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.
Make an actual true citation that supports your silliness. Any of it.
Like Amazon? I claimed that it was a novel, BUT, it is based on known facts. Like I could write a novel about an idiot troll, but call his name Vangel. Er, eh, . . . oops. I wasn't supposed to use your real name.
As far as anything you said in this post, we both know is is as much lies as the U.S. going off the gold standard to fight WW1. No such decision was ever made, and no such need ever existed.
Thanks for proving my point about the truth of Sinclair's work, by posting your Amazon article.
Did you bother to read it? Amongst other jewels, " . . . Sinclair had spent seven weeks gathering information while working
incognito in the meatpacking plants of the Chicago stockyards . . . "
Why don't you try the truth for a change. Oh, it does not support you. Tsk, tsk.
Thanks. Right from the start you attempt to twist the point and ignore a valid and ironclad truth.
"Voluntary contractual agreements are fair, IF both sides have a fair and equal choice. Most don't, so you lose."
As for Der Spiegel. Nice photos, but still irrelevant. . . . I could post concentration camp photos and show what happens when capitalists support a madman and he gets turned loose on the world. Well, actually, my example would have some value. Your photos just show what happens when that dictator LOSES!
As has been pointed out in Germany's disgraceful treatment of Greece, Germany has NEVER repaid its debts. They either contrive to not pay, like in the 1920's inflation created by the Reichsbank, or they get it "forgiven," as in the 1950's. Like France in 1870, Germany demanded huge reparations, and got every penny. BUT, when they have to pay all you hear is bleating whines. Sort of reminiscent of you, I might add.
Dead consumers have no protection. As well, if your system were to prevail, you have made it plain that they would have no rights of any kind.
You just lied again. That is not what I said. Sure, you can claim to be sarcastic, except you don't have a sense of humour.
But that is what you said. You want to right a wrong and the wrong was a government procurement and delivery program controlled by the military. The government managed to screw things up because it was willing to buy a product that consumers would have rejected and product that would never have made it to market. Since as all good socialist you are ignorant of economics I have provided an example regarding Fair Trade coffee schemes below.
The overview is simple. Every batch of picked coffee contains some beans that are of lower quality than others. When the market price for these low-quality beans is less than the floor price of $1.40 the fair-trade system provides incentives to growers to sell their lower quality beans by using the fair-trade channels. And as low-quality beans are dumped into the fair-trade marketplace many buyers purchase less coffee because they are afraid of being stuck with the low-quality beans. Some details are provided below.
The fact is, YOUR brand of so-called free market killed near a quarter of a million people, just during the Spanish-American War.
The war had nothing to do with the free market. It was began by politicians who wanted power. The food was of low quality because the army decided to accept the lowest bid and chose to deem low-quality meat as acceptable for human consumption. The decision not to buy local beef that would not have to be preserved and shipped a long way before it got to the soldiers was political. Congress decided to help the Chicago meat packers increase their profits and ignored the welfare of soldiers who were already endangered by yellow fever and malaria.
Actually, there was no question. Only statements. See any question marks?
"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."
Since you failed to correct any, but merely added to your "body of work." Well, more like a "corpse," that has been left out in the July heat for three days. P-U!
I did read the book. It was fiction.
Which window is irrelevant. That window has no bearing even on this discussion. A discusion that you have already driven off-topic.
When did France and Britain leave the gold standard? Or Canada, Australia, or New Zealand?
AND LIAR, you have at least five times hammered home your lie about the U.S. leaving the gold standard to fight WW1. You are nothing but a bold-faced liar, and you hate because as an arrogant bit of garbage you will do anything to hurt other people that catch you at what you do. Just like the good, little criminal you are.
I could not reply to your blurb about moderators. It is gone too. LOL!
You just lied once more. That is not what I said. Sure, you can claim to be sarcastic, except you don't have a sense of humour.
I learned all that from you. Of course, you could tell me your room number at Credit Valley so I could send some flowers. Or would you prefer a box of chocolates.
