keeping all of this in mind, in this essay I will examine the major issues.

Social Factors

There is cultural and institutional interdependence between members of any community. When Lance Bandaner said 'twelve times I've traversed the ocean of youthful ambition but society still collects my foot prints' [1] he, contrary to my learned colleague Sir George Allen’s recent publication ‘Into the eye of , could not have been referring to eighteenth century beliefs regarding society. Difference among people, race, culture and society is essential on the survival of our world, however VRWC irons out misconceptions from our consciousness.

Of paramount importance to any study of VRWC within its context, is understanding the ideals of society. Just as a dog will return to its own sick, society will return to VRWC, again and again.

Economic Factors

Derived from 'oikonomikos,' which means skilled in household management, the word economics is synonymous with VRWC. We will primarily be focusing on the Inter-Spam model, a classic economic system of analysis.
http://www.essaygenerator.com/images/graph_up_3.gif


VRWC

What a splendid graph. Clearly oil prices sings a very different tune. The financial press seems unable to make up its mind on these issues which unsettles investors.

Political Factors

Machiavellian politics is rife. Are our leaders justified in pursuing and maintaining political power? Comparing VRWC and much of what has been written of it can be like comparing pre and post war views of VRWC.

Let us consider the words of that silver tongued orator, the uncompromising Maximilian Tuigamala 'political change changes politics, but where does it go?' [2] Considered by many to be one of the 'Founding Fathers' of VRWC, his words cannot be over-looked. Perhaps the word which sums up the importance of VRWC to politics is 'participation'.

While VRWC may be a giant amongst men, is it a dwarf amongst policy? I hope not.
Conclusion

In summary, VRWC deserves all of the attention it gets. It fills a hole, it stimulates and always chips in.

Here with the final word is Hollywood's Shania Morissette: 'VRWC is the new rock and roll! And the new opera!' [3]

[1] Lance Bandaner - Adventurous Spirit - 1993 See-Saw Publishing

[2] Tuigamala - Captain Sir - 1844 Inevitable Publishing

[3] My VRWC! - Issue 4 - BFG Publishing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I'd recommend a move to essay generator. It appears to be even more effective!

http://www.essaygenerator.com/

---

:lol

...........and bookmarked.

Quote:

---

Four years into this unprecedented period of monetary stimulus, and on the precipice of more, two questions are worth asking: Is it working? And is it risky?


The answer to both seems to be, not really. Now that the Fed has expanded its balance sheet to about $2.8 trillion, from about $900 billion in August 2008, the strategy appears to be suffering from the law of diminishing returns. The more you do something, the less effective it becomes over time. Not only that, but monetary easing isn’t really a good solution to what’s wrong with the economy. U.S. economic growth is anemic because demand is low. And demand is low because a) growth has consistently been weak, and b) we’re still working our way out of a huge credit boom.


“It’s hard to stimulate demand with low interest rates when low interest rates aren’t the problem,” says David Rosenberg, chief economist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates. Consider this: For the first time ever, household net worth has contracted over a five-year period, as Rosenberg pointed out in a note this week to clients. The remedy to that problem isn’t lower rates.


Lacking any fiscal action from Congress, Ben Bernanke has been left with no choice but to do something—anything. The risk of all this easy money sloshing around the economy is that it creates inflation. That’s the theory, at least. So far it hasn’t happened.



The Fed may be printing money, but no one’s doing anything with it. Just look at the banks. The gap between deposits and lending is now a record $1.77 trillion. The capital the banks are deploying is being ploughed back into the U.S. Treasury market. Banks have already bought double the amount of Treasuries they did in 2011, pushing their holdings to an all-time high of $1.84 trillion.


“Let’s say you bake a cake, but no one eats it,” says Neil Dutta, head U.S. economist at Renaissance Macro Research. “It’s the same thing with the Fed.”

---

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...-wrong-problem