FDA is a monopoly, which destroys competition in the market, drives prices up, destroys choice, destroys businesses, helps monopolies and is generally bad for the public specifically because it holds drugs off the market even once they are proven to be safe, while putting some drugs on the market that are known to be deadly, all because of the money involved.
But hey, maybe you like somebody telling you what you can and cannot eat or use as drugs even if it's known to be safe, just because you like being under control of others.
I predict that Khan's Academy will get put out of business by the government at some point, because his lectures are in direct competition with too many schools, who don't want prices going down, they are in competition with too many teachers, who don't want any new effective and efficient ways to make education more affordable and cheaper.
Especially if Khan starts charging a little bit for his lectures and actually creates a way to do a few tests and starts issuing diplomas, his business will probably become so efficient, that he'll become a major challenge for the public school system, never mind the private schools, who are at the public trough as well, he'll face the full wrath of government's force coming down upon him.
As to the question: what about kids, who don't have the Internet. Khan could for a small fee distribute DVDs with his lectures as well.
I am always amazed at people who believe that government is there to help them, well, maybe some feel that because they are getting government checks, or are hoping to get them one day.
But just look at the way government destroys free market and creates monopolies. You'd think that government wouldn't want monopolies for some reason (well, they say so) but in reality monopolies is governments' bread and butter. Government may be non-profit, but it's highly profitable to politicians, and others, who are near the trough. Monopolies have money to give to politicians and what would the competitive market participants give them and why?
This is in everything, not just software. Look at the pharmaceutical industry: FDA costs are probably higher than any other costs of releasing a new drug into the market. I hear it takes 600 million dollars for one single drug to pass all of the steps, FDA requires from manufacturers, which means that there cannot be an independent small firm, bringing an independent drug into the market. This maybe the biggest cost out of all other costs - to pass through government regulations. So anybody creating a drug needs to get a sponsor - a large pharma company to do what the FDA requires.
Now, if FDA only required to prove that the drug was safe for consumption, that's one thing. But they require the proof of efficacy - which means years of expensive studies, something that the market could have found much quicker and without this added cost, and something that actually causes real deaths, as people are not getting the drugs on time and the drugs are really expensive. Here is an interesting discussion on this matter, which explains how government is working on making your food ever more expensive and reducing your choices in the market, helping out the large monopolies and destroying the competition.
The patents are a huge problem, they are not there to help you. As with everything that governments do, the effect of their actions and regulations is the opposite one. So if they are talking about fighting monopolies, in reality they create them, and if they are talking about increasing the innovation in the market, in reality they are actively preventing and destroying it.
you know, that's a great set up for a perfect murder.
While the hosts of the show think that the people, who are being electrocuted are actors, just pretending to be in pain, if somebody in the group wanted one of those actors dead, they'd devise a plan to pass real current through the wires and connect that to one of the participants control boards...
Aah, excellent, so you are willing to bet that there will be no 'significant core inflation', as in prices for goods that are not food and energy will be stagnating in USA, right? Core inflation is the most heavily manipulated type of metric by the government, so you are willing to bet there will be no significant rise in it. You are correct about that, but not because of your reasoning, you are correct about that, because I predict that they will change the way they calculate core inflation yet again.
The 'significant rise of general price level' - do you mean all prices, or do you mean 'core'? If it's all prices, including food and energy, then how much is 'significant' for you and what are you measuring against?
In gold (in real money), these things are cheap and getting cheaper. In the inflated US fiat, these things will be priced higher and higher the more money is printed. What is 'significant'? Bernanke has this fixation on about 2.5% inflation, so I must take that it is an insignificant amount, yes?
I will win this bet on oil alone, as it will be over 115USD/barrel in 6 months for sure, but that's not 'core', right?
There'll be no inflation and there'll be no economy recovery as a result of QE3.
- recovery as a result of stimulus? That is a basic impossibility. There cannot be a recovery based on stimulus. There can be a temporary increase in spending, that's all, but no recovery.
Inflation is money printing, so any new dollars in the market are inflation. What is 'significant'?
Right now, increases in monetary base DO NOT result in continuing rise of the general price level.
- for USA, which exports its inflation to the producer nations. Those do experience 15-25% inflation due to this process.
So what is significant? How much over the 2.5%, for which Bernanke is 'shooting', (and which he overshot already by a large factor) is 'significant'?
