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.
Did you know that prior to the formation of the USDA, low quality canned plums were colored with Prussic Acid?
Unfortunately, though I am a little rusty, you have just entered an area where I am quite expert. Of course, I actually have a wide and varied education and job experience, AND my life does not revolve around money grubbing.
Sorry, but I am glad that you gave me some new trolling to target. I was tied up on urgent business, and I was a little late. Glad you intend to keep your bullying and stupid trolling going. I will try to be a little more timely in the future.
Don't worry. I will be with you for years, or until you quit trolling my inbox, or other innocent people with your constant barrages of lies.
Discredited? Note that socialism has failed because it does not work and cannot work. Yet you think that it is the other side that is discredited.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/MWimages/MW-BV342_n_kore_MG_20140225131517.jpg
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/MWimages/MW-BV341_n_kore_MG_20140225131339.jpg
Did you see the progress in the people's paradise made over the two decades? Me neither.
Well, perhaps that is a Korean thing. Surely the Germans were better at it.
http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-134721-galleryV9-mmlt.jpg
http://cdn4.spiegel.de/images/image-135617-galleryV9-kinv.jpg
http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-135619-galleryV9-rovj.jpg
http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-135621-galleryV9-fzfa.jpg
http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-135624-galleryV9-qnxv.jpg
http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-135628-galleryV9-yuxi.jpg
Most people know what has been discredited even if they do not want to admit it. Sorry comrade but your way has failed time after time again in every country where it has managed to gain much influence over the economy. But you cling on to your fantasy and mysticism and stay with your faith-based narrative. I prefer logic and reality.
Yet this thread shows that I posted a comment and, as usual, you followed and tried to pick a fight as you try to promote your socialism. You are a troll my friend and just want a bit of attention. Serious people support their claims with references to facts and also back up their arguments with logic. All you do is divert attention and hand wave.
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.
Consumers wanted high quality meat at a low price. The large meat packing outfits used economy of scale, refrigeration, and effective transportation methods to flood the market with high-quality, low-priced dressed meats. The smaller players could not afford to invest in capital that kept the meat from going bad and did not have enough customers to ensure quick turnovers and were driven out of business. Ironically many of the smaller players who could compete were driven out of business by the regulatory system that Upton Sinclair favoured. As usual, the rules were written by the big players in the industry and they ensured that the costs of compliance were too high for the little guys who could not pass on the higher costs on a diverse and broad customer base. As a result, the big players who were established first kept smaller, more effective players who could gain market share, from becoming a threat.
It is sad that fools like you are the very tools that crony capitalists now use to protect themselves from competition and to rip off consumers. The problem is that you are just too dumb to see it.
First, if I said something you should be able to provide a link to it. The fact that you can't shows that you, as usual, read what you think the words mean rather than what they actually say. That is a you problem.
Second, everyone who debates this issue knows that the price came out to $20.67 before FDR's repricing. It does not take any time to find hundreds of articles of support for that. The Act did reprice gold from $20.67 to $35. The fact that you cannot read and figure it out is, as usual, a you problem.
Here is Wiki on the subject:
As I wrote above, you can find the information in other locations.
As I said, there is a lot more. Learn how to read and do some work to enlighten yourself.
I have never picked a fight with you. That is all you. This could have ended, and was ended, dozens of times before. YET, you see peace as weakness, and like every totalitarian, you want to restart conflict. I am just giving you what you have paid for many times by your vicious behaviour. If you want peace, then GET.
You were given that precious last word on SIX occasions on the condition that you quit filling my inbox. The alternative stated was that I would continue with this discussion forever. You chose the latter. So, continue with your whining. You are the only one at fault. I did not create this situation, and I certainly did not sustain it by telling over 5000 lies. That is all you.
A direct quote from you does not need a "link." As well, I was responding directly to what you had just said in the thread. Your asinine statement was more pure avoidance of the truth. Lying is not in the least bit clever.
