America a Failed State and a Rogue State to the rest of the World

[ducati916]

1. I presented it, your view, opinion of course differs from all presented. Going ahh hah ... two professors are wrong ... really ?

2. At that point, your debate or views, became very clear. Illogical and fanatical in nature.

3. Move along ... or whatever ... please start your thread. Or continue with circular disagreements about MMT. Some believe the world was created in 7 days. Some believe as you do in MMT and Drip down economics. Some believe Climate science is all fake.

4. I prefer not to debate facts or science beyond what I already have done.
No amount of facts, experts or anything will alter your clearly displayed concrete views on the topic or I suspect many others.

1. Did I say that 2 professors were wrong. No. Incorrect. I said that at 2 reference points (time provided) that the 2 professors supported my argument. Maybe you could actually address that issue. I won't hold my breath.

2. Actually constructing a grammatically correct sentence would be a good starting point. Perhaps then you could actually identify which arguments/views are 'illogical' or 'fanatical'.

3. You seem to think I support MMT. Wherever did you get that idea. I have never expressed that. Oh, that's right, you just make stuff up as you go along: you seem to be a compulsive liar.

4. Well if you could present even a single fact that disputes (not even proves) that the issue that you have been called out on that would be a great start.

Here is the issue:



You remember...the US is not printing money, because, you know, its currency would implode and cause a collapse of the currency.

jog on
duc

 

[kahuna1]

Bzzz ....

When a discussion has a starting point, its easy at times to distinguish what is opinion and what is not.

1\ Facts, and in this case accounting or what the transactions involve. Debits credits, assuming of duration and risk and/or credit risk. Not something that normally is disputed ever.

2\ Next comes inferences and evidenced by past events that have occurred time and again, identically. Scientific proof of concept. Same experiment conducted 1,000 times and expecting a different outcome ?

3\ Then we have opinions or guesses.

4\ Conspiracy theories and with this group bizarre ideas that are actually believed almost like a religion.

Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen two past heads of the Federal Reserve were believers in MMT. Not just a political convenience but an absurdity was believed by them both.

When having any discussion about a topic I find it helpful and non time wasting to establish 1 and 2 from the above list. When a person challenges and actually denies science or accounting in favor of number 3 or god forbid number 4, I tend to first check 1 and 2 and then basically rather than waste time sit them in the corner with a Chinese puzzle whilst they rant.

Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke do believe in their theories. As does the gent with his ideas about how it works. Yellen and Bernanke both postulated that bubbles are not possible to see, not possible to pop and as such never took the time to do so, Hence the GFC. Yellen amusing after San Francisco house prices had doubled said she saw no inflation.

This was a core belief of hers as I suspect your theories are. She was along with Bernanke devoted followers of an economic cult that, well ... had a response that was to lower all interest rates always and it was impossible to see a bubble, let alone to prick that bubble and let the steam out.

For 200 other nations on earth this view, was absurd. For example the RBA and having sat next to one board member for some time, this view and that of the RBA is quite different. MMT and Drip down economics and its proponents are viewed as delusional. If you ever meet say Phillip Lowe or any past RBA head, run your pet theory by them.

Yes it is possible say to deflate a bubble in many ways, both fiscal and via monetary policy of the central bank. That even basic accounting in MMT people and drip down economists escapes them is funny and I am sure I can not change their strongly held religious beliefs.

Not going over what a bond buying program is again, as its, futile. Pricking say a bubble in residential housing can be done several ways without imploding the economy or its surrounds. Fiscally one could make tax on capital gains on investment properties double the current rate or impose a massive land tax. On banks and their lending, the central bank or APRA in our case can alter the reserve requirements a bank needs to hold down to the specific type of loan. Owner occupied loans, investment and even to interest only loans. Doubling the reserve requirement on the latter two usually does the trick to prick the bubble.

Whilst somewhat off topic, I am not seriously going to debate Janet Yellen with any hope of her changing her views or opinions or conspiracy theories about how things work.

Nor am I going to debate or waste time when someone without even basic understanding of facts, accounting or scientific clinical past events. It would be akin to stopping and listening to some person clearly disturbed in the street and taking notes on their views.

That would be, strangely stupid and whilst I did so recently on one thread, after say 20 pages of 150 plus pages where science and theory were abandoned, I am not about to do it again. Once you have established in someones universe, facts, accounting, scientific past events did and do not suit their opinions or conspiracy theories, its time to tune out.

