Support NeoGAF

[Arksy]

Bringing the nazis into this conversation at all is just incredible, i don't think it's even worth discussing. The greens are also never going to be a legitimate option for government making the discussion even more worthless.

Agreed, I didn't bring the Nazi's into the conversation.

The fact of the matter is though, that the Greens have a higher primary vote than the ALP, which I think is a significant issue.

 

[roosters93]

I'm confused. How are The Greens even socialist?

Free trial membership, dingus.

Edit: Pour vous:

Merci.

 

[hidys]

Agreed, I didn't bring the Nazi's into the conversation.

The fact of the matter is though, that the Greens have a higher primary vote than the ALP, which I think is a significant issue.

Only in one state and only to the extent that it makes it harder for someone other than the LNP to form government.

NOT to the extent that it will somehow endanger Australia or ruin democracy some right wing conspiracy bullshit.

 

[Myansie]

Let me make this clear:

-The Greens aren't Hitler.

- I think Green's economic policies would be absolutely disastrous. I don't think we'd get gulags and death camps, but I think it would be half the country we are today if they formed government.

Everyone thinks I'm trying to equate the two, I'm not, and hence why I'm bowing out.

What's bizarre is you taking Hitler's word as Gospel. The guy's a fascist. Not a socialist. The socialist policies you're confusing are things like road building (Who in Aus is pro roads again?). Turns out the corporations and military wanted them. The Jews, not so much.

 

[Arksy]

Only in one state and only to the extent that it makes it harder for someone other than the LNP to form government.

NOT to the extent that it will somehow endanger Australia or ruin democracy some right wing conspiracy bullshit.

Greens aren't going to form a government, but if they're out-polling Labor, given how our voting system works we could easily find ourself with a few more Greens in the lower house, giving rise to a coalition, which I also think would be fairly bad.

What's bizarre is you taking Hitler's word as Gospel. The guy's a fascist. Not a socialist. The socialist policies you're confusing are things like road building (Who in Aus is pro roads again?). Turns out the corporations and military wanted them. The Jews, not so much.

As AdventureRacing said Hitler as it pertains to Australian politics is pointless and idiotic, I'd be happy to discuss Hitler's politics in another thread if you wish.

 

[lexi]

Greens aren't going to form a government, but if they're out-polling Labor, given how our voting system works we could easily find ourself with a few more Greens in the lower house, giving rise to a coalition, which I also think would be fairly bad.

I think it's great and only fair, if Abbott wants to bring on class warfare against the poor, why not have some Greens in the mix for a bit of class warfare against the rich.

 

[Arksy]

I think it's great and only fair, if Abbott wants to bring on class warfare against the poor, why not have some Greens in the mix for a bit of class warfare against the rich.

Those parts of the budget are bullshit. There I said it. - Regressive taxation is the fucking worst.

 

[Jintor]

Assume I'm a dingbat and don't know what regressive taxation is. Just like a flat 50% instead of a 18% on the first whatever, 24% on the next whatever, etc? (I'm just throwing out numbers, I don't remember the tax brackets)

 

[hidys]

I think it's great and only fair, if Abbott wants to bring on class warfare against the poor, why not have some Greens in the mix for a bit of class warfare against the rich.

I would be okay with more Greens in the House and Senate and indeed would prefer the ALP working more closely with the Greens. But Greens out polling Labor will likely mean the Greens receive less preferences from Labor than Labor does currently from the Greens. Most swing voters would not accept a Green government.

 

[Arksy]

Assume I'm a dingbat and don't know what regressive taxation is. Just like a flat 50% instead of a 18% on the first whatever, 24% on the next whatever, etc? (I'm just throwing out numbers, I don't remember the tax brackets)

Well a true regressive tax would be one where the tax rate decreases as amount taxed increases. So 70% of the first 50k earned, 20% of any income over 50k for example... A flat tax can not be a regressive tax but I was talking more about regressive in effect that it impacts the poor to a significantly higher degree.

Examples of bullshit highly 'regressive' taxes (which are technically flat) are sin taxes and in the budget, fees for vaccines and a potential increase in GST.

 

[bomma_man]

Flat taxes don't take into account the marginal value of money, which makes them defacto regressive.

Have you heard of Greg Barnes Arksy? He's a genuine small l liberal that writes a column for the Hobart Mercury every Monday. Might be worth checking out.

 

[Lafiel]

Hitler was a socialist. National socialist wasn't a coincidence. It was deliberate. A more nationalist version of socialism.