I did not bother to read the rest of your repetitive nonsense. You have beendebunked. I have no reason nor any obligation to keep arguing moot points with you. You had your chance at the "big brass ring," and you lost based on your own wrongheadedness and lies.
You are LYING. This has already been discussed. You are not talking history, but your revisionist economics. You are talking fantasies.
READ THE BOOK . . . READ THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD . . . READ THE LAW . . . READ THE HISTORIES WRITTEN ON THIS SUBJECT . . . READ THE CONTEMPORARY NEWSPAPERS.
STOP ALL THE LYING!!! Until you do, there is nothing more to discuss.
Like I said, you told three whoppers all in the space of twelve words. And then you continue telling lies based on your fantasy world.
If you furnish tainted food, then you should be driven out of business. Why don't you fill your lying craw with the stuff?
1. Totally irrelevant to this discussion. 2. Cherry picked. 3. There are still plenty of places that need renovation.
As I say, totally irrelevant. You depict totalitarian communism when I suggest only fair markets based on restraining the evils of capitalists. Capitalism does not ensure freedom. In fact, capitalists work to curtail our freedoms as much as communists do. America is free because it was created as a LIBERAL Democracy. Not a totalitarian capitalist state like NAZI Germany.
As for your photos, the first is of a run down commercial site renovated into a fashionable living area. I wonder what happened to the people that lived there before? I am sure that they could afford the new rent, . . . NOT!
The more I look at your bombastic wastes of time, that you try to pass off as real information, the more I believe you really are living at Credit Valley. What nitwit wants to go to all the trouble to show where North Korea is on a map? Especially, to a Geographer. OR is it, you didn't know yourself, and you are trying to prove that you figured it out. I might be a little too generous there.
In any case, what is the point? Is all of this some kind of promo? Are you going to take over for Leonard Nimoy but call the show Ancient Idiocies?
Kind of trapped yourself again. All I have to do is debunk your nonsense. You are always more than willing to volunteer more. Of course, you won't take the credit.
Here is my point, that you inadvertently proved. There is a total difference between the stated words on the Gold Certificate, and what they were finally redeemed for when forced to do so by law. The bill said what it said. Like I said. It is really a paltry difference mathematically, but a difference nonetheless.
Your wonderful profit mongers were flooding the market with every diseased carcass they could find. THAT was the whole point of this discussion. Especially to Roosevelt and the American consumer. Probably the two most significant pages ever in consumer affairs. Of course, that was not the central point of Sinclair's book, but it was an important one.
As has been proven, I am a near master of the language, while you have almost no real knowledge at all.
Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance my friend. A bit of humility might be in order. And a lot of knowledge.
Yes, as shown before the bill stated that the gold certificates would be transferred from the citizens who held them to the privately controlled Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 of notes and tokens. I guess that you finally paid attention.
A direct quote from you does not need a "link."
Of course it does because you make all kinds of claims that people made statements that they have never made. You create straw men to knock down because that seems to be the limit of your ability given your preferences for faith-based narratives.
You claim to be an expert in many things yet time after time show that you seem to know things that just aren't true. Since you brought up the USDA here are a few items for you to think about.
Note that the USDA is not the only culprit; the EU also allows dangerous chemicals to be used in food production.
I suggest that you take a look at regulatory capture issues. You might find out how you are a useful tool for the big corporations you claim to dislike even when you plead that they be propped up by taxpayers and consumers.
Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance my friend. A bit of humility might be in order. And a lot of knowledge.
If that is true, then you lost the argument. That was not the point I made, nor was it the discussion.
A direct quote from you does not need a "link."
Irrelevant. If I want a cuckoo, I will stick with mom's old clock.
I need to call Credit Valley. They must be giving you too much spicy food.
Except, you switch threads as fast as you can so they can never be double-checked by the average reader. Yet, I remember the whoppers and boners you pull.
NO regulations gave us the bad meat that killed more American soldiers during the Spanish-American War than died in combat during WW1. And no, that war was not in 1934.
I what functional way was it inaccurate. This was an easy one that you should have answered before you were asked.