Oh, and to me 'Keynesian analysis' sounds exactly like "Astrological reading", but even worse, as government is acting upon this nonsense.
I am willing to make the bet that if QE3 does not happen AND if there are no more bail outs of banks in that time, no stimulus by the government, the DOW will plunge in real terms.
If QE3 does happen (and it is happening, it's 99.99% unless there is some weird event, like the US government is blown up into pieces by a bomb), then DOW will gain in nominal terms, but will still plunge in real terms.
You see, AFAIC there is no difference what US gov't is doing, US economy is screwed, so DOW is plunging in real terms no matter what. But nominal terms, measured in US dollars - this is the function of US Fed, printing money. DOW going up is only due to inflation. So what's 'significant'?
As long as Bernanke opens his mouth, he talks about printing money. As long as he talks about printing money - the DOW goes up, and you are talking about economics?
Pfffffft.
Money printing and inflation policy is not economics, but it surely moves prices up.
No, it's not helpful. It's not inactivity that causes ssh to freeze here, it's an active session, I am typing in it, all of a sudden BAM, it's gone. The screen is there, but there is no activity, no way to terminate, suspend or exit shell, nothing, the entire window has to be killed.
That's a weird statement, as it's not money that finances space programs, it's productive output - production capacity.
Sure, capital is required, but capital is used only to get the necessary tools, instruments, materials and people, but if there is nowhere to get these components from, then there will be no program.
USA borrows half of what it spends from US bond sales (and today, those are mostly bought up by the Fed), but China is one of the countries who finance USA by buying counterfeit US dollar for Chinese made goods, then China buys US debt with those dollars, to do this, Chinese print their own currency out of existence, then they need to finance the program, so they use some of the money for that, but the parts and tools and man power, it's Chinese, so how is US financing them? By providing monopoly money?
The companies have been made into people not only by one law.
How about income taxes? While people have income, companies in reality do not. They have a fund, which they use to do more work. The only time that the money is used not for work, when in a company, but for spending for various consumer goods, is when this cash is transfered from a company to a human.
So a human uses cash for enjoyment or any other spending, but a company only uses cash for work.
Company uses cash for work, even when it spend cash. The cash is used to generate productive output, not to enjoy life, certainly. So why is PRODUCTIVE capital being taxed?
By treating a company, a business in this way, it's as if the company is a human, spending the money for consumption purposes. That's the reason why it was possible to push forward this idea that companies are 'people' (it's not exactly that, but many laws apply, such as first amendment, because if they didn't a company could be destroyed by taking away such a 'right' by some other company, who, for example enjoys close government ties.)
The real question should be: why is a company taxed on its profit, while anything that a company can do with a profit is put it back to work, thus generating more products and services and hiring more people (maybe), but definitely doing work, not having a good time?
Why is work taxed? Do we not want to have more production?
I am against all income taxes, be it for companies or people, but if we are going to have income taxes, then how is it possible to justify these for companies? Their income is productive and it only becomes money for consumption when it's taken out of business.
the only thing that I suspect in all of this is that Assange is an asshole, and rips condoms on purpose. Beyond that I don't care about him, but his work with the Wikileaks is very important regardless and the materials they publish are excellent and need to be revealed.
Yes, non-renewable resources will go up in price in real terms eventually, when there is just not enough supply, however since 2003 oil didn't go up at a higher rate than many other commodities, which are not as rare and that we don't find to be difficult to get. While some argue it's because of rising demand from China, I explainedAn increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods, resulting in a substantial and continuing rise in the general price level." Of-course gov't likes to redefine things, when it doesn't like the implications of its actions, so especially after 1971 this became a problem for them.
It is not falling prices, but falling costs, that make things more affordable.
- ha? You are an end user of a product, to you the product is more affordable the less you have to pay for it, the more your purchasing power is. That's what people had in 19 century with a strengthening dollar and falling prices due to productivity, increases in efficiency, competition, innovation all in private sector.
Deflation helps those with positive net cash holdings, but hurts those with negative net cash holdings.
- yet in 19 century people borrowed plenty, but they borrowed to PRODUCE, not to consume as it is done today, all with a blessing from the government - the main debtor. Of-course they hate deflation, they can't pay their debts. However their fight against deflation is by printing money, which causes your prices to go up eventually, but since it's a destroyed economy, you also don't have rising wages, so good luck with helping your government spend beyond what they have, you'll need it.
You will see that taxes on the top 5% have never been lower not in the ENTIRE history of our tax system. Not once.
- on paper.
Effective taxes have been much lower before, and people could write off pretty much any spending against their corporate income before, so that's for example why the 94% taxes were never paid (nor were 77% taxes, nor were 55% taxes, etc.)
What people owe in theory and what they actually pay are two different things.
Also if you start looking at tax rates, let's take SS as an example.
A family with income of 250K today is equivalent to a guy maintaining a family on 25K in year 1955.
The guy in year 1955 paid 90 dollars a month to SS. The family of 2, working for their 250K a year today pay over 15%. That's a huge jump, inconceivably huge. That's because SS is not a fund or insurance, it's a wealth transfer program, which requires existing contributors to support the existing receivers, but there is no fund. And even with that 15% tax, SS paid out more than it collected in 2010, so it's in the red. In theory it has 2.5 Trillion of outstanding credit, that the federal gov't owes it. But the fed uses T-bills to 'finance' this ponzi scheme, so that's again, a purely theoretical exercise. The gov't has no money but what it collects in taxes, so it's not gov't that owes that SS money, it's some people who owe some other people. But who signed those contracts? They seem to be very one sided, as in those who are receiving the money signed it, but those who are paying didn't.
They should really skip the country, it's not going to become any better over time.
But back to the taxes: A person making over 250K a year could have paid crazy taxes back in the days if he decided to declare that as personal income. But who wants to do that? Who wants to pay taxes?
That's why people invented all sorts of ideas - dividends, various funds, etc.etc., it's all about not paying the tax, and good for them, they should not pay the tax.
If you are a person making money, you shouldn't be forced to give up your income, especially if you are providing jobs and products/services while doing it.
2.5T USD surplus.... in T-bills, government obligations.
Government doesn't have any money, 40-50 cents on any dollar spent is borrowed. The so called surplus is a gimmick, it doesn't exist. It's like me writing a check to me for a billion bucks. I must be a billionaire.
SS paid out more in 2010 than it collected - any accountant can explain to you what it means, it's in the red, as in insolvent.
It's insolvent today, it's not going to be solvent tomorrow, because this is a ponzi scheme, a pyramid, and the bottom is falling off.
Did they write the paper in Chinese? Turkish maybe? Farsi?
No. It's English, and it's not that different from current form of it. What is needed is not interpretation, what is needed is people with some integrity, who will not cater to every government demand to bend the Constitution, which is the law, that government must abide by, to allow them to do whatever they want. Anything they want.
You pay the Chinese with dollars and inflate them so low that you can pay back
- right, that go on as long as the other side keeps buying the worthless dollars for their productive output, but since the other side has a weird government making decisions in terms of printing its currency to buy the USD that companies put into banks, that they get for selling their products in US, they will keep doing so until there is political pressure for them to stop. For example a revolt among the people of China who don't want to see prices rise 15-25% a year, so while they are the producers of the world, they can't buy the very products they produce because their money is losing value and thus they don't have the purchasing power.
In China if they stop buying US dollars and debt, their standard of living will skyrocket as their currency will appreciate in value and prices for all products will fall substantially.
What I do not understand is how a country can do this and still have the lowest possible interest rate
- the Fed has been buying 100% of any new US Treasury debt for the last 6 months. At the same time it's buying much of the debt that comes to market and which is not rolled over. At the same time, they are providing 0% discount rates, letting the banks to "borrow" at that rate to turn around and buy T-bills as well, so they think they are in the 'green' doing that (as long as real rates stay low.) At the same time the Fed is doing all sorts of currency swaps with other central banks for those banks to keep buying some of US debt as well.
This started with Clinton and Rubin and Greenspan, it became worse under Bush and is now rampant. How long will this last? I am not certain, but no country doing this is going to prevail.
The only thing it will 'prevail' at is going to be destruction of its own currency and economy.
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong on all counts.
FDA is a monopoly, which destroys competition in the market, drives prices up, destroys choice, destroys businesses, helps monopolies and is generally bad for the public specifically because it holds drugs off the market even once they are proven to be safe, while putting some drugs on the market that are known to be deadly, all because of the money involved.
But hey, maybe you like somebody telling you what you can and cannot eat or use as drugs even if it's known to be safe, just because you like being under control of others.
they truly needed that, because soon enough they'll run out of 32 bit integers they use for version numbering.