Face it. Every word you type is pretty much a lie, and therefore a total waste of bandwidth.
Your response has been debunked totally on several occasions. Nothing more need be said.
AT&T was not given a monopoly by the government. They used your bullying tactics to gain a monopoly.
Why not prevent the government from granting monopolies to anyone? If a company wants a large market share it will need to get consumers to buy its products willingly.
The only reason SOME few phone companies are better off, is they do not need all the expensive infrastructure that was formerly needed. AND that, my dear ignorant friend of no one, is how they can compete with AT&T today.
Actually, my ignorant friend new technology has made much of the old infrastructure obsolete. Note that the telecom sector is thriving even in war-torn places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo because of competition.
First, you made a willfully inaccurate statement that is an admission you know you are wrong. The government did not, and does not, grant monopolies. Yes, they occur by the actions of those capitalists that benefit from monopolies, and they also oppose governments attempts to rein them in.
Second, if telecom is thriving it is simply driven by demand. Competition has little to do with that. Just because something sounds good to you, or is convenient, does not make that something true.
1. It was NOT awork of fiction.
It is classified as fiction and contained false allegations.
2. It did NOT contain false allegations.
Yes it did. All books of fiction use made up stories to keep the narrative interesting.
3. It certainly did advance the progressive agenda. Which is wonderful. WHY do you think it is called progressive?
Sinclair was a socialist. The book advanced the progressive agenda because the government got its regulations and the big meat packers strengthened their positions. It was called progressive because the word socialist was not very popular at the time.
4. The legislation it inspired helped the American consumer.
As I said, the legislation forced small producers to pay for expensive processes that the large meat packers had already installed and paid for. New entrants had a difficult time entering the market and taking market share. While the big meat packers actually improved quality and lowered prices for consumers they still wanted to be protected from competition and strongly supported the legislation, just as the insurance and drug companies supported the ACA.
5. Sinclair did not oppose the legislation, bur he would have rather had a workers Bill of Rights.
But he did. Even Wiki points that out.
Sinclair wanted to nationalize the meat packers, not hand them taxpayer subsidies to establish an inspection system.
Yet Sinclair opposed the legislation because he saw it as a subsidy for the big players in the meat packing industry that he wanted to nationalize. The Progressives cheered on even though Republican protectionists got their way and consumers paid for benefits given to the meat packers.
Sorry for you eVangeliar. I will just stand on the truth I have already stated.
1. Novel based on facts gathered by Sinclair at meatpacking plants while posing as employee. Your precious Wiki stated that as well.
2. No, no false allegations. That is also in YOUR Wiki.
3. You are merely playing word games. In fact, you are twisting your own words. Mine are still true.
4. The legislation it inspired helped the American consumer.
5. Sinclair did not oppose the legislation, bur he would have rather had a workers Bill of Rights.
Sorry, but there is no reason to debunk again what has already been proven untrue. No one was subsidizing anything. Regardless of the true purpose Sinclair had in mind, the American public was out-raged by those two pages concerning the meat packing industry. Making up falsehoods to drive an off-topic conversation you caused even more off-topic really has no point. This continues to show that you are just an abusive troll liar.
Are you gaining any ground by continuing to troll. For Christ's sakes Vangel, you have been trolling here for over a year.
GM did nothing about the dangerous Corvair.
It was a bad car. But the government did nothing about it either. It still doesn't because there are still bad cars. The issue still comes mostly down to F = ma. Small and light underpowered cars tend to be unsafe, particularly when there are design issues that were never handled properly. In the case of the Corvair, it was killed pff by Nader.
Chrysler recently declined to recall vehicles due to the enormous economic cost. They figure the lawsuits will cost less.
The design of the gas tank, which is placed behind the rear axle, can be found in many other vehicles. The fatal accidents that triggered the government request were due to high speed crashes, not normal operations and those accidents would have the same outcome even with a different design.