So, you have been reading about those "pilgrims"? Are you a "silverdopers" fan too?
How about an example of your lack of good sense that seems to be chronic with you. If the USDA, and the EU, both allow "dangerous chemicals" to be used, then what would happen if there were no regulation at all? No one is forcing anyone to use "dangerous chemicals." They want to use those chemicals. So, what happens when they have carte blanche to do anything? Please answer. I will repeat this until you actually answer the question. There is only one answer, but I will hear it from you.
False causation seems to be a crusade with you. Falsifying dates and data is another. Common sense is something that seems exceptional with you. Not only an exceptional, but clearly an exception you avoid like the plague.
But if you make a claim you need to support it by saying where it came from. I do not object to quoting something in a simple posting above but your claims that I have said something that I never did.
All you do is charge people that they are liars and do a lot of hand waving.
Once again, not only off-topic, but avoiding the question that you your self, off-topically raised.
If regulation is weak, that is because of scoundrels like you. AND, answer the question. If weak regulation is allowing "scoundrels like you" to poison us, what would NO regulation do.
You lose on this point from any number of angles. You talk about poor regulation, but you have categorically stated that you oppose ALL regulation. I will not allow you to lie out of both sides of your lying mouth without censure.
1. You are a constant, repetitive, total liar. Proven!
2. I don't make any claims. All I do is debunk your constant, repetitive lies.
3. At one time I extensively supported all that I said. It did no good. There is no value to work if there is never a reward. Yes, I know you do not understand the concept of work.
4. You sources are invariably false, out-dated, or off-topic. AND, they are often disturbingly proving the opposite point from what you state.
Vangel, the fact that you made that statement is a lie in itself. You lie constantly and you never take any responsibility for it. If lying were a crime in Canada, I would have reported you and given any amount of evidence necessary ages ago. There is no use in debunking what we both know has been true since our first encounter.
If you cannot take the truth, and you feel that you must whine, then why don't you seek another venue. I mean this sincerely. I am not the one that restarted these discussions dozens of times. I am not the person that was too incompetent to check his own email and restarted a dead discussion three months later. I am not the person that was told six times that he would be hounded for life, if he continued to hound me. And on five of those occasions, I reneged on my promise out of pity. I even tried three times to reach an understanding with you. All you see is weakness because you are a sociopathic freak. Well buster, I bet if you walked to your local bar spouting your nonsense, I would never have to worry about you again. Yet, you abuse people from what you think is the safety of your own cesspool, and are to cowardly, and far to lazy to actually get off your arse and do what is right.
Like I said above. This situation came about because you think you get to control the proles. Well, you are not even passing as a human being at all. So, I guess in a manner of speaking, you are exempt from being sub-human.
You are LYING. This has already been discussed. You are not talking history, but your revisionist economics. You are talking fantasies.
So much for the claim that, "I have never picked a fight with you."
I did read the book. Upton Sinclair was not factual. In fact, what you seem to fail to understand is that the book was FICTION. Even Sinclair said that he made up things because he was interested in portraying conditions as he saw them, not document actual events that did not fit his story line. One of the reports that was issued rejected Sinclair's allegations and concluded that they were either intentionally misleading or false. But Sinclair did have an effect on Progressives. They passed a law to regulate industry and by doing so provided massive advantages to the established meat packers, something that Sinclair understood, which is why he opposed the Act.
I think that you have a reading comprehension problem. For one, you have a hard time distinguishing between fiction and fact. And for another, you fail to understand that people like you are the tools who help the companies and individuals that you claim to oppose gain more benefits through the use of the government power that you justify as legitimate.
You may fool the casual observer into thinking you came for discussion, but any deep analysis will prove that you just came to drown out conversation.
How about an example of your lack of good sense that seems to be chronic with you. If the USDA, and the EU, both allow "dangerous chemicals" to be used, then what would happen if there were no regulation at all? No one is forcing anyone to use "dangerous chemicals." They want to use those chemicals. So, what happens when they have carte blanche to do anything? Please answer. I will repeat this until you actually answer the question. There is only one answer, but I will hear it from you.
