Ah, I see. Mea culpa. Apparently I was being quite lazy with my language and I should certainly know better.
As for how I would claim monetization, I say this because of the risk of QE3. Nor is Bernanke the only one who favors a bit more easing (I cannot help but note the irony of the gas tank analogy in this article, given that gas is not counted in most inflation numbers). Certainly the Fed denies that it does not want to monetize debt in order to quell fears of inflation, but they are making a bad habit of using open market operations to solve political problems. As for interest rates, the first article above speaks of committing to several years of low interest rates (which, one might speculate means at the very least keeping them constant) or even lowering them.
Above all, I would point back to the political argument. To cut spending either on war or on entitlements is anathema. To raise taxes is verboten. Even to go into deeper debt is, increasingly, politically dangerous (though I expect that option in the near future). Our political class faces impossible choices not unlike those faced in Europe. Like Europe, the only politically safe option may well be to monetize the debt. The Fed will come to the rescue of the political class and, in return, we can expect the political class to be ready to stimulate the banking class yet again.
I'll certainly agree with your point (the first point, not the bit which seems to impugn the knowledge of a large and diverse group of people), and I thank you for it, but it is beside my point.
I apologise if I was unclear about this, but pointing to the GDP and the national debt was meant as an illustration of the enormity of the Fed's activities. It was not meant to speak of whether or not, to borrow your phrase, we lent more than we had. Nor could it have been. GDP is not the amount of money we have--i.e. it isn't the five dollars in our collective pocket. I am quite certain that the people have more in assets than the 14.7 trillion in goods and services produced in a year (after all, were there not more in assets than in the value of goods and services produced, then we'd have a hard time accounting for the capital used to produce).
My point is simply that the Fed acts on a scale that is quite capable of destroying our currency, that they will monetize the debt because neither major party will allow genuine spending cuts on entitlements or warfare (indeed they call these things "non-discretionary") but both will continue to argue over things like NPR, and that a wise man will do his best to ready himself for the coming inflation. As evidence of these claims, I submit to you the farce that is the debt ceiling debate. Boehner and McConnell have made it quite clear that they'll strike a deal, they just have to put on a show first. Ultimately the President will give in to some plan that "reduces the deficit" by calling for a reduction in projected increases (as Paul Ryan's joke of a plan did)--i.e. vaporware cuts. And they will do this because both the politician who doesn't save us from terrorists and tyrants by bombing Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and the politician who dares to suggest a hike in the eligibility age for certain entitlements will quickly become a failed politician. The only politically viable solution will be to allow the debt to be monetized, hide under inflation numbers that do not include basic items of consumption, and hope the storm passes.
The Fed and the Treasury keep swearing that they're not going to monetize the debt. But my goodness, this amount of money is greater than what we owe. For that matter, it's greater than our GDP. This is why we should all laugh when they say they won't be monetizing the debt, try to prepare for heavy inflation, and vote for someone who has a record of not being a mere R or D. The Fed supplied status quo, built on endless wars and unsustainable entitlement programs, will end because it will destroy our currency.
It's not the equipment, the sandpit, or the tether-ball. It's the other children. Now, if we could only remove the children then we'd have safe playgrounds.
Exactly. I won't go so far as to say that this was intended all along--there has been too many blunders for such to be the case--but I will say they are now in the position to offer a compromise that any reasonable person should accept. Just like a swindler trying to sell a car or a politician trying to get more advantage from a bill, these guys, having bid high to begin with, can place the burden of compromise on their opposition. Now, those of us who have said all along, "but, I'm a little concerned due process is dying a x-ray induced, cancerous death here", are going to be treated as doctrinaire fanatics who are unwilling to give a little for the common good.
Soon, they'll have badges for how many emails you send from Gmail, how many circles you have in Google+, how many searches you preform in a day, and, most importantly, how many adds you view in a day.
Under current jurisprudence, a right to travel is considered to exist. See Shapiro v. Thompson and Saenz v. Roe. Now, one might well say this doesn't mean a right to travel by plane. But, then, by what means does it guarantee this right? Train? Car? Pogo Stick? It seems reasonable to say that if I have the right to travel, then the state must have a compelling interest and reason to restrict a particular means of travel. It is on this point that we must discuss matters like due process, etc. It is not enough to say that we can arbitrarily restrict the activity of free citizens because the rules say so.
Slashdot Mirror
For that matter, are they "today's flat-screen" cell phones, or yesterday's cell phone bricks?
Ah, I see. Mea culpa. Apparently I was being quite lazy with my language and I should certainly know better.
