NP - St. Ralph Continues To Advance the Most Important Cause in American Politics, His Ego

[Mark Kohut]

well, many non-competitive producers are now folding....preparing
to...and larger ones are cutting back..
and their tax subsidies distort the market even more, arguably, and
keep them afloat a lot longer than low interest rates.


On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:03 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me give an example:
>
> Do you drive? If you do you know that gasoline is cheap.
>
>  Oil, the last of the commodities to burst its bubble is down from 120 to 45
> (wti).
>
> Demand for oil continues to go up.
>
> But the supply is going up much faster.
>
> How did so much supply suddenly flood the market?
>
> A combination of things: prices were high before the great contraction, so
> there was an incentive to produce and increase supply.
>
> But after the crash, the new technology and increased production and
> capacity in place, set off a market share battle between OPEC, mainly SA,
> and the US shale producer, a battle for the US market, where super low
> interest rates, or cheap loans, kept even the non-competitive producers in
> business (though the rig count declined and the technology continued to
> reduce cost), thus driving oil prices lower.
>
> Low rates, QE, is disrupting the supply and demad mechanism of major markets
> like oil, and adding to global liquidity and deflation.
>
> Get it?
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:02 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How do you propose our present consumer Thrift Paradox is the result of
>> Fed easy money? Government Austerity, pushed by Germans and Republicans fits
>> that bill, but easy money? How does easy money fit your model of US consumer
>> Thrift Paradox?
>>
>> Your cart leads your horse. US thrift isn't waiting for a better bargain,
>> it is dragged down by low wages. That reality is too true to deny, unless
>> you want to deny it.
>>
>> You haven't offered a thesis, just many conclusions.
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I did provide an answer: the US economy is caught in a thrift paradox
>>> engineered by the Fed, and that paradox is compounded by the commodities
>>> super-cycle bust.
>>>
>>> The paradox of thrift that was popularized by Keynes has not merely
>>> dragged the consumer to the sidelines, as she waits to buy the ever cheaper
>>> HDTV, but has stalled investment spending, as corporations borrow money for
>>> free or on the cheap, buy back stock or, rather than fight the Fed, join her
>>> in buying US securities and agency debt.
>>>
>>> This has been a favorable trade for years now, and when you count the
>>> dollar's appreciation, against the Euro, Yen, etc.,  and consider that large
>>> corporations have operations abroad, where imported products are dear, and
>>> you can see why investment spending, along with the consumer, is stalled by
>>> low rates. There is no incentive to invest in future growth.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, the textbook guys were wrong (on Fed policy), on monetary policy
>>> because zero rates did not cause inflation or the depreciation of the
>>> dollar.
>>>
>>> Now you've shifted away from the Fed to fiscal policy. That's another
>>> matter. Sure, the textbook would call for both fiscal deficit spending and
>>> lower rates. And we did get some, not enough, but that's another matter.
>>>
>>> What I'm saying is that RD is correct: the Fed shoold raise rates to help
>>> the retired, and the workers.
>>>
>>> We may find out if RN is right, if the Fed raises rates in December and
>>> the economy continues to expand. The speed at which they normalize the yield
>>> curve will prove more important that the nominal rate hikes, and I guess
>>> that they will go very slow. A good plan, though it will not produce robust
>>> growth. That's not something the Fed can engineer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You haven't provided any rationale for your claim that raising interest
>>>> rates will increase demand.
>>>>
>>>> You are also wrong that "People who agreed with that textbook view have
>>>> been wrong about just about everything economic and financial since 2009."
>>>> The textbook view was never given more than a weak try because of Republican
>>>> opposition. But the US economy has improved the most in the World since the
>>>> Recession because we at least shrugged off Austerity and tried a weak
>>>> Stimulus for a while (but for only a very short while).  Print out free
>>>> money and distribute it literally, and the consumer demand will instantly
>>>> reappear.
>>>>
>>>> David Morris
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:50 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> David, you would be right if we could open an economic textbook and
>>>>> make sense of the great contraction and QE, the broken Phillips Curve and
>>>>> etc., but we can't. People who agreed with that texbookt view have been
>>>>> wrong about just about everything economic and financial since 2009. Low and
>>>>> negative rates and QE were supposed cause inflation, hyper-inflation even.
>>>>> It was supposed to send gold flying and commodities up up and away and the
>>>>> dollar down to the bottomless pit.
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, sir, with all do respect to you and your textbook view, you
>>>>> are dead wrong, Hope you didn't lose your ass.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Fed can't deliver a robust economy.  A robust economy must be
>>>>> driven by the consumer. But consumer, with the exception of the recent
>>>>> appetite for new automobiles, is not consuming. Even after the great
>>>>> de-leveraging, and zero rates, animal spirits are dead in the water. Raising
>>>>> interest rates will get the consumer consuming, otherwise we will need to
>>>>> get used to what Wall Street and the Gangsters have been peddling, the new
>>>>> normal or secular stagnation, where the risks they are now prevented from
>>>>> taking are foisted on us, as we have no other choice but to take on bubbled
>>>>> assets. QE has gone on too long and has caused new kind of thrift paradox
>>>>> wherein disinflation and deflation, compounded events such as the reshoring
>>>>> of jobs to automation, the bust of the commodities super cycle, the collapse
>>>>> of OPEC and oil...technological innovations....etc...keeps wages down with
>>>>> productivity and keeps consumers waiting for inflation that is never and
>>>>> never will be produced by low rates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Raising rates will help banks in some respects and hurt the banks in
>>>>> others, same goes for the wealthy who live off interest income and stock
>>>>> dividends. But it will help the workers most because it will get that robust
>>>>> economy, 3-4% on track.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:07 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Key point:  " As Jordan Weissmann at Slate points out, the entire
>>>>>> argument doesn’t make a lot of sense, as “relatively few households actually
>>>>>> survive on interest income.” Most ordinary people would benefit a lot more
>>>>>> from a robust economy than a higher interest rate on their savings account,
>>>>>> but Nader seems to assume a nation of people living on investments rather
>>>>>> than on paychecks, which really undermines his
>>>>>> spokesman-for-the-working-class schtick."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Raising interest rates will only help the Banks and the rich.  What we
>>>>>> really need is a massive increase of Federal spending to boost the economy,
>>>>>> and/or a big boost in the minimum wage, to increase demand.  But, failing
>>>>>> that, at least keep money cheap.  Increasing interest rates is insane when
>>>>>> the economy is sluggish and inflation is zero.  A really simple point.  All
>>>>>> the rest is shuck and jive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Morris
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:38 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know much about RN's relationships with female academics or
>>>>>>> their husbands but he may still claim to be supporting both a rate hike by
>>>>>>> the Fed and working people, the poor, and the retired, most of whom are not
>>>>>>> rich but nevertheless, live on investments, the great portion of which is in
>>>>>>> fixed income securities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One need only give Nader the benefit of the broken Phillip's Curve.
>>>>>>> There are a growing number of economists who now contend that the
>>>>>>> continuance of the zero bound policy is hurting the economy and working
>>>>>>> people because, while unemployment has been driven down to near NAIRU by Fed
>>>>>>> policy, it will nothing to lift wages and will cost, not only those retired
>>>>>>> to live on less, but those close to retirement to work longer because
>>>>>>> investment in safe retirement assets is discouraged while bubbles are made
>>>>>>> an popped, and, while those indebted must pay off loans with non-inflated
>>>>>>> wages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Fed has a triple mandate, though the press and the Fed and
>>>>>>> Congress confuse things by calling it a duel mandate. The third part is
>>>>>>> rates. The Fed is charged with keeping rates in a range that promotes
>>>>>>> growth. It's no doing that now. It is fixated on the Phillips curve model
>>>>>>> and it's not working now. JY did well to focus on the unemployed and the
>>>>>>> participation rate and the quit rate etc..., in other words, employment and
>>>>>>> wages, and ignore inflation. She should continue with that plan. The Fed
>>>>>>> can't fight the world. At this point, RN is on to something....lift rates to
>>>>>>> help the working people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:18 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralph Nader, epic mansplainer, tells Janet Yellen to listen to her
>>>>>>>> husband.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2015/11/02/ralph_nader_epic_mansplainer_tells_janet_yellen_to_listen_to_her_husband/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently, Ralph Nader is still talking, though in a way that
>>>>>>>> certainly inspires a deep desire to go to Tumblr to find as many “shut up”
>>>>>>>> gifs as one can find. Over the weekend, Nader published a nonsensical piece
>>>>>>>> at the Huffington Post complaining that “humble savers” are getting screwed
>>>>>>>> by the Federal Reserve’s unwillingness to raise the interest rate, which
>>>>>>>> Nader seems to think is an elaborate plot to help the rich banks at the
>>>>>>>> expense of working people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As Jordan Weissmann at Slate points out, the entire argument doesn’t
>>>>>>>> make a lot of sense, as “relatively few households actually survive on
>>>>>>>> interest income.” Most ordinary people would benefit a lot more from a
>>>>>>>> robust economy than a higher interest rate on their savings account, but
>>>>>>>> Nader seems to assume a nation of people living on investments rather than
>>>>>>>> on paychecks, which really undermines his spokesman-for-the-working-class
>>>>>>>> schtick.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l