I predict that Khan's Academy will get put out of business by the government at some point, because his lectures are in direct competition with too many schools, who don't want prices going down, they are in competition with too many teachers, who don't want any new effective and efficient ways to make education more affordable and cheaper.
Especially if Khan starts charging a little bit for his lectures and actually creates a way to do a few tests and starts issuing diplomas, his business will probably become so efficient, that he'll become a major challenge for the public school system, never mind the private schools, who are at the public trough as well, he'll face the full wrath of government's force coming down upon him.
As to the question: what about kids, who don't have the Internet. Khan could for a small fee distribute DVDs with his lectures as well.
I am always amazed at people who believe that government is there to help them, well, maybe some feel that because they are getting government checks, or are hoping to get them one day.
But just look at the way government destroys free market and creates monopolies. You'd think that government wouldn't want monopolies for some reason (well, they say so) but in reality monopolies is governments' bread and butter. Government may be non-profit, but it's highly profitable to politicians, and others, who are near the trough. Monopolies have money to give to politicians and what would the competitive market participants give them and why?
This is in everything, not just software. Look at the pharmaceutical industry: FDA costs are probably higher than any other costs of releasing a new drug into the market. I hear it takes 600 million dollars for one single drug to pass all of the steps, FDA requires from manufacturers, which means that there cannot be an independent small firm, bringing an independent drug into the market. This maybe the biggest cost out of all other costs - to pass through government regulations. So anybody creating a drug needs to get a sponsor - a large pharma company to do what the FDA requires.
Now, if FDA only required to prove that the drug was safe for consumption, that's one thing. But they require the proof of efficacy - which means years of expensive studies, something that the market could have found much quicker and without this added cost, and something that actually causes real deaths, as people are not getting the drugs on time and the drugs are really expensive. Here is an interesting discussion on this matter, which explains how government is working on making your food ever more expensive and reducing your choices in the market, helping out the large monopolies and destroying the competition.
The patents are a huge problem, they are not there to help you. As with everything that governments do, the effect of their actions and regulations is the opposite one. So if they are talking about fighting monopolies, in reality they create them, and if they are talking about increasing the innovation in the market, in reality they are actively preventing and destroying it.
Oh NO!
Jello IS people!
You are missing something important. It also said: Greed is NOT good. That's what it said.
If it said so, then it must be true, because the word "not" was capitalized like so: "NOT".
you know, that's a great set up for a perfect murder.
While the hosts of the show think that the people, who are being electrocuted are actors, just pretending to be in pain, if somebody in the group wanted one of those actors dead, they'd devise a plan to pass real current through the wires and connect that to one of the participants control boards...
I mean, c'mon. You create thousands of jobs that involve sexually groping children, a
- government calls it 'stimulus' and job creation.
Aah, excellent, so you are willing to bet that there will be no 'significant core inflation', as in prices for goods that are not food and energy will be stagnating in USA, right? Core inflation is the most heavily manipulated type of metric by the government, so you are willing to bet there will be no significant rise in it. You are correct about that, but not because of your reasoning, you are correct about that, because I predict that they will change the way they calculate core inflation yet again.
The 'significant rise of general price level' - do you mean all prices, or do you mean 'core'? If it's all prices, including food and energy, then how much is 'significant' for you and what are you measuring against?
In gold (in real money), these things are cheap and getting cheaper. In the inflated US fiat, these things will be priced higher and higher the more money is printed. What is 'significant'? Bernanke has this fixation on about 2.5% inflation, so I must take that it is an insignificant amount, yes?
I will win this bet on oil alone, as it will be over 115USD/barrel in 6 months for sure, but that's not 'core', right?
There'll be no inflation and there'll be no economy recovery as a result of QE3.
- recovery as a result of stimulus? That is a basic impossibility. There cannot be a recovery based on stimulus. There can be a temporary increase in spending, that's all, but no recovery.
Inflation is money printing, so any new dollars in the market are inflation. What is 'significant'?
Right now, increases in monetary base DO NOT result in continuing rise of the general price level.
- for USA, which exports its inflation to the producer nations. Those do experience 15-25% inflation due to this process.
So what is significant? How much over the 2.5%, for which Bernanke is 'shooting', (and which he overshot already by a large factor) is 'significant'?
Oh, and to me 'Keynesian analysis' sounds exactly like "Astrological reading", but even worse, as government is acting upon this nonsense.
I am willing to make the bet that if QE3 does not happen AND if there are no more bail outs of banks in that time, no stimulus by the government, the DOW will plunge in real terms.
