If We Are Using Every Stimulus Tool in the Book at the Top of the Cycle, What Are We Going To Do In The Next Downturn?
The world will be unable to fight the next global financial crash as central banks have used up their ammunition trying to tackle the last crises, the Bank for International Settlements has warned.
The so-called central bank of central banks launched a scatching critique of global monetary policy in its annual report. The BIS claimed that central banks have backed themselves into a corner after repeatedly cutting interest rates to shore up their economies.
These low interest rates have in turn fuelled economic booms, encouraging excessive risk taking. Booms have then turned to busts, which policymakers have responded to with even lower rates....
“Rather than just reflecting the current weakness, [lower rates] may in part have contributed to it by fuelling costly financial booms and busts and delaying adjustment. The result is too much debt, too little growth and too low interest rates.
"In short, low rates beget lower rates."
The BIS warned that interest rates have now been so low for so long that central banks are unequipped to fight the next crises.
You have not talked about creating a REAL perfect society, or any society at all. BUT, you have been very plain over 1000 times, yes, over ONE THOUSAND TIMES, that you want an economic free for all where capitalists rule everything and own everything. And no, you don't actually say how the other 99.7% is going to survive. Assumedly, by "trickle-down."
Don't you get that I don't even have to argue with you. You prove nothing to me and you never will. I don't go for lies. On the other hand, I knew from the start that I would not teach a bullying, troll liar anything. So, I just involve you in wasting your time.
As I have said many dozens of times. I can say this, and get a good laugh. As you will continue to do exactly what I have proven is futile. Good luck, eVangeliar.
I do like one thing you said, that actually has a core of unintended honesty. You not only do not want an Utopia, you truly expect to create Hell on Earth. You know what you want will destroy us. BUT, your greed calls out to you to do exactly that because of the riches it seems to promise you. You truly believe, and deep down you understand, that the proles will be living in mud huts. Yet, you have no problem with this because you dream of being a power to be reckoned with, with minions serving you, and a bank account that is sky-rocketing. God help us all, and that includes you and your family.
Some of us have actually read The Jungle. The fact is that the book was a true summary. The eVangeliar is factually inaccurate.
You should go on "the circuit." First, NO ONE has ever expounded that argument. Second, Sinclair should have been against the meat packing industry. Everyone should have been. That is a given that does not need to be discussed. Anyone with sense that reads the book would be sickened. NO ONE with common sense and decency would question that motivation. Well, that sort of leaves you out. Sorry.
The eVangeliser is factually inaccurate, to put it mildly. You want totalitarian capitalism with an authoritarian led populace. So, how can you critique someone that was a proponent of socialism, when that person was merely telling the factual truth? While you merely lie continuously.
Factually inaccurate cartoon. Of course, all that money being thrown at China belongs to the 98% of America. While that money China is throwing goes directly into the pockets of the 0.3%.
So, thanks. All that is needed are the proper captions to correct this cartoon.
"To put in in perspective," if a child of that family that did not pay any taxes, lived in a family that made ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY TAXES. . . . Is this just too hard for you? Don't you get that every word you typed is based on pure lies? What are you expecting people to pay? And with what? The problem is, TOO MANY LIKE YOU, PRODUCE NOTHING, BUT TAKE, TAKE, TAKE. Spread that money back out to those that actually produced that wealth, AND pay a real fair share of taxes yourself, and then we can talk about that child's family.
The point is, you are ignorant and evil. What I have said is obvious. Why should Mitt Romney pay 15% on millions, and I pay 30% on thousands. Then I get to pay even more in state and local taxes, etc. This is at the bottom of what is basically a moral issue and one of common sense. This has to stop, before people like you destroy everything we have worked for. You create nothing. We would never miss you if you just disappeared.
Your ignorance is astounding. No wonder you still cling to your socialist views. A bit of enlightenment might be in order.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/608640.How_Capitalism_Saved_America?
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/424575.The_Myth_of_the_Robber_Barons
you are either staggeringly ignorant or utterly dishonest.