As for how I would claim monetization, I say this because of the risk of QE3. Nor is Bernanke the only one who favors a bit more easing (I cannot help but note the irony of the gas tank analogy in this article, given that gas is not counted in most inflation numbers). Certainly the Fed denies that it does not want to monetize debt in order to quell fears of inflation, but they are making a bad habit of using open market operations to solve political problems. As for interest rates, the first article above speaks of committing to several years of low interest rates (which, one might speculate means at the very least keeping them constant) or even lowering them.
Above all, I would point back to the political argument. To cut spending either on war or on entitlements is anathema. To raise taxes is verboten. Even to go into deeper debt is, increasingly, politically dangerous (though I expect that option in the near future). Our political class faces impossible choices not unlike those faced in Europe. Like Europe, the only politically safe option may well be to monetize the debt. The Fed will come to the rescue of the political class and, in return, we can expect the political class to be ready to stimulate the banking class yet again.
I'll certainly agree with your point (the first point, not the bit which seems to impugn the knowledge of a large and diverse group of people), and I thank you for it, but it is beside my point.
I apologise if I was unclear about this, but pointing to the GDP and the national debt was meant as an illustration of the enormity of the Fed's activities. It was not meant to speak of whether or not, to borrow your phrase, we lent more than we had. Nor could it have been. GDP is not the amount of money we have--i.e. it isn't the five dollars in our collective pocket. I am quite certain that the people have more in assets than the 14.7 trillion in goods and services produced in a year (after all, were there not more in assets than in the value of goods and services produced, then we'd have a hard time accounting for the capital used to produce).
My point is simply that the Fed acts on a scale that is quite capable of destroying our currency, that they will monetize the debt because neither major party will allow genuine spending cuts on entitlements or warfare (indeed they call these things "non-discretionary") but both will continue to argue over things like NPR, and that a wise man will do his best to ready himself for the coming inflation. As evidence of these claims, I submit to you the farce that is the debt ceiling debate. Boehner and McConnell have made it quite clear that they'll strike a deal, they just have to put on a show first. Ultimately the President will give in to some plan that "reduces the deficit" by calling for a reduction in projected increases (as Paul Ryan's joke of a plan did)--i.e. vaporware cuts. And they will do this because both the politician who doesn't save us from terrorists and tyrants by bombing Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and the politician who dares to suggest a hike in the eligibility age for certain entitlements will quickly become a failed politician. The only politically viable solution will be to allow the debt to be monetized, hide under inflation numbers that do not include basic items of consumption, and hope the storm passes.
The Fed and the Treasury keep swearing that they're not going to monetize the debt. But my goodness, this amount of money is greater than what we owe. For that matter, it's greater than our GDP. This is why we should all laugh when they say they won't be monetizing the debt, try to prepare for heavy inflation, and vote for someone who has a record of not being a mere R or D. The Fed supplied status quo, built on endless wars and unsustainable entitlement programs, will end because it will destroy our currency.
It's not the equipment, the sandpit, or the tether-ball. It's the other children. Now, if we could only remove the children then we'd have safe playgrounds.
Did that guy just call me old?
Exactly. I won't go so far as to say that this was intended all along--there has been too many blunders for such to be the case--but I will say they are now in the position to offer a compromise that any reasonable person should accept. Just like a swindler trying to sell a car or a politician trying to get more advantage from a bill, these guys, having bid high to begin with, can place the burden of compromise on their opposition. Now, those of us who have said all along, "but, I'm a little concerned due process is dying a x-ray induced, cancerous death here", are going to be treated as doctrinaire fanatics who are unwilling to give a little for the common good.
Google is working on that... feature. Google+ has a celebrity acquisition plan
Waiting for someone to take this as Linus Torvalds' recommendation of Google+...
Soon, they'll have badges for how many emails you send from Gmail, how many circles you have in Google+, how many searches you preform in a day, and, most importantly, how many adds you view in a day.
Under current jurisprudence, a right to travel is considered to exist. See Shapiro v. Thompson and Saenz v. Roe. Now, one might well say this doesn't mean a right to travel by plane. But, then, by what means does it guarantee this right? Train? Car? Pogo Stick? It seems reasonable to say that if I have the right to travel, then the state must have a compelling interest and reason to restrict a particular means of travel. It is on this point that we must discuss matters like due process, etc. It is not enough to say that we can arbitrarily restrict the activity of free citizens because the rules say so.
I see what you did there...
The Tetris film is great. The whole thing is a metaphor for twentieth century Russian history: The Complete History of the Soviet Union