If QE3 does happen (and it is happening, it's 99.99% unless there is some weird event, like the US government is blown up into pieces by a bomb), then DOW will gain in nominal terms, but will still plunge in real terms.
You see, AFAIC there is no difference what US gov't is doing, US economy is screwed, so DOW is plunging in real terms no matter what. But nominal terms, measured in US dollars - this is the function of US Fed, printing money. DOW going up is only due to inflation. So what's 'significant'?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - QE3 is coming, the DOW was up, what, 160 points or so?
As long as Bernanke opens his mouth, he talks about printing money. As long as he talks about printing money - the DOW goes up, and you are talking about economics?
Pfffffft.
Money printing and inflation policy is not economics, but it surely moves prices up.
dude, seriously...
No, it's not helpful. It's not inactivity that causes ssh to freeze here, it's an active session, I am typing in it, all of a sudden BAM, it's gone. The screen is there, but there is no activity, no way to terminate, suspend or exit shell, nothing, the entire window has to be killed.
What are you talking about? Dumped unity the moment it appeared, it's classic without effects, and that's what it does.
That's a weird statement, as it's not money that finances space programs, it's productive output - production capacity.
Sure, capital is required, but capital is used only to get the necessary tools, instruments, materials and people, but if there is nowhere to get these components from, then there will be no program.
USA borrows half of what it spends from US bond sales (and today, those are mostly bought up by the Fed), but China is one of the countries who finance USA by buying counterfeit US dollar for Chinese made goods, then China buys US debt with those dollars, to do this, Chinese print their own currency out of existence, then they need to finance the program, so they use some of the money for that, but the parts and tools and man power, it's Chinese, so how is US financing them? By providing monopoly money?
Well, hold on.
The companies have been made into people not only by one law.
How about income taxes? While people have income, companies in reality do not. They have a fund, which they use to do more work. The only time that the money is used not for work, when in a company, but for spending for various consumer goods, is when this cash is transfered from a company to a human.
So a human uses cash for enjoyment or any other spending, but a company only uses cash for work.
Company uses cash for work, even when it spend cash. The cash is used to generate productive output, not to enjoy life, certainly. So why is PRODUCTIVE capital being taxed?
By treating a company, a business in this way, it's as if the company is a human, spending the money for consumption purposes. That's the reason why it was possible to push forward this idea that companies are 'people' (it's not exactly that, but many laws apply, such as first amendment, because if they didn't a company could be destroyed by taking away such a 'right' by some other company, who, for example enjoys close government ties.)
The real question should be: why is a company taxed on its profit, while anything that a company can do with a profit is put it back to work, thus generating more products and services and hiring more people (maybe), but definitely doing work, not having a good time?
Why is work taxed? Do we not want to have more production?
I am against all income taxes, be it for companies or people, but if we are going to have income taxes, then how is it possible to justify these for companies? Their income is productive and it only becomes money for consumption when it's taken out of business.
I am sure nobody will agree....
as opposed to Ubuntu 11.04, which can't hold an ssh session for 10 minutes before the entire term window goes to hell and never comes back....
the only thing that I suspect in all of this is that Assange is an asshole, and rips condoms on purpose. Beyond that I don't care about him, but his work with the Wikileaks is very important regardless and the materials they publish are excellent and need to be revealed.
They should promote him to an Honorable Member of mile-high club.
You may want to take a look at numbers I calculated.
Yes, non-renewable resources will go up in price in real terms eventually, when there is just not enough supply, however since 2003 oil didn't go up at a higher rate than many other commodities, which are not as rare and that we don't find to be difficult to get. While some argue it's because of rising demand from China, I explainedAn increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods, resulting in a substantial and continuing rise in the general price level." Of-course gov't likes to redefine things, when it doesn't like the implications of its actions, so especially after 1971 this became a problem for them.
It is not falling prices, but falling costs, that make things more affordable.
- ha? You are an end user of a product, to you the product is more affordable the less you have to pay for it, the more your purchasing power is. That's what people had in 19 century with a strengthening dollar and falling prices due to productivity, increases in efficiency, competition, innovation all in private sector.
Deflation helps those with positive net cash holdings, but hurts those with negative net cash holdings.