He is a troll who makes an appearance most times I write a comment somewhere. The man is an outright socialist who loves the big banks and big government.
Second, Sinclair shouldhave been against the meat packing industry.
Read his book. When you do you will find that he was against the meat packing industry and chose to support the small operators who were too inefficient and had poor quality standards. The fact that these operators did not refrigerate their meat properly and could not sell meat at a decent price caused retailers and consumers to vote with their purchasing power and support men like Gustavus Franklin Swift, who created meat-packing giants in Chicago during the late 19th century. These men developed and used ice-cooled railroad cars that allowed the shipment of dressed meats to many markets across the country as well as to other countries. It was these men that allowed ordinary workers to be able to afford cheap beef and pork. These men also reduced waste and helped the environment by figuring out ways to turn by-products for the production of glue, soap, and other consumer products.
I suggest that you read the books that I cited.
Proven where? Please support your claims as I did mine. Note that what I have said is not exactly difficult to find in the literature. Even Wikipedia says it and provides you with the information. In one version on the Gilded Age we found the following.
In another we get this.
The 'capitalism' that you hate made the United States the richest country in the world. Men like Rockefeller, who you also hate, got rich by driving down the price of oil products down. His Standard Oil Company grew by driving the price of refined product down from 58 cents cents a gallon before he got into the refining business to to eight a gallon when it had captured 90 per cent of America’s oil refining market. Capitalists who get rich in a free market have to capture bigger and bigger market share by driving costs down faster then their competitors and providing a better product at the transaction price that consumers are willing to pay. That seems to be a lesson that you have never learned.
Except for the direct quotes, you got it all wrong again. Even the exchange rate. It was "20 for 20." You're just making up nonsense.
No my ignorant friend. Most people who have an understanding of this issue, which you do not, are aware of the actual details. Here you go. It was $20.67, not $20.
Like I told several friends last night, the truth is, I don't even need to do anything but push the enter key. You keep this bullying bombardment up, even though even a small rodent knows you do not have anything to convince me with. You just make a spectacle of yourself.
Since when is correcting stupid errors bullying?
You did not support your claims. In fact, lying cannot be supported. The truth I told can be verified by you, but you would rather lie. Therefore, you have proven time and again that any effort expended would be futile. THIS, you have done hundreds of times. You have only yourself to blame.
Already discussed. As always, you mix conversations. You quote 6102 which pertains to the dissolution of the idiotic program you are such a fan of. Therefore, irrelevant. As well, you continue to bypass the fact that this was 1933, and not 1917.
The eVangeliar is a troll that restarts months old conversations that he could not sustain the first time. He continues to post untrue, irrelevant, and self-serving nonsense over, and over, and over. When he is debunked, he just moves to a another old thread, or another old blog. I pointed out that posters in blogs he visited were tired of being unable to hold meaningful conversations because of his continued stream of repetitive posts. If you give him the documentation he requests, you will not even get an acknowledgement except in a rare instance he has a pet lie ready.
Make no mistake. You might think that he is agreeing with you on a subject, but you will soon find that he will manufacture a point of contention that is merely contrived to cause acrimonious discussions. What am I doing? I am having some perverse joy allowing this idiot to waste his time. While he is wasting his time on me, a lot of other people are being left alone.
Unlike you, I have read the book. In fact, I have read all Upton Sinclair's and Sinclair Lewis's books. In fact, I won an award for my analysis of The Jungle. While all you do is tell self-serving lies.
There is no enlightenment there. . . . You use discredited revisionist nonsense every time. Nothing that can be vetted or that can be made to make sense. All you post are documents that support you, even though they are total errors and lies. Why? Can't you find anything that has some accreditation?
You haven't corrected any errors. In fact, you continue to post the same worn-out lies endlessly. You have done this is every blog that you have visited. The only rational explanation is your are a perverse and rather stupid bully.
You did not prove anything. In fact, you merely proved what I have been saying. That is one of your most laughable traits. But, the one point you are trying to make, is obviously not here. You are talking about Roosevelt's executive order, which has nothing to do with what we have been talking about. This order is the culmination, not the topic.
