Bad form Fed

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why should the Fed taper off when inflation is still hovering at historical lows of 1%-2% and unemployment is still high? Certainly nobody cried about inflation like this in the 90's when it inflation was higher and unemployment low.

because bond buying is not going to lead to new jobs. It creates bubbles, in the bond market (already there), in the stock market (already over inflated), in the real estate market (already over inflated).

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Employment and GDP. Things that actually matter, unlike corporate profits.

Except that it is not. How does buying a bond help employment? GDP?

 

[Bonestorm]

because bond buying is not going to lead to new jobs. It creates bubbles, in the bond market (already there), in the stock market (already over inflated), in the real estate market (already over inflated).

I've alredy shown that there is no stock market bubble, so I guess I'll focus on the non-exixtence of a real estate bubble. Here's the Case Shiller Index for the past 10 years. You can see the aughts bubble quite clearly. Current conditions hardly qualify:

And if you go back further (Case Shiller only goes back to 2000 on FRED), you can see that we are at or below the pre-bubble price trend for residential real estate:

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The idea that more liquidity necessarily means bubble creation is just Austrian stupidity.

You are right, it is Austrian stupidity. If only there were examples of more liquidity meaning bubble creation. Has it ever happened before? Hmmmm. Let me think. Where have we seen this before?

Oh yeah, how about the Tech bubble? Then when that burst Greenspan kept a pumpin and the money flowed into housing. Then that bubble burst. Now BernanQE is pumping some more. Right, you folks always say there aren't bubbles until the bubbles actually burst, then you say "WTF?"

Let's do this. Why don't you point me to all of the times in world history that a country debasing its currency has worked out well for its citizens and not the bankstas?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I've alredy shown that there is no stock market bubble, so I guess I'll focus on the non-exixtence of a real estate bubble. Here's the Case Shiller Index for the past 10 years. You can see the aughts bubble quite clearly. Current conditions hardly qualify:

And if you go back further (Case Shiller only goes back to 2000 on FRED), you can see that we are at or below the pre-bubble price trend for residential real estate:

Is playing Baghdad Bob for the regime a requirement for membership in your sleeper cell?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The actual commentary from the Fed went something like this:

.... DERP DERP

Finally....they listened to you!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

By introducing liquidity into the market and raising inflation expectations.

The market already has liquidity. We don't need more inflation.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I've alredy shown that there is no stock market bubble, so I guess I'll focus on the non-exixtence of a real estate bubble. Here's the Case Shiller Index for the past 10 years. You can see the aughts bubble quite clearly. Current conditions hardly qualify:

And if you go back further (Case Shiller only goes back to 2000 on FRED), you can see that we are at or below the pre-bubble price trend for residential real estate:

So your argument is that everything is fine and there are no bubbles, but yet we somehow still need to keep buying bonds because if we don't the bubbles will burst? Great logic.

 

[Bonestorm]

So your argument is that everything is fine and there are no bubbles, but yet we somehow still need to keep buying bonds because if we don't the bubbles will burst? Great logic.

LOL. And you acccuse me of creating strawmen.

My view is that everything is not fine (particulary employment and GDP growth ) so the FED should continue what it is doing to prop up a fragile economy and that the arguments against the FED doing what it is doing are wholly unsupported by ecnomic data (no stock market bubble, no housing bubble and inflation below target).

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

LOL. And you acccuse me of creating strawmen.

My view is that everything is not fine (particulary employment and GDP growth ) so the FED should continue what it is doing to prop up a fragile economy and that the arguments against the FED doing what it is doing are wholly unsupported by ecnomic data (no stock market bubble, no housing bubble and inflation below target).

yet you cannot explain how buying bonds is going to help employment and GDP growth.

How is the economy 'fragile' if the stock market and bond market are near all time highs and the real estate market has rebounded?

Surely all those companies that are doing well have enough money to invest and create more jobs? Why aren't they? Why would the fed buying bonds change their mind now when it hasn't thus far?

What economic data are you looking at that supports the Fed buying more bonds so that it will help GDP and employment? Where is the correlation?

 

[Bonestorm]

yet you cannot explain how buying bonds is going to help employment and GDP growth.

How is the economy 'fragile' if the stock market and bond market are near all time highs and the real estate market has rebounded?