False causation seems to be a crusade with you. Falsifying dates and data is another. Common sense is something that seems exceptional with you. Not only an exceptional, but clearly an exception you avoid like the plague.
You do not object to telling whatever lies it takes to muddle and confound conversation, drive off posters, and generally abuse anyone that has the temerity to call you what you are.
In this case, I only charge you with being a liar. Stop lying and then I will stop calling you a liar. Of course, our conversation will be at an end.
Like I said, you told three whoppers all in the space of twelve words. And then you continue telling lies based on your fantasy world.
You seem to have a problem grasping the point that the book is a work of fiction, which is why you find it in the FICTION section of your local book store.
My position on the book is sound.
1. It was a work of fiction.
2. It was found to contain false allegations.
3. It was used to advance the progressive agenda.
4. The legislation helped the meat packers.
5. Sinclair opposed the legislation.
All of this can be looked up in minutes on any decent search engine.
YOU ARE LYING. Why did you restart a conversation dead for three months? That should be enough to be banned. Why did you continue to badger and bully? I called you out on it dozens of times. I did not whine, but I told you you would get every bit of it back.
That is why you are continuing with me. You long to punish a prole that you cannot possibly defeat. It is the proud eVangeliar that must have the last word. In fact, your point is, you must have all the words.
How about an example of your lack of good sense that seems to be chronic with you. If the USDA, and the EU, both allow "dangerous chemicals" to be used, then what would happen if there were no regulation at all? No one is forcing anyone to use "dangerous chemicals." They want to use those chemicals. So, what happens when they have carte blanche to do anything? Please answer. I will repeat this until you actually answer the question. There is only one answer, but I will hear it from you.
False causation seems to be a crusade with you. Falsifying dates and data is another. Common sense is something that seems exceptional with you. Not only an exceptional, but clearly an exception you avoid like the plague.
Like I said, you told three whoppers all in the space of twelve words. And then you continue telling lies based on your fantasy world.
Like I said, you told three whoppers all in the space of twelve words. And then you continue telling lies based on your fantasy world.
Like I said, you told three whoppers all in the space of twelve words. And then you continue telling lies based on your fantasy world.
Why can't you get that the book is "historical" fiction based on real, VERY real events. What Sinclair wrote is common knowledge as true.
On the other hand, why are you objecting. This is the world that you are offering the lower 85%. So, why do you want to quibble about it?
You still have not responded to my questions and statements. Like I told you thousands of posts ago, it is not your right to control the conversation and decided what will be discussed. In fact, it might be refreshing if you would make a pertinent statement about a blog for once. Instead of just mouthing whines about why the articles are all wrong.
Man, that sprog of yours must really be a mental mess. Of course, he probably does not have a room a Credit Valley. Well, not yet!
As I say, totally irrelevant. You depict totalitarian communism when I suggest only fair markets based on restraining the evils of capitalists.
Only voluntary contractual transactions in a free market are fair. Whenever you allow coercion by allowing one group to write legislation that regulates its competition there is nothing fair about the transactions.
Capitalism does not ensure freedom.
No kidding. Lenin and Mussolini both supported state capitalism because they could control it. There was no freedom under either system because both are a form of socialism. When I use the world capitalism I do not mean state capitalism. I mean free markets. And free markets are free.
In fact, capitalists work to curtail our freedoms as much as communists do.
I agree. They do this through legislation. Which is why I would not permit the government to interfere with any voluntary transactions in the economic or social sphere.
America is free because it was created as a LIBERAL Democracy.
A country that regulates the water pressure in shower heads, gas mileage in cars, and can fine or jail you for having a toilet tank that is too large is not free. As I said, you need to think about what the words mean before you write them down. While many of us can be careless far more frequently than we might like your problem is much deeper. You don't even think when you use words that have simple meanings. How can you be free when the 2014 Federal Register is made up of 79,000 pages and is 26 feet tall? How can you be free when every aspect of your daily life is regulated and you commit more than a felony per day without knowing it?
And let me point out that America's Founding Fathers rejected Democracy, which is why they created a limited republic. So in addition to a dictionary you might want to purchase a history book.
As for your photos, the first is of a run down commercial site renovated into a fashionable living area. I wonder what happened to the people that lived there before? I am sure that they could afford the new rent, . . . NOT!
Der Spiegel has many photos like the ones I posted. I suggest that you take a look at them.
As for the answer to the question that you asked, the Germans who lived in those areas risked their lives to escape across the Berlin Wall that was built to keep them as prisoners inside it. They escaped because they wanted freedom and a better life in the West, not cheap rent in lousy apartments in the East. Note that the wall was built after East Germany lost approximately a sixth of its population to the West through West Berlin. When so many people vote with their feet you might want to pay attention to what that means.
What nitwit wants to go to all the trouble to show where North Korea is on a map?
Socialists have a hard time following logical arguments so someone clearly wanted to show them the difference in the level of development between South Korea, which was poorer before the War, and North Korea, which chose Marxism.
That is the point. You socialists keep talking a good game yet always make up excuses when the implementation goes wrong. Tito was not Stalin yet Yugoslavia failed just as the USSR did. Communism failed in Africa, in Cuba, in Vietnam, in China, and every country that tried it. It does so not just because New Socialist Man is a myth. As Mises pointed out, even if we assume that we can have selfless people who put others before their own needs socialism is doomed to fail because of the economic calculation problem. I would have thought that a socialist like you would be aware of the problem but you are clearly clueless.
No. My facts are very clear, which is why I provided the references. The order was very clear that the transfer price was $20.67. That is why I provided the references.
If you handed in a $20 gold piece as was legally required you would get $20.67 denominated in Federal Reserve Notes and coins.
Here is my point, that you inadvertently proved. There is a total difference between the stated words on the Gold Certificate, and what they were finally redeemed for when forced to do so by law.
No. The certificate was just a promise to pay the holder a certain WEIGHT of gold. We can say that there was no 'paper' price for gold until after the exchange had to be made as per the government order.
I have no idea why you are fixated on such trivia while you keep ignoring the principles. I guess when you don't understand the issue the only thing that you can hope for is to get some detail or another right even if you can't see the big picture. What gets to me is that you even don't get the Keynesian attack part right. I expected a bit more.
Your wonderful profit mongers were flooding the market with every diseased carcass they could find.
But they weren't. Upton Sinclair wrote a book of fiction that had few facts to support his assertions and wound up being used by the Progressive and the Meat Packing industry. The big packers had to compete against each other and any use of spoiled meat would mean a loss of market share. We do not need to regulate KFC to get it to provide good food at good prices because customers have a choice and can go to competitors that are willing to publicize any failure on its part. Markets have a way of regulating themselves. That is why the phone companies are much better today than they were when AT&T was given a monopoly by the government.
Nice diversion my friend. You suggested how the USDA was preventing consumers from consuming supposedly dangerous products yet you refuse to look at the fact that it approved baby formula that contained a pesticide. And as a typical 'useful fool,' to use a Soviet term, you have a problem understanding that may of the policies that you are pushing for have goals that are the opposite of the principles that you claim to support. At least Sinclair understood that the law that was justified by his novel granted the meat packers special advantages that he opposed. You seem to be clueless that the agencies that you support have been captured by the big companies that you claim to oppose.
I think that you have gotten so lost in the trivia that you forgot what the argument really was.
Note that I have no problem using links to support what I say. That is because I tend to focus on the facts and logic and those can be supported by many sources. You choose to ignore facts and use narrative instead of logic. So when you make many of the claims that you do you can't support them by any citations because they do not really exist. One of your problems is the inability to understand many of the concepts that are being debated, which is why you often misinterpret what is written with what you think is written.
Sorry my friend but you need to try again.