The books you cited are discredited revisionism. You are talking to an historian, which you should have known by now. I only checked the first cite, as when you post nonsense, I do not bother to keep checking. That book is nothing more than a falsification of the facts written by the very people you admire so much. You really need to learn how to do research.
We both know, that you troll the sites of vicious thieves that think just like you. Then, you try to pass off their opinions, that are based on lies, as some kind of evidence. Lies of convenience are still lies. Find something written by real experts and then maybe we can have a discussion. Of course, we both know that you don't do facts. They always disprove your current lies.
I notice that you did not get around to telling any lies in a lame attempt to refute my true observations. What is depicted is not even a good parody. We are not throwing that gold that you have such a perverted hard-on over. We are throwing away the livelihoods of half our people, and the savings of the 98%. In return, the Chinese are throwing us their sub-standard goods. Those goods are sold to us by the capitalist jerks, who then put all the money in their pockets.
The greatest gains in the U.S. economy came 20 years after the gold standard ended. There is no use in arguing anything different.
Actually, this is more about your mental and emotional problems. You cannot see that this nation have 99.9 times more people in the 19th century than those you worshiped.
You still skate right over the fact that you did not even have the time frame right. You did not have the reason for leaving the metal standard right, AND you have to lie about the reasons for America leaving the gold standard.
You know eVangeliar, the fact that you say something is almost a sure proof that it is false.
Not only does your "data" not prove what you claim, you do not even give something to compare against when claiming I am wrong. Of course, we both know that you are wrong, and you cannot post those facts.
Once again, let me explain one thing to you. Simply quoting those statistics, even forgiving the total lack of contextual comparison with the 20th century, still does not quantify who was the recipient of those gains. That is, mostly to the top 1 in 1000. It is nearly the same today. We can make 2-4% growth a year, yet the lower 50% is actually losing ground.
Once again, and as always, you use a false witness that just happens to parrot what you want. Find someone that can actually analyze and tell the truth.
Actually, it takes intelligence and reason to be a socialist. It also takes decency and a care for not only those around you, but for the whole world. All you need are lies, greed, and a desire and enjoyment of the pain of others.
You base your extremely sociopathic, emotional arguments on your faith that what you desire must be. You have no principles, and you use no logic. Greed is your logic. "All for me, and none for thee."
No my ignorant friend, I use facts that I support with citations to sources. As the usual Utopian idealist you have no room for facts or logic because they destroy your faith based narrative. Note that my preferred system allows people like you to choose a voluntary socialist system that you can live under. Libertarianism society can allow people to choose voluntary socialism. If people like you wanted to buy property and own it in common you would be free to do so and see how well such a system satisfies your needs. The libertarian legal system would prohibit the use of force against those that choose not to join your communes. On the other hand, your system does not permit anyone to opt out.
As Leonard Reed and LvM pointed out, Socialism is not just about good intentions about helping the poor or kids sharing candy with each other. Socialism is not voluntary like the Eagle Scouts or your local church. It is about the concentration of power that allows the ruling elite to engage in central planning while it transfers control of property to the government and allows it to engage in the redistribution of wealth. The spin about some ambiguous 'common good' or looking after people who are incapable of making decisions for themselves cannot change the facts.
The fact is all of the supposed claims about wanting to do good are immaterial because the economic policies that are related to the forced redistribution of wealth are doomed to fail because they are neither moral nor effective. While socialists claim to care about the poor all they do is create more poverty. A society does not become wealthier by placing greater burdens on the productive classes and decreasing the rate of capital accumulation. The poor are not poor because Bill Gates got rich by figuring out a way to improve effective computing. They are not poor because Sam Walton figured out that he could become very wealthy by lowering prices for consumers and cutting margins in an inefficient retail industry. You, my ignorant friend, are engaging in the politics of envy. And while that can be effective for a while it does grievous harm to the people that you claim want to help.
Duh, of course they would and do. The rank and file "conservative" is not consevative at all these days, but a fascist NAZI-style wannabe without very much real sense. More often than not, without much education. And all too often hates information and education. Do I exaggerate? Well, NO. These people may be a minority, but they are vicious and determined. They have clout.