The nazi party are so socialist just like that time in history when they banned trade unions!

I consider myself the bastion of empathy and tolerance -- that said, fuck that bitch; reap what you sow.

Generally can't stand the Socialist Alternative. But that stunt was probably one of the better things they did, simply because no other group of people would do it. I mean from a ethical standpoint it's clearly wrong and harassment, but still.. considering only one person's rights was violated.. and that person actively attempts to contribute to the suffering of others, I have no sympathy.

 

[Yagharek]

There's clearly a difference between Marxism and Fascism, but there's no doubt in my mind, and the minds of many, that Hitler's Fascism grew out of Marxism.

I am a Socialist,' Hitler told Otto Strasser in 1930, 'and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow'.

Hiter was interested in real socialism as he professed. "der echte Sozialismus." - He talked about how there would be no recourse for capitalists, nor priests nor the Tsars.

(Taken from the book "Lost Literature of Socialism by George Watson).

Godwin all up in this place.

Hitler was extreme right wing. Stalin was extreme left wing. Fascists, Communists - at the extreme end it doesn't really matter though because the same shit happens.

Hitler was also a fan of the occult, he was religious (like Stalin) and a master of propaganda and co-opting the national zeitgeist and harnessing it into a destructive force, with an unhealthy dose of xenophobia and scapegoating thrown in to the mix.

That sounds remarkably unlike anything the Greens are even remotely aligned with.

 

[wonzo]

bob brown = anton drexler confirmed

 

[roosters93]

Yeah I like Greg Barns. At least to the extent of his views presented in one episode of the drum I watched featuring him.

Clive Palmer's university switch: from deregulation to zero fees within days

Asked about his negotiations with Mr Pyne, Mr Palmer said: “He almost convinced me on some things but now I realise what he was on about I don't agree with him.”

heh

 

[bomma_man]

Clive would be a hilarious autocrat

 

[bobnowhere]

Lol! Joe wrote that last question himself.

 

[Jintor]

Joe not looking his best tonight

 

[roosters93]

This is Joe looking his best

 

[Jintor]

he looks almost lovable in that pic. Like a daft uncle.

 

[bobnowhere]

Joe not looking his best tonight

I'm not sure, in some ways he did OK, I have respect for him admitting to the tax increases are actually tax increases and the "broken promises" involving the ABC/SBS though he did fall back on the Labor hid the real books BS. In other ways he was all just spin, Labor bad, Bad, BAAAAADDDDD!

I hope he finally relents a little and realises maybe without purpose that he has scared the crap out of the least of our society and they really need to get out there and talk to these people instead of "BUDGET EMERGENCY!!!" all the time.

 

[Jintor]

I don't know why you'd have respect for him basically admitting that he was lying, lol (which he didn't do either). I'd call it something closer to "Caving to Reality" or 'Realising that the evidence stacks against you"

 

[Elaugaufein]

My point is not that the Greens are Hitler, it's that the philosophical background is problematic. Socialists and Libertarians have the same goals in mind, a classless egalitarian utopia. The difference is that Libertarians want to achieve the absence of force by removing the perpetrators of force, and that Socialists want to achieve the lack of force through force. Which I believe has been disastrous. (Stolen from Roderick T Long)

The problem with this is that Libertarians (as the term is generally used*) only remove initial and external forces. Libertarian philosophy as the term is currently used is like a game where every players each get a dice to roll, and whoever rolls a 6 gets to permanently impose a -1 penalty on the player of their choice. The games begin fair, but the vagrancy of chance will inevitably result in someone gaining an advantage which will spin into ever greater advantage**. That's how we ended up with complex caste structures in the first place. You can't keep a fair game unless you have an outside force to enforce that. Heck even if you eliminated the -1 rule, a fair game is going to break down because as long as the majority of players do not cheat, then cheating is an advantage to those who do, so someone is inevitably going to cheat, which again requires a control. Evolutionary pressure essentially guarantees that you can't have a society without force of some kind, the best you can do is try and restrain it, as much as possibly while allowing it to serve its purpose. The problem is that any group that is supposed to restrain such things is composed of people and so the macro-scale problem repeats.

Or you somehow cause the players to have perfect knowledge of the behavior of all other players and value a long term outlook over short term advantage but if we're presupposing that, then we can make pretty much any system work. because we're pretty close to omnipotent.


*Which does not seem to be how you use it when referring to yourself.