Ford did nothing about their dangerous Pinto because their lawyers told them that the lawsuits due from the ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE BURNING DEATHS would be less than the $39 repair per unit.
All vehicles are dangerous. The Pinto danger was overrated because the gas tank related deaths were about equal to the deaths due to other issues that were not deemed to be a problem. In fact the NHTSA chose not to ask for a recall until after the media made it an issue. And the lawyers turned out to have been right about the economics.
Food companies often do not recall dangerous food.
Sure they do. The liabilities are too high once they find a problem not to do anything. And it is not the lawsuits but the damage to the reputation that is the big fear. Coke worries much more about Pepsi than about the US regulators.
What are you trying to prove, troll? That you are a superior liar?
Corvair = good car with unfortunate suspension quirks. Later fixed. Commercial failure, yes, but that is something else altogether. Odd, I predicted you would use this opportunity to defame Ralph Nader.
Chrysler problem had nothing to do with the gas tank. So, you just made up another whopper.
Ford's Pinto was dangerous. Your avoidance proves you know the comment is spot-on.
Yes, some food companies do recall. Yet, if it were not for regulations, and lawsuits, two things you have sworn to outlaw, there would be few if any recalls. There sure wasn't any during Sinclair's time.
As far as Coke, you once again twisted the conversation so you could interject a lie.
ROTFLMAO at a completely immoral, amoral, sociopathic moo-ron. Your first paragraph would be hilarious if it were not so sad. The military would never buy one defective item, IF YOUR G.D. heroes did not sell it to them.
Immoral? It was the war that was immoral. The war was started by politicians, not the meat packers. It was Congress that decided to buy meat from Chicago and have it shipped to Cuba instead of buying it locally. It was the military that chose the lowest bid contract and accepted bad meat that it fed to men drying from yellow fever and malaria. The military still has the same procurement problems today even though the United States spends as much on military related activities as it takes in from personal income taxes.
With your reasoning, a newborn killed in a drive by shooting would be the one at fault. The murderer would walk with your nonsense. So, let's just say that whole sack of malarkey was totally bonkers. Bollocks, eVangeliar, bollocks.
Where did you get this from? The people responsible for poisoning the soldiers were those that accepted the lowest bid and allowed substandard spoiled meat to be fed to the soldiers that deserved better.
Which makes you a liar, and an off-topic one at that. You are immoral. You propose outrages and use lies. Then you spin the topic to be something else.
My words stand as they are and prove that you are irretrievably wrong. Changing the subject to the war, is asinine and dishonest. YOUR heroes poisoned hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians. You can deny if you like, but the truth is still plain.
The people at fault are the murderers that supplied substandard goods. The bids went out, and the low bid, that promises to meet spec gets the contract. No one contracted for poisoned goods. You claim to be an engineer, but you do not understand that simple principle. Worse, you are so totally dishonest, you prove my sources that correct, that you were fired. Get a job, Vangel.
As I pointed out, the government investigations showed that there were many false allegations in Mr. Sinclair's book of FICTION. Sinclair wrote fiction and used stories that moved his narrative along. That did not make them true.
And for the record, we have had stories like this under the government run inspection system. A perfect example was the Hallmark case where a meat recall was undertaken because of claims made by the Humane Society. The USDA called for a recall even though there was not a single case of anyone getting sick from the meat sold by the company. The recall was due to a technicality and the USDA actually took the company side on the issue of the safety of downer cattle that were not sick.
The improvements made in any system are due to consumer pressure, not the actions of government employees who have been captured by the businesses that they are supposedly helping to regulate.
BS? From the guy who denies the undeniable; that Sinclair's novel is a book of fiction?
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2006/01/jungle-100
THAT is nothing but pure whine! You wanted a confrontation.
No. I simply answer unsubstantiated points made by a fool who thinks that he knows far more than he does. I posted on this site and you followed me here to start a fight as you usually do. Stop being a troll and get a life.