Why blame just conservatives when liberals do the same? Obama has not cut defence spending. He spends more than even Bush did and has more hot wars going than Bush did. Also note that the neoconservatives that were behind the Clinton/Bush/Obama foreign policies are Trotskyites who believe in permanent revolution. They hated the Old Right, which they smeared as isolationists and have been in driving force behind American foreign policy for more than two decades.
Citations are meaningless to you.
Not at all. I use citations to support my points time after time. It is you who avoid them because yours is a faith based position that has little need for factual or logical support.
THE GREATEST GROWTH OF AMERICA THAT BENEFITED THE ENTIRE NATION WAS POST-WW2. PERIOD. Yeah, the 19th century made those you love rich. THE 0.1%.
Citation please. Note that I supported my claims with direct references that can be verified. You persist in telling a story.
You have not talked about creating a REAL perfect society,....
Correct on this first part.
....or any society at all.
Wrong about this one.
BUT, you have been very plain over 1000 times, yes, over ONE THOUSAND TIMES, that you want an economic free for all where capitalists rule everything and own everything.
You must have me confused with yourself, my ignorant friend. I do not favour the rule over others and prefer a free society that protects natural rights, including the right to property.
And no, you don't actually say how the other 99.7% is going to survive. Assumedly, by "trickle-down."
Free societies tend to have little problem creating enough wealth for the bulk of the population to not only survive but prosper. Socialist society can't even keep the lights on at night.
http://3mw3en4ld6gdanpk1plq0x1b.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/KoreaAtNight.jpg
Don't you get that I don't even have to argue with you. You prove nothing to me and you never will. I don't go for lies. On the other hand, I knew from the start that I would not teach a bullying, troll liar anything. So, I just involve you in wasting your time.
Not only do you go for lies, your entire position is based on them. For some reason you socialists are confused and say that the reason we have poor is because some are rich. To advance that argument you elect some very rich people and act surprised when they wind up screwing taxpayers as they bail out their even richer friends and sponsors. You worship men who have become wealthy by exploiting their political connections and advancing the political goals of the sate as they are granted subsidies, mandates, and other favours. Every time these men get in trouble the socialists are up in arms demanding that the government bail them out by taxing the middle class and those who have become rich in competitive markets. You forget that such favours and subsidies are theft, and that they are only made possible by political power, the very evil that socialists want more of.
Well, I guess the truth is just too unpleasant for you.
You told quite a number of lies in your foolish post.
Everything that needed to be said has been said thousands of times. Nothing you post will ever change the fact that you have only faith in greed and hatred for your fellow man.
But tell me, a man is righteous because he wants to enrich the 0.3% at the expense of the 99.7%, but he is evil if he is fair? Yeah, I am waiting for another three page report, but the true answer will never be in anything you write.
Due to your lack of reading comprehension and greedy angst, you passed right over the word "real." You have proposed your perfect society. Unfortunately, only the top 2% could survive there, and only the top 0.3% would thrive.
We need something better.
Citations are meaningless to you.
Unless they say exactly what you approve of.
The difference between us, eVangeliar, is I learn and form my opinions based on the facts at hand. While you form your opinions based on your hate and greed, and then go on a cherry picking expedition for sources.
But Obama is not a liberal, my dear Fuehrer wannabe eVangeliser. You kind of gave the game away again, when you claim you are against both sides. Of course, there is a kernel of truth in what you have been claiming. While your politics and economics are the purest of crazy-train right wing, you do certainly hate everybody. Literally!
You inadvertently, and incompetently posted all I needed for a citation.
As well, I tried for thousands of posts, but I don't even need a citation.
You base your extremely sociopathic, emotional arguments on your faith that what you desire must be.. You have no principles, and you use no logic. Greed is your logic. "All for me, and none for thee."
You still skate right over the fact that you did not even have the time frame right. You did not have the reason for leaving the metal standard right,
Yes, but only if they are from liars and shills, or you screw up because you are stupid or in too big of a hurry to bother to read that what you cite supports me instead.