**Actually Libertarian philosophy as sometimes encountered on the internet (anarcho-capitalism? is that the right term?) is worse than that, as it wants to remove a theoretically impartial force (Government) and allow free reign to forces that are well established (Wealth) in the belief that someday it will be their heel on someone else's throat. Which means that the game doesn't even start fair. But this is less a property of libertarianism and more a property of the ability of people to warp any system of beliefs to their own ends.

 

[Arksy]

The problem with this is that Libertarians (as the term is generally used*) only remove initial and external forces. Libertarian philosophy as the term is currently used is like a game where every players each get a dice to roll, and whoever rolls a 6 gets to permanently impose a -1 penalty on the player of their choice. The games begin fair, but the vagrancy of chance will inevitably result in someone gaining an advantage which will spin into ever greater advantage**. That's how we ended up with complex caste structures in the first place. You can't keep a fair game unless you have an outside force to enforce that. Heck even if you eliminated the -1 rule, a fair game is going to break down because as long as the majority of players do not cheat, then cheating is an advantage to those who do, so someone is inevitably going to cheat, which again requires a control. Evolutionary pressure essentially guarantees that you can't have a society without force of some kind, the best you can do is try and restrain it, as much as possibly while allowing it to serve its purpose. The problem is that any group that is supposed to restrain such things is composed of people and so the macro-scale problem repeats.

Or you somehow cause the players to have perfect knowledge of the behavior of all other players and value a long term outlook over short term advantage but if we're presupposing that, then we can make pretty much any system work. because we're pretty close to omnipotent.


*Which does not seem to be how you use it when referring to yourself.

**Actually Libertarian philosophy as sometimes encountered on the internet (anarcho-capitalism? is that the right term?) is worse than that, as it wants to remove a theoretically impartial force (Government) and allow free reign to forces that are well established (Wealth) in the belief that someday it will be their heel on someone else's throat. Which means that the game doesn't even start fair. But this is less a property of libertarianism and more a property of the ability of people to warp any system of beliefs to their own ends.

Well said. I'm a pretty rubbish libertarian.


Edit: Also on Hockey, I think he helped more than he hurt on Q&A. On the balance, I think some peoples fears might have been allayed while I don't think many people who liked the budget before are not going to like it now. So I think it was a positive step for him....

Edit 2: Anthony Green showing us why he is the boss yet again. He's right, there isn't going to be a DD because of the way the government splits everything up.

Edit 3: A potentially annoying property of the Australian public is that they seem to completely forget about the things government attempt to do and fail to do. Kind of like how the electorate forgot that Conroy tried to impose a filter or that Roxon tried to censor the media (countless other examples exist, I just pulled the ones that I remember the best). If the most contentious budget measures get stopped I would be interested to see how the polls play out.

 

[Jintor]

There's a few talking points i see being tossed around a lot - "Somebody's got to pay for it", "Labor spends, Liberals save" and the like. If the worst bits of the budget get cut out in transit through the Senate and the majority of Aussies don't feel the pain too early then I fear this little song and dance will be dust in the wind by the next election when the Coalition can afford to pile on the voter bribe incentives.

Unless the economy tanks before then, of course.

 

[Arksy]

There's a few talking points i see being tossed around a lot - "Somebody's got to pay for it", "Labor spends, Liberals save" and the like. If the worst bits of the budget get cut out in transit through the Senate and the majority of Aussies don't feel the pain too early then I fear this little song and dance will be dust in the wind by the next election when the Coalition can afford to pile on the voter bribe incentives.

Unless the economy tanks before then, of course.

I can't remember who did it, but there's a great report that strongly links changing governments to economic downturns. It also said that Australia is that we're bizarre because we often change governments irrespective of the performance of the economy.

That said. If the economy tanks, we're changing government next election. No ifs or buts about it.

 

[hidys]

I can't remember who did it, but there's a great report that strongly links changing governments to economic downturns. What's so bizarre about Australia is that we often change governments despite the economy being strong.

If the economy tanks, we're changing government next election. No ifs or buts about it.

There was an article in crikey suggesting that is a possibility.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/05/19...ld-wipe-out-the-australian-economy-this-year/

 

[bomma_man]

think this article is salient to our housing situation

What’s so special about the places that attract all this foreign money? The economists Joseph Gyourko, Christopher Mayer, and Todd Sinai have developed a theory about what they call “superstar cities.” Looking at data from 1950 to 2000, they found a small number of cities where housing prices rose steeply, and concluded that high earners tended to cluster together over time, with the result that rich cities tend to get richer.