- yet in 19 century people borrowed plenty, but they borrowed to PRODUCE, not to consume as it is done today, all with a blessing from the government - the main debtor. Of-course they hate deflation, they can't pay their debts. However their fight against deflation is by printing money, which causes your prices to go up eventually, but since it's a destroyed economy, you also don't have rising wages, so good luck with helping your government spend beyond what they have, you'll need it.
Unless you want to start a revolution that would be the Federal Government.
- the federal gov't has usurped the power that does not belong to it, so clearly it needs to be removed, where is the question?
You will see that taxes on the top 5% have never been lower not in the ENTIRE history of our tax system. Not once.
- on paper.
Effective taxes have been much lower before, and people could write off pretty much any spending against their corporate income before, so that's for example why the 94% taxes were never paid (nor were 77% taxes, nor were 55% taxes, etc.)
What people owe in theory and what they actually pay are two different things.
Also if you start looking at tax rates, let's take SS as an example.
A family with income of 250K today is equivalent to a guy maintaining a family on 25K in year 1955.
The guy in year 1955 paid 90 dollars a month to SS. The family of 2, working for their 250K a year today pay over 15%. That's a huge jump, inconceivably huge. That's because SS is not a fund or insurance, it's a wealth transfer program, which requires existing contributors to support the existing receivers, but there is no fund. And even with that 15% tax, SS paid out more than it collected in 2010, so it's in the red. In theory it has 2.5 Trillion of outstanding credit, that the federal gov't owes it. But the fed uses T-bills to 'finance' this ponzi scheme, so that's again, a purely theoretical exercise. The gov't has no money but what it collects in taxes, so it's not gov't that owes that SS money, it's some people who owe some other people. But who signed those contracts? They seem to be very one sided, as in those who are receiving the money signed it, but those who are paying didn't.
They should really skip the country, it's not going to become any better over time.
But back to the taxes: A person making over 250K a year could have paid crazy taxes back in the days if he decided to declare that as personal income. But who wants to do that? Who wants to pay taxes?
That's why people invented all sorts of ideas - dividends, various funds, etc.etc., it's all about not paying the tax, and good for them, they should not pay the tax.
If you are a person making money, you shouldn't be forced to give up your income, especially if you are providing jobs and products/services while doing it.
AFAIC nobody owes you shit.
It's like Peter Schiff talks through your account, keep it coming.
2.5T USD surplus .... in T-bills, government obligations.
Government doesn't have any money, 40-50 cents on any dollar spent is borrowed. The so called surplus is a gimmick, it doesn't exist. It's like me writing a check to me for a billion bucks. I must be a billionaire.
SS paid out more in 2010 than it collected - any accountant can explain to you what it means, it's in the red, as in insolvent.
It's insolvent today, it's not going to be solvent tomorrow, because this is a ponzi scheme, a pyramid, and the bottom is falling off.
again, it does not need an interpretation.
Did they write the paper in Chinese? Turkish maybe? Farsi?
No. It's English, and it's not that different from current form of it. What is needed is not interpretation, what is needed is people with some integrity, who will not cater to every government demand to bend the Constitution, which is the law, that government must abide by, to allow them to do whatever they want. Anything they want.
You pay the Chinese with dollars and inflate them so low that you can pay back
- right, that go on as long as the other side keeps buying the worthless dollars for their productive output, but since the other side has a weird government making decisions in terms of printing its currency to buy the USD that companies put into banks, that they get for selling their products in US, they will keep doing so until there is political pressure for them to stop. For example a revolt among the people of China who don't want to see prices rise 15-25% a year, so while they are the producers of the world, they can't buy the very products they produce because their money is losing value and thus they don't have the purchasing power.
In China if they stop buying US dollars and debt, their standard of living will skyrocket as their currency will appreciate in value and prices for all products will fall substantially.
What I do not understand is how a country can do this and still have the lowest possible interest rate
- the Fed has been buying 100% of any new US Treasury debt for the last 6 months. At the same time it's buying much of the debt that comes to market and which is not rolled over. At the same time, they are providing 0% discount rates, letting the banks to "borrow" at that rate to turn around and buy T-bills as well, so they think they are in the 'green' doing that (as long as real rates stay low.) At the same time the Fed is doing all sorts of currency swaps with other central banks for those banks to keep buying some of US debt as well.
This started with Clinton and Rubin and Greenspan, it became worse under Bush and is now rampant. How long will this last? I am not certain, but no country doing this is going to prevail.
The only thing it will 'prevail' at is going to be destruction of its own currency and economy.