For instance, the George Mason report that drew totally different conclusions, but was couched in language that might make a simpleton think it supported him.
Or, that "other, certain" paper that did a simple arithmetic calculation of 97.2%, which you claimed actually was 0.3%. . . . Seems, you really are stuck on that 0.3% for a reason. ROTFL!
Your posting history being exposed is entirely your own concern. NOT mne. My is my only concern. I blocked mine because people like you like to steal identities and Facebook pages, etc., and make death threats. The truth does not go down well with your mob.
And again, you are just a whiner. I would never have brought that up at all. That is just another symptom of your delusions of grandeur and your sociopathic personality. You think you are the only one with rights.
One final set of points. Do YOU not realize that when you post to me it goes into my inbox? Do you think that feature was enabled just for the glorious eVangeliar? As well, you used to like spamming and trolling blogs that hated you, so you were easy to find. Can you not figure that out? Of course, Disqus Digests usually tells me where you are currently trolling, so eventually, you always turn up on my radar. I generally only look at your profile when I want to see how many lying posts you have made. Since that is all of them, I don't have to look very often.
As we both agree, you want an society based on total anarchy where the only stability and peace is in your bank account.
At some point interest rates will go back to being set by the market and many economies (including ours) will tank. The bigger issue is that this in conjunction with our already bloated indebtedness will start to remove governments abilities to continue the welfare and pension promises so many foolishly rely upon. hink Baltimore looks scary after Freddy Gray just wait until the food stamps and SS get cut! All coming to a city near you.
You need a dictionary my friend because you have trouble understanding the English language. When someone offers quotes and tells you where they come from that is considered supporting the claims by people who are rational. When you say that people lied about supporting their claims right under the posting where they support them you need to look at the dictionary, find the word lie, and look in a mirror.
Two things. First, the price change was as I stated. The fact that you did not know it is your problem, not mine. Second, I never said that the US went off the gold standard in 1917. Technically, even in 1933 the gold standard was in effect for foreigners who, unlike American citizens, could exchange paper notes for gold. That ended after Nixon killed Bretton Woods and closed the gold window at the NY Fed. Next time you are in NY go and take the tour. The guide will show you the gold window and you can actually have a photo taken at it if you wish.
I did read the book. It was not accurate. End of story. The fact that some lefty teacher gives you an award is irrelevant because the book is mostly fiction. We know this because the system that Sinclair favoured was rejected by consumers due to bad quality and high costs.
WOW, you told three lies in the first twelve words. My, your little rest must have left you in rare form.
As far as being fiction because it was rejected by consumers, well, that is a bold faced lie. The rise of regulation is linked directly to Sinclair's book. Only a total fool, and a liar, would bother wasting those keystrokes to deny the fact. You might read some of the newspapers and the Congressional Record of the time.
As well, the fact that consumer's reject anything has nothing to do with truth or fiction. Nothing! Your statement does not follow. And you claim to be debating. Stooopid can't debate, especially when all of it is based on pure lies.
First, the price change was as not. stated. The fact that you did not know it is your. problem, not mine. Second, you did sayt that the US went off the gold standard in 1917. You did not name the year, but you stated that by necessity the U.S. was forced to go off the gold standard because of WW1! You have been called on this THREE TIMES already, but you refuse to answer.
Really, what are you playing at. You don't want to debate, and you can't convince me of anything with your lies. So, what are you trying to do. Oh, I know. Mr. Big Britches capitalist is punishing the poor prole. Right? Well, it has been a remarkably entertaining failure so far, and always will.
You are not my friend, as you have been told, my condescending ignorant lying waste of skin friend of no one. And, I am certain that no one beyond a few aggressive, bullying, money grubbing, money worshiping millionaire wannabes would give you the time of day. In fact, you are so unpleasant, I doubt you even have them.
As has been proven, I am a near master of the language, while you have almost no real knowledge at all. Of course, if lying is a positive attribute to understanding, then maybe you might have a small point.