Vancouver isn’t an obvious superstar. It’s not home to a major industry—as New York and London are to finance, or San Francisco to tech—and it doesn’t have the cultural cachet of Paris or Milan. Instead, Vancouver’s appeal consists of comfort and security, making it what Andy Yan calls a “hedge city.” “What hedge cities offer is social and political stability, and, in the case of Vancouver, it also offers long-term protection against climate change,” he said. “There are now rich people around the world who are looking for places where they can park some of their cash and feel safe about it.” A recent paper by two Oxford economists bears this out, showing a tight correlation between London house prices and turmoil in southern and Eastern Europe. The real-estate boom in Miami has been magnified by political unrest in Venezuela. And Vancouver, which has a large Chinese population, easy access to the Pacific Rim, and nice weather, has become a magnet for Chinese investors looking for insurance against uncertainty. A Conference Board of Canada report found that Vancouver’s real-estate market is tightly connected to what happens in the Chinese economy.

The globalization of real estate upends some of our basic assumptions about housing prices. We expect them to reflect local fundamentals—above all, how much people earn. In a truly global market, that may not be the case. If there are enough rich people in China who want property in Vancouver, prices can float out of reach of the people who actually live and work there. So just because prices look out of whack doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a bubble. Instead, wealthy foreigners are rationally overpaying, in order to protect themselves against risk at home. And the possibility of losing a little money if prices subside won’t deter them. Yan says, “If the choice is between losing ten to twenty per cent in Vancouver versus potentially losing a hundred per cent in Beijing or Tehran, then people are still going to be buying in Vancouver.”

 

[DrSlek]

I was waiting for this guy to make a video on the budget.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3bG1LLcUpY

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Sorry for the late response. I'm not entirely sure I either understand or buy the idea that the government having control of the printing press means that debt doesn't matter. I mean I do agree that the government can take measures that can reduce the impact of debt, but those measures have consequences which could be beneficial in one area and deleterious in another. The U.S. situation basically requires interest rates to stay zero or they'll be overwhelmed by interest repayments. This has repercussions for things like foreign investment, it disincentives thrift, etc. I mean they could print money as they've done (I don't think I'll ever understand the difference between that and QE) but that again devalues the currency.

I'm not an economist, and there's a good chance I'm wrong about everything I've just said, but I've not seen anything that I've found convincing saying that the debt position is irrelevant. I mean if we accept that it is relevant, than Australia's position is *STILL* not that bad....but I just don't see the flipside.

In fairness, my last post was a little pedantic (quick warning, this one will be too). I'm a bit more on board with this post of yours compared to your previous one because you're actually talking about potential real economic consequences of government debt (which I'll get to in a bit), but your language is still bound to some frame of reference where surplus always equals good and deficit always equals bad. Is a little bit of something necessarily bad (whether it's "not that bad" or "could be better") just because a lot of it can be, even if that little bit is just what the doctor ordered (sometimes literally)?

In your previous post you said the government's financial position could be better. If you're willing to get a little abstract, it can be argued that the word financial (which has a lot of baggage when compared to fiscal) doesn't really apply to the (consolidated) government sector. Last year we had a situation where the RBA, which creates money out of nothing as a matter of routine, sold nine billion dollars worth of bonds because the rules say it had to in order for the government to give it nine billion dollars which served no real operational purpose but made sure that uninformed people didn't get the idea that the RBA could somehow go broke. That's not finance, it's some bizarre meta-game. It's a software work-around because you can't find the source code. It's like a group of people went to great effort to chain up a glacier and stop it advancing during winter, but come the summer only a handful of them are willing to acknowledge that the damn thing melted and turned into a river.

Ok, enough ranting. I'm just going to go over your points in broad strokes it that's ok. First thing is that it's not just having the keys to the printing press that has implications, it's also being the only one who issues bonds in your currency (though the two obviously go hand in hand). There's a reason all these "sovereign" debt crises are coming from Europe whilst the US just keeps plugging on (voluntary shutdowns notwithstanding) and Japan keeps doing whatever it is it's doing. So there's (theoretically) no risk of default, no competition (unless you go to high quality corporate debt), plus the government can also buy it's own debt; obviously this has significant impact on the behaviour of the bond market.

