I don't live in another country. I live in the United States of America, where torture is not legal, for good reason. If you want to torture people, go back to Saudi.
I don't think you've been in this forum often enough to understand my comment to svpernaut: As it is, it's funny how people like to bring this up now, as if the US should hold itself to higher standards than a third world dictator. Hilarious how some people like to lamblast other nations for abuses, yet refuse to acknowledge the same abuses being perpetrated by this administration. Very funny, I guess.
I am still waiting to be "flamed." Would you like to attempt it since your brother seems to have slunk away or would you prefer to just admit that my analysis was 100% accurate?
Andy, I don't have time to lecture and educate you on macro economics 101. Please do some research and make more educated posts in the future. You analysis was way off, and showed that your belief that anything good happening in this country is not acceptable by you.
Actually, the class you are looking for is Money and Banking and in it, I learned that things work exactly as I described. I am sorry that your apparently elementary education in this area leaves you unable to counter my 100% accurate and factual assertions, but those assertions stand. Try again, rookie.
I was hoping that I wouldn't have to completely waste my time by educating people like andymoon, but he seems to be acting up more than usual today... You say that, ?? My goodness. Moon, do you even pay any attention at all to interest rates? Any at ALL? The Fed has been increasing the discount rate lately. That is called contractionary monetary policy. That is the opposite of what you just described (the open market purchases of govt bonds = expansionary monetary policy...). It's official, you've been PWNT. Badly.
Apparently, the reading comprehension classes at Rice just suck all around considering both you and your brother seem to have the same lack of ability when it comes to understanding written English. The paragraph you quoted talked about bonds and how the Fed has been buying the ones that have been financing the deficit. In addition, since they have been reluctant to sell these bonds to the public, it has had the net effect of printing money. And, of course, the Fed has been selling VERY small numbers of bonds to achieve the 25 basis point moves that they have been making lately. These sales have been FAR outpaced by the bonds sold by the Treasury to the Fed, so every single dollar worth of bonds over and above what the Fed sells to the public or to the banking system is exactly like an additional dollar simply printed by the mint and put into circulation. This was my original point and neither you nor your brother addressed it. I guess it is tough to counter facts, huh? You might consider reading my post again or I could hook you up with the remedial reading instructor at the college where I work if my post was incomprehensible to you. In case you can't remember, the relevant portion of my original post was... And, though the Fed has sold enough bonds to raise the Fed Funds Rate by a bit each time they have met recently, they have not even come CLOSE to selling the same amount that they have bought from the Treasury. As such, my original point stands, that point being that in effect, the government has simply been printing money to cover the deficit. Sure. Try again, rook.
LOL....you just don't get it moon. I don't care what you learned in your Junior College money and banking class. Your entire premise falls to pieces due to one piece of evidence that you conveniently left out: interest rates have been rising. There is a net contractionary policy going on right now, and that is obvious to all. You have pieces of data mixed up all over the place and have a fundamental ignorance of the interrelationships between bond sales, interest rates, inflation and just about any other economic piece of data. I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove here (probably a doomsday economic scenario to justify your support of the loser in the last POTUS election), but you're failing by trying to talk economics with the big boys. Sorry, brah, another complete PWNERSHIP has been dealt to you.
So you just don't understand my point or you are choosing to ignore it. Typical for you and your brother.
Your white flag of surrender is accepted by me. Your lesson learned shall be not to write checks that your azz can't cash. Have a nice day.
It wasn't a white flag and you know it. Your inability to address my point clearly shows why you and your brother continue to flee at any mention of a judged, organized debate with me. In a debate based on facts and available data, you will continue to lose to me over and over again. Rookie.
Probably because Paul Krugman obtained a Ph.D. in Economics from MIT in 1977 and taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford University before joining the faculty of Princeton University, where he has been since 2000 while the Miopia Brothers... well, didn't and thus have no answer for the likes of Paul Krugman.
To my knowledge, they both went to Rice, though I would be VERY surprised if either of them achieved any higher than a Bachelor's degree.
And, as evidenced in this thread, when they are provided with facts and data they try to change the subject, ignore the point being made, or simply run away.
^^^^ Anyone else laughing uncontrollably at the economic ignoramuses desperately seeking attention? Seven posts in a row. These libs need some company in their lonely sandbox.
I don't normally like to get into the middle of other people's debates, but this is the second most preposterous thing I've read in the D&D this week, behind T_J's rant that OBL still on the loose is all Clinton's fault. To which you replied: I desperately wanted to keep an open mind and try not to fall into the stereotype that the right and the left have long stopped listening to each other's points. But there's no reasonable debate to be had here. If GWB is your uncle, speak up now and I might consider keep reading you (because at least I can then ascribe a rational motive to your rants and raves). Otherwise, I'm through with suffering a mini episode of rage-induced aneurysm every other time I read something by you.