You made the first line up. That by definition is lying. Sinclair gathered much of his meat packing information by actually working there. For someone like you that will not work, that is a breathtaking bit of hypocrisy on your part.
As far as the Hallmark case, you just conjured that up too. That is a kind of case, not a case. Yet, the point of the recall was to keep people from becoming sick.
Consumer pressure, yes, on government to prevent bad operators from killing them. Without regulation, and the media, nothing would be done. A few hundred isolated cases would be forgotten and written off as the cost of doing business. As has been for years.
Amazing you can write off 200k deaths during the Spanish-American War as that cost of doing business. Well for you, murder for profit is quite normal.
You lie in every post, and you ignore all evidence. Yet, you want me to prove something to you that you already know is true.
You have been trolling here for over a year. What sick fool does that? AND, I promised you six times that this is exactly what would happen if you did not quit following me! So, keep up with the lies. When I finally get banned here, I will easily reacquire your lying carcass elsewhere. You sole occupation is to badger, bully, lie, and troll.
Like I have been saying for months, "stop being a troll and get a life."
BS? Sinclair's book is fiction BASED ON FACT. The characters are fictional, but the events are largely true. Arguing otherwise makes you a foolish troll liar.
You know that you could have ended this again today, by keeping your trap shut. But, you keep trolling and lying. To what purpose, only your Credit Valley psychiatrist knows. Maybe . . .
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?
It is called consumer choice. People do not want to consume dangerous products so any supplier who harms them will quickly go out of business. The government does not set the failure rates for Apple yet i-phones work very well. I know that socialists have a hard time understanding the fact that people are not idiots when it comes to making decisions for themselves and a harder time understanding economics but you might want to start learning. Whether you want to buy a TV, ground pork, vitamins, hot dogs, a car, or just pet food, you can get plenty of good information about the product independently.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/01/what-s-in-that-pork/index.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/05/multivitamins/index.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/computers.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/07/best-salad-dressings-in-a-bottle/index.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/august/money/pet-costs/dont-pay-a-premium-for-premium-pet-food/index.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/popcorn.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/01/from-the-consumer-reports-labs-is-bison-better-for-you-than-beef/index.htm
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/06/consumers-reports-doesnt-know.html
You wanted an example then let me give you one. When I took the kids down to Florida for a cruise I asked them why it was that they wanted to stop off at the local KFC or Wendy's than at the roadside diners. They said that they knew exactly what they would get from the fast food places but could never be sure of the local places. Even though they are young, the kids understood of the effort that corporations take to protect the value of their brands. That is something that socialists fail to understand. When I buy something at Costco or Walmart I am quite confident that its quality is acceptable and that failure rates will be very rare because the boards of those outfits have policies that ensure that their brand is protected. I am also aware that the Costco failure rate will be lower than the Walmart rate because it is much harder to control the vastly greater number of products that Walmart sells than it is that Costco sells. That means that in order for me to buy something from Walmart I need a lower price that compensates me for the greater risk. On the other hand, products bought at small retailers that do not have the resources to devote to quality control are more risky, particularly when we take the price into account.
The evidence is quite clear if one looks at the quality of services delivered by government agencies versus those of private institutions working in a competitive market. The Post Office did a terrible job when it had a monopoly. It is still not nearly as good as its competitors for packaging but has improved because of competition. If you look at the DMV in the US you would be hard pressed to find any private institution that competes in an open market that would be as bad on customer service, mostly because it would be out of business as consumers walk away. The bottom line is that consumer sovereignty works. Government intervention does not.
I did not restart a three month dead thread just to bully someone.
This thread is dated June 30, 2015, 12:30 pm. I posted a comment and as usual you followed to pick a fight as you usually do.
If you did not want to be followed, then you could have taken up on any of my three offers of peace, or avoided my six threats of treating you as you treat me, or you could have been honest enough and competent enough not to stir this garbage up again, and again.