As far as your interest rates scenario goes, I'm not sure I agree that the government will be "overwhelmed" by repayments because, once again, no risk of default = consistent demand for bonds = no risk of default. You're right that there are downsides to a ZIRP (upsides as well, but let's not get into that), but if we have a scenario where government debt levels are high enough to make them the priority of central bank's monetary policy (e.g. maintaining 0% for fear of a repayment crisis), there is modelling which shows that raising the interest rate stimulates the economy, because it basically forces the government to take an expansionary fiscal stance strong enough to counteract whatever drag there is from increased private debt repayments. Stimulated economy = increased revenue/decreased expenditure = declining public debt.

As you said, all these things have consequences, good in some ways, bad in others. The important thing is to focus on those. Imagine a theoretical Australia where the economy is going gangbusters, with full employment, low inequality stable private debt but rising inflation, where the budget is brought into surplus by the automatic stabilisers. In that scenario, people like me shouldn't be criticising the budget just because a large enough surplus destroys private savings and drags on demand or because of any pointless esoteric shit about the government not needing to finance spending in its own currency, because the real consequences are suitable for the macro environment.

Anyway, I think you overlooked the worst consequence of rising government debt: it gets the Liberals elected and gives them an excuse to start butchering our society and economy with austerity

On QE, as I understand it it's more of an asset swap; "new" money is created and used to buy debt (government and sometimes high quality private) from the private sector. Depending on the situation, it can have limited impact because the money is really only one step above what it bought in terms of liquidity, but if private sector finance is FUBAR it obviously has a stabilising effect. It also increases the price of the assets purchased/lowers the yield, but if we look at the situation in the US it seems like it's all a bit of a wash in terms of stimulus, probably because if the private sector was going to spend the money on productive investment it wouldn't have bought the financial assets in the first place. So yeah, you probably already knew all this, it's printing money with a "but".

 

[hidys]

Turns out Joe Hockey was lying to the disabled bloke on Q&A last night.

Good work Joe!

 

[Jintor]

Hockey's suing fairfax over the "For Sale" cover. Clearly they should've just suggested it was a co-payment.

 

[lexi]

Hockey's suing fairfax over the "For Sale" cover. Clearly they should've just suggested it was a co-payment.

Where's the front page photoshops as Hockey as Sgt. Schulz, etc?

 

[hidys]

Hockey's suing fairfax over the "For Sale" cover. Clearly they should've just suggested it was a co-payment.

If he loses the case he will forever be branded as the "for sale" treasurer.

 

[Myansie]

Nice way of bringing attention to the problem of lobbying. Thanks Joe, you can't win that battle.

 

[Yagharek]

Just saw a beautiful interview with democrats senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts on the Newshour on SBS talking about her book 'A Fighting Chance'.

Perfect examples of how the banks, lobbyists and 1%get all the perks at the expense of everyone else.

She is a damn good speaker, I'll try find a link to the interview because I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

 

[hidys]

Just saw a beautiful interview with democrats senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts on the Newshour on SBS talking about her book 'A Fighting Chance'.

Perfect examples of how the banks, lobbyists and 1%get all the perks at the expense of everyone else.

She is a damn good speaker, I'll try find a link to the interview because I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

Elizabeth Warren is bar none the most talented senator in the US Senate.

 

[Dead Man]

Elizabeth Warren is bar none the most talented senator in the US Senate.

Bernie Sanders gives her a run for the title, but yeah, she is pretty amazing.

 

[Jintor]

The Australian

lolwut

this is... this is amazing.

 

[lexi]

The Australian

lolwut

this is... this is amazing.

um, what the fuck? Abbott is the underdog hero standing up to ABC oppression?

 

[Aarglefarg]

Well that's a thing to be embarrassed about.

 

[hidys]

Bernie Sanders gives her a run for the title, but yeah, she is pretty amazing.

Actually yes you are correct. I probably should have said best Democrat.

The Australian

lolwut

this is... this is amazing.

I'm speechless. I have no speech.

EDIT: Actually yes I do. The Australian was once a half decent newspaper, while center-right it still had some grounding in reality. It started going to shit after Paul Kelly stopped being the main editor and now it is the dysfunctional right wing blog that it is today. It is only printed on broadsheet for historical reasons.

 

[Box of Bunnies]

http://i.imgur.com/0qwVGi5l.jpg[IMG]

The Australian

lolwut[/QUOTE]

Oh man, this is magical

 

[Yagharek]

Elizabeth Warren is bar none the most talented senator in the US Senate.

