Dollar to be Devalued 33% page 1
Jerome
9th February 2012, 05:51 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/06/the-federal-reserves-explicit-goal-devalue-the-dollar-33/
The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33%
Interesting times.
The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33%
Interesting times.
Adenosine
9th February 2012, 09:36 AM
No kidding. Hey, you guys should get a manufacturing sector. That'd help.
PermanentlyEphemeral
9th February 2012, 11:56 AM
Back in the day when inflation was high, the Governor of the Bank of Canada wanted the goal to be zero inflation.
I didn't think that was a good goal. You need some inflation so price ratios can change over time.
The next Governor set policy as 2-3% inflation. Too bad Forbes pulled a JDG with the American story.
I didn't think that was a good goal. You need some inflation so price ratios can change over time.
The next Governor set policy as 2-3% inflation. Too bad Forbes pulled a JDG with the American story.
Jerome
9th February 2012, 02:11 PM
Inflation is a tax on workers past labors saved.
ksen
9th February 2012, 03:20 PM
Inflation is a tax on workers past labors saved.
Inflation is good for people in debt.
Inflation is good for people in debt.
Jerome
9th February 2012, 03:26 PM
Inflation is a tax on workers past labors saved.
Inflation is good for people in debt.
Yes it is, interesting that government has been running tax deferred saving schemes to trick the worker into saving his labor.
Inflation is good for people in debt.
Yes it is, interesting that government has been running tax deferred saving schemes to trick the worker into saving his labor.
FedUpWithFaith
10th February 2012, 01:01 AM
Can somebody find the FOMC statement that really says this? I checked the FOMC statements here (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120125a.htm) and there is no mention of the 33% devaluation.
Forbes is SHIT when it comes to any accuracy in economic reporting. And the asshole who wrote this article is a Gold Standard nutcase. His analysis betrays a complete ignorance of how money or the economy really works.
The dollar has devalued almost 95% since 1900. Yet our standard of living and productivity has gone up far, far more (depending on source, a minimum of 147%). Moreover, the FOMC can't control how other nations respond and Bernanke is unlikely to be around 20 years from now. The FOMC has NEVER implemented policy this far in advance. This entire article smells like bullshit and even if the base claim is true, it's nothing to worry about.
If you want to understand how money really works look here:
http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system (http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system)
Forbes is SHIT when it comes to any accuracy in economic reporting. And the asshole who wrote this article is a Gold Standard nutcase. His analysis betrays a complete ignorance of how money or the economy really works.
The dollar has devalued almost 95% since 1900. Yet our standard of living and productivity has gone up far, far more (depending on source, a minimum of 147%). Moreover, the FOMC can't control how other nations respond and Bernanke is unlikely to be around 20 years from now. The FOMC has NEVER implemented policy this far in advance. This entire article smells like bullshit and even if the base claim is true, it's nothing to worry about.
If you want to understand how money really works look here:
http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system (http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system)
Jerome
10th February 2012, 01:07 AM
if that shit and chemicals they put in packaged bologna and cheese was bad for you how comes people are living longer?
FedUpWithFaith
10th February 2012, 01:18 AM
yeah, yeah , yeah. If the FOMC said they were going to make a major devalution over the next 2 years, the adjustment would be difficult. A 20 year 33% devaluation, even if true, will be easy to adapt to. Markets will accomodate.
The real things to be concerned about are productivity, aggregate demand, and the distribution of capital and wealth. Money is just score keeping.
The real things to be concerned about are productivity, aggregate demand, and the distribution of capital and wealth. Money is just score keeping.
Jerome
10th February 2012, 01:20 AM
the adjustment has already been made, you can not argue that those bailouts and buy backs and stimuli did have a corresponding increase of real wealth
FedUpWithFaith
10th February 2012, 02:20 AM
the adjustment has already been made, you can not argue that those bailouts and buy backs and stimuli did have a corresponding increase of real wealth
I suppose that's relative. The bailouts, as incompetently as they were developed still saved us from financial collapse where even more wealth would have been destroyed..
The stumulus also slowed the depression we're still in but was insufficiently large to bring aggregate demand back up much.
As MMT predicted, all the trillions in quantitiative easements had no effect other than to temporarily prop some types of asset prices (stocks and commodities).
Real wealth itself is misleading. WHat if the "real wealth" in terms of all US assets were doubled (we'll double all the cars and houses) but only owned by 5 guys? Wealth distribution matters on several levels.
I suppose that's relative. The bailouts, as incompetently as they were developed still saved us from financial collapse where even more wealth would have been destroyed..
The stumulus also slowed the depression we're still in but was insufficiently large to bring aggregate demand back up much.
As MMT predicted, all the trillions in quantitiative easements had no effect other than to temporarily prop some types of asset prices (stocks and commodities).
Real wealth itself is misleading. WHat if the "real wealth" in terms of all US assets were doubled (we'll double all the cars and houses) but only owned by 5 guys? Wealth distribution matters on several levels.
Jerome
10th February 2012, 02:27 AM
financial collapse where even more wealth would have been destroyed..
No, currency would have been destroyed, an egg will always be worth an egg, here is tangible true wealth.
No, currency would have been destroyed, an egg will always be worth an egg, here is tangible true wealth.
FedUpWithFaith
10th February 2012, 02:45 AM
financial collapse where even more wealth would have been destroyed..
No, currency would have been destroyed, an egg will always be worth an egg, here is tangible true wealth.
True wealth was destroyed and it would have been worse. Wealth stems from productivity and right now 16 million citizen's productivity is underutilized.
You are right that money does not equal weath but when credit contracts in a balance sheet recession (really a depression) that also depresses investment and return. Our wealth is related to our capital's ability to return which is now constrained.
Finally, wealth and money relate distributional effects. Eggs haven't changed much in price while houses have. Those who wealth was locked up in their houses are now poorer. Those with major egg investments are about the same. That loss of wealth is tangible for them. If inflation or deflation affect everything roughly equally, then your assertion is strictly correct. But that isn't the case.
The depression destroyed both real and phony wealth just as it did following the 1929 crash.
No, currency would have been destroyed, an egg will always be worth an egg, here is tangible true wealth.
True wealth was destroyed and it would have been worse. Wealth stems from productivity and right now 16 million citizen's productivity is underutilized.
You are right that money does not equal weath but when credit contracts in a balance sheet recession (really a depression) that also depresses investment and return. Our wealth is related to our capital's ability to return which is now constrained.
Finally, wealth and money relate distributional effects. Eggs haven't changed much in price while houses have. Those who wealth was locked up in their houses are now poorer. Those with major egg investments are about the same. That loss of wealth is tangible for them. If inflation or deflation affect everything roughly equally, then your assertion is strictly correct. But that isn't the case.
The depression destroyed both real and phony wealth just as it did following the 1929 crash.
Jerome
10th February 2012, 03:43 AM
The restriction of money allowed the buying of tangible assets on the cheap.
Many fortunes were made in the depression.
Many fortunes were made in the depression.
FedUpWithFaith
10th February 2012, 03:57 AM
yes, true. And some of the strongest companies start in down times.
ksen
10th February 2012, 06:08 AM
fuwf, stop letting jerome troll you.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét