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

[ish mailian]

It's not an analogy. It's an example.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:11 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ish,
>
> Your analogy makes no sense, or, more precisely, it doesn't prove your
> thesis. The glut of a commodity harming its producers and traders is
> analogous to cheap money how?  Cheap money does hurt the Banks (money
> suppliers), so I can see that parallel. But the glut of oil isn't a drag on
> the greater economy.  Cheap oil is actually a boon to almost all other
> markets. Without inflation, cheap money also helps practically all
> other markets.  So your analogy seems to support my point, not yours.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015, 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151105/71dd7370/attachment.html>