I'd never heard of her before today, but she makes a flawless first impression. Absolutely vital that she is heard.

Also, lol at the Australian. Wouldn't even wipe my arse with that propaganda rag.

 

[Dryk]

Holy crap that cartoon is real

 

[Arksy]

In fairness, my last post was a little pedantic (quick warning, this one will be too). I'm a bit more on board with this post of yours compared to your previous one because you're actually talking about potential real economic consequences of government debt (which I'll get to in a bit), but your language is still bound to some frame of reference where surplus always equals good and deficit always equals bad. Is a little bit of something necessarily bad (whether it's "not that bad" or "could be better") just because a lot of it can be, even if that little bit is just what the doctor ordered (sometimes literally)?

In your previous post you said the government's financial position could be better. If you're willing to get a little abstract, it can be argued that the word financial (which has a lot of baggage when compared to fiscal) doesn't really apply to the (consolidated) government sector. Last year we had a situation where the RBA, which creates money out of nothing as a matter of routine, sold nine billion dollars worth of bonds because the rules say it had to in order for the government to give it nine billion dollars which served no real operational purpose but made sure that uninformed people didn't get the idea that the RBA could somehow go broke. That's not finance, it's some bizarre meta-game. It's a software work-around because you can't find the source code. It's like a group of people went to great effort to chain up a glacier and stop it advancing during winter, but come the summer only a handful of them are willing to acknowledge that the damn thing melted and turned into a river.

Ok, enough ranting. I'm just going to go over your points in broad strokes it that's ok. First thing is that it's not just having the keys to the printing press that has implications, it's also being the only one who issues bonds in your currency (though the two obviously go hand in hand). There's a reason all these "sovereign" debt crises are coming from Europe whilst the US just keeps plugging on (voluntary shutdowns notwithstanding) and Japan keeps doing whatever it is it's doing. So there's (theoretically) no risk of default, no competition (unless you go to high quality corporate debt), plus the government can also buy it's own debt; obviously this has significant impact on the behaviour of the bond market.

As far as your interest rates scenario goes, I'm not sure I agree that the government will be "overwhelmed" by repayments because, once again, no risk of default = consistent demand for bonds = no risk of default. You're right that there are downsides to a ZIRP (upsides as well, but let's not get into that), but if we have a scenario where government debt levels are high enough to make them the priority of central bank's monetary policy (e.g. maintaining 0% for fear of a repayment crisis), there is modelling which shows that raising the interest rate stimulates the economy, because it basically forces the government to take an expansionary fiscal stance strong enough to counteract whatever drag there is from increased private debt repayments. Stimulated economy = increased revenue/decreased expenditure = declining public debt.

As you said, all these things have consequences, good in some ways, bad in others. The important thing is to focus on those. Imagine a theoretical Australia where the economy is going gangbusters, with full employment, low inequality stable private debt but rising inflation, where the budget is brought into surplus by the automatic stabilisers. In that scenario, people like me shouldn't be criticising the budget just because a large enough surplus destroys private savings and drags on demand or because of any pointless esoteric shit about the government not needing to finance spending in its own currency, because the real consequences are suitable for the macro environment.

Anyway, I think you overlooked the worst consequence of rising government debt: it gets the Liberals elected and gives them an excuse to start butchering our society and economy with austerity

On QE, as I understand it it's more of an asset swap; "new" money is created and used to buy debt (government and sometimes high quality private) from the private sector. Depending on the situation, it can have limited impact because the money is really only one step above what it bought in terms of liquidity, but if private sector finance is FUBAR it obviously has a stabilising effect. It also increases the price of the assets purchased/lowers the yield, but if we look at the situation in the US it seems like it's all a bit of a wash in terms of stimulus, probably because if the private sector was going to spend the money on productive investment it wouldn't have bought the financial assets in the first place. So yeah, you probably already knew all this, it's printing money with a "but".

Haha, thanks for clearing that up. I don't really know what to make of it all. I agree 100% that this seems like some bizarre economic meta-game that to me seems like someone will get wrong at some point and lead to some sort of catastrophe.

 

[Shaneus]

Holy crap that cartoon is real

whaaaaaaat

 

[Jintor]

 

[wonzo]

lol

 

[Danoss]

This is not directly related to politics, but I had it linked by a Dane (no, not me) in one of my circles who says his country has a record low amount of trust in their politicians. This 12 minute video may shed some light on why we mistrust our own.

Simon Sinek - Why Good Leaders Make Us Feel Safe.