I think that you are delusional my friend. You follow people around the net to try to prove yourself and accuse them of picking fights. All I care about is debating ideas by the use of facts and logic. I have no trouble with people disagreeing with me as long as they do not claim that their opinions are facts and as long as they support their claims. You clearly have a problem with both because you have trouble distinguishing fact from opinion and tend not to support claims because you mostly make them up.
A perfect example is the novel The Jungle. Even though it is a work of fiction, the author admitted that it was a work of fiction, the libraries, publishers, and book sellers have all classified it as a work of fiction you cannot admit that it is a work of fiction.
Pepsi products are known to contain excessive amounts of confirmed cancer causing agents.
BS. The claim is based on a bastardized version of the LNT hypothesis, which we know is false. We are swimming in a world that is full of confirmed cancer causing agents. But that is not a problem because the effects depend on dose and Pepsi does not want to spend the money to add high doses of any expensive ingredient in its products. You need an education my ignorant friend because you don't even understand the issues that you are debating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g1denSoAbc
Don't you see an incongruity when you expound the wonders of bully capitalism, and then talk about the evils of those same entities.
I defend FREE MARKET capitalism, not the state capitalism that you want or the crony capitalist model that most conservatives defend. So no, there is no incongruity to speak of.
You blew it. Thanks for proving my point. The Gold Certificate guaranteed the bearer $20 worth of gold. That is what it says.
Let me dumb this down for you so that you can follow. A $20 gold certificate entitles you to a $20 gold coin that contained 5,500 grains of gold. The dollar was defined as a specified weight of gold and turning in a certificate meant getting the weight of gold that the certificate specified, not some fiat price.
$20.67? That was the settlement price. And it has nothing to do with anything I said. That is your distraction, not mine.
When you turned in a certificate after the order was enacted you were no longer entitled to the amount of gold that the certificate specified. Instead you got a piece of paper that was not backed by specie. In effect, it was a default on a promise made to the people. And just after the confiscation took place FDR devalued the paper dollar by making a troy ounce of gold worth ~$35 to the foreign holders of dollars who still had the ability to exchange paper notes for specie. The US benefitted from European instability and gold flooded into the country from foreign accounts. When that reversed Nixon defaulted for good and even foreigners were no longer entitled to exchange their paper dollars for gold at the specified exchange rate.
Read my first explanation to see what you don't understand. It would be a good starting point on which you can build a coherent argument.
You defend the right of those with the most to take what they want. What you propose as a free market would not last until the end of the first day.
Pepsi is known to contain excessive amounts of coloring agents linked to cancer. Any moron can find links to the research. Both independent and FDA. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss.
Ames is just another industry spokeman. . . . Why don't you post anything by a real scientist that is not working for some industry?
If you did not want to be followed, then you could have taken up on
any of my three offers of peace, or avoided my six threats of treating
you as you treat me, or you could have been honest enough and competent
enough not to stir this garbage up again, and again.
The fact that The Jungle is a work of fiction does not make the events fictional. That is common sense and logic.
You are plainly displayed as being on the Gatesblog over one year ago. Stop changing venues so you can tell more lies.
AND, I warned you six times that I would do to you exactly what you do to others, including me. You even admitted that your restarted one discussion after more than three months because you missed the email. Not only is that incompetent, but it demonstrates a serious mental issue.
Let me dumb this down for you, you trolling jerkwad. THAT is EXACTLY what I have been telling you all along, and you have been denying.
This has no one thing to do with Nixon. Enough said on that entire passage.
Remember, 1917-1918
1933
1934
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?
There is little consumer choice, because even with regulation the producers don't want processes and ingredients disclosed.
Glad to see that you love me so much. I don't troll, but you only troll. Now, you pretty much only troll me. Looks like I win, just like I always said.
You don't want any regulation, but you blame the government for not stopping the Corvair? And the shame is, you do not even know what was wrong with it to begin with!
1917 is not 1934.
If you are going to make up nonsense, then you should make up something that sounds true, and confine yourself to belaboring the gullible.
Where are my answers about the dates Commonwealth nations left the gold standard? How about France?