Surely all those companies that are doing well have enough money to invest and create more jobs? Why aren't they? Why would the fed buying bonds change their mind now when it hasn't thus far?

What economic data are you looking at that supports the Fed buying more bonds so that it will help GDP and employment? Where is the correlation?

Your questions have been answered already by Watermark (I think that's him) or me. You just keep repeating yourself over and over and over again. It gets a little tiresome, SF.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Your questions have been answered already by Watermark (I think that's him) or me. You just keep repeating yourself over and over and over again. It gets a little tiresome, SF.

Right, every time your failed liberal policies are thrown in your face, you proclaim "Well, yeah, but it would have been much worse if we hadn't done it" which is something you can't ever prove. Complete bullshit.


You or Watermark haven't answered my question which is when has a country debased its currency and it worked out for the citizens. Because make no mistake, we are debasing our currency. We are screwing savers which you apparently don't care about. Why do you hate old people?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Your questions have been answered already by Watermark (I think that's him) or me. You just keep repeating yourself over and over and over again. It gets a little tiresome, SF.

No they have not been answered. If you think otherwise, there are only 100 or so posts... point out where you think anyone has addressed how bond buying is going to help when it hasn't already.

You say things will get worse if we stop... yet you also say there are no bubbles being created by the bond buying. You also state that corporate profits are good. So what is it we are propping up? If corporations are doing well, then why do they need the Fed to buy bonds?

Funny how you avoid answering those.

 

[Bonestorm]

No they have not been answered. If you think otherwise, there are only 100 or so posts... point out where you think anyone has addressed how bond buying is going to help when it hasn't already.

You say things will get worse if we stop... yet you also say there are no bubbles being created by the bond buying. You also state that corporate profits are good. So what is it we are propping up? If corporations are doing well, then why do they need the Fed to buy bonds?

Funny how you avoid answering those.

See posts 73, 75, 77, 78, 80 and 89.


I hope this helps.

 

[The Dude]

I'm fine with no tapper!
I'm fine with non investors being even more butthurt about it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Because other economic indicators are in the shitter, namely, employment. Also, GDP is not growing fast enough.

So, no... you did not answer here.

You're assuming your conclusions, SF. You're assuming that, because job growth and GDP are anemic, then QE must not be doing anything at all to help wihtout considering the possibility that job growth and GDP would be worse in its absence.

QE is admittedly a less than ideal policy, but there isn't much more the FED is willing and able to do with respect to monetary policy to help. And where there is no real downside to QE (i.e., there is no stock market bubble and inflation is still below target), there's no reason to stop it when employment and GDP are still lagging.

No, you did not answer here.

Why should the Fed taper off when inflation is still hovering at historical lows of 1%-2% and unemployment is still high? Certainly nobody cried about inflation like this in the 90's when it inflation was higher and unemployment low.

No, water did not answer here.

By introducing liquidity into the market and raising inflation expectations.

Nope, no answer.

Employment and GDP. Things that actually matter, unlike corporate profits.

Nope... not an answer

LOL. And you acccuse me of creating strawmen.

My view is that everything is not fine (particulary employment and GDP growth ) so the FED should continue what it is doing to prop up a fragile economy and that the arguments against the FED doing what it is doing are wholly unsupported by ecnomic data (no stock market bubble, no housing bubble and inflation below target).

Nope.

See posts 73, 75, 77, 78, 80 and 89.


I hope this helps.

No, that is the same nonsense I was referring to. You don't state HOW it is going to help. Water says by introducing liquidity... yet liquidity in the bond market does not help job growth or GDP.

Most of your comments were 'gdp and employment shitty, so we must continue'... yet you do not ever explain what you think will be accomplished on either of those fronts by more bond buying.

So again I ask you... HOW will more bond buying help GDP growth accelerate? How will it encourage more companies to hire?

Do try to actually ANSWER those questions.

 

[The Dude]

Ps when everything is fine, then you worry

 

[Bonestorm]

Answers that you don't like are still answers, SF.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Answers that you don't like are still answers, SF.

Hilarious... no Dung, they are not. I asked a specific question to which you have not responded.

But from now on I will use your standard. You ask a question, I will put something down that doesn't address your question and then I will stomp my feet and pretend I already answered your question.

That standard should do wonders for the discussions here. Great idea.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That said,

I do accept your surrender on the topic.