Stomping your foot, badgering and well trying to convince me the world is flat in your world will not work.

Nor would I expect Bernanke or Yellen to accept that MMT or Drip down economics does not work and for the latter, its never worked. Not once, Not ever.

Conflating bond buybacks via MMT with actual outright printing of money shows, well, how little you understand. They are two very different things. Clearly so.

That possibly I did not spell this out, thinking surely one was aware of this, you seem to have totally missed possibly due to lack of even basic understanding of the topic.

Such is life.

 

[Country Lad]

I think some of you are being a bit tough on the USA, after all, the Commander In Chief has it all under control.

 

[ducati916]

Bzzz ....

When a discussion has a starting point, its easy at times to distinguish what is opinion and what is not.

(1). 1\ Facts, and in this case accounting or what the transactions involve. Debits credits, assuming of duration and risk and/or credit risk. Not something that normally is disputed ever.

(2). 2\ Next comes inferences and evidenced by past events that have occurred time and again, identically. Scientific proof of concept. Same experiment conducted 1,000 times and expecting a different outcome ?

(3). 3\ Then we have opinions or guesses.

(4). 4\ Conspiracy theories and with this group bizarre ideas that are actually believed almost like a religion.

5. Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen two past heads of the Federal Reserve were believers in MMT. Not just a political convenience but an absurdity was believed by them both.

6. When having any discussion about a topic I find it helpful and non time wasting to establish 1 and 2 from the above list. When a person challenges and actually denies science or accounting in favor of number 3 or god forbid number 4, I tend to first check 1 and 2 and then basically rather than waste time sit them in the corner with a Chinese puzzle whilst they rant.

7. Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke do believe in their theories. As does the gent with his ideas about how it works. Yellen and Bernanke both postulated that bubbles are not possible to see, not possible to pop and as such never took the time to do so, Hence the GFC. Yellen amusing after San Francisco house prices had doubled said she saw no inflation.

8. This was a core belief of hers as I suspect your theories are. She was along with Bernanke devoted followers of an economic cult that, well ... had a response that was to lower all interest rates always and it was impossible to see a bubble, let alone to prick that bubble and let the steam out.

9. For 200 other nations on earth this view, was absurd. For example the RBA and having sat next to one board member for some time, this view and that of the RBA is quite different. MMT and Drip down economics and its proponents are viewed as delusional. If you ever meet say Phillip Lowe or any past RBA head, run your pet theory by them.

10. Yes it is possible say to deflate a bubble in many ways, both fiscal and via monetary policy of the central bank. That even basic accounting in MMT people and drip down economists escapes them is funny and I am sure I can not change their strongly held religious beliefs.

11. Not going over what a bond buying program is again, as its, futile. Pricking say a bubble in residential housing can be done several ways without imploding the economy or its surrounds. Fiscally one could make tax on capital gains on investment properties double the current rate or impose a massive land tax. On banks and their lending, the central bank or APRA in our case can alter the reserve requirements a bank needs to hold down to the specific type of loan. Owner occupied loans, investment and even to interest only loans. Doubling the reserve requirement on the latter two usually does the trick to prick the bubble.

12. Whilst somewhat off topic, I am not seriously going to debate Janet Yellen with any hope of her changing her views or opinions or conspiracy theories about how things work.

13. Nor am I going to debate or waste time when someone without even basic understanding of facts, accounting or scientific clinical past events. It would be akin to stopping and listening to some person clearly disturbed in the street and taking notes on their views.

14. That would be, strangely stupid and whilst I did so recently on one thread, after say 20 pages of 150 plus pages where science and theory were abandoned, I am not about to do it again. Once you have established in someones universe, facts, accounting, scientific past events did and do not suit their opinions or conspiracy theories, its time to tune out.

15. Stomping your foot, badgering and well trying to convince me the world is flat in your world will not work.

16. Nor would I expect Bernanke or Yellen to accept that MMT or Drip down economics does not work and for the latter, its never worked. Not once, Not ever.

17. Conflating bond buybacks via MMT with actual outright printing of money shows, well, how little you understand. They are two very different things. Clearly so.

18. That possibly I did not spell this out, thinking surely one was aware of this, you seem to have totally missed possibly due to lack of even basic understanding of the topic.

Such is life.

1- 4. So what are the facts under discussion?



The facts under discussion are whether:

(a) Is the US 'printing money'; and
(b) If it did (or was) would it's currency implode; and
(c) That creating 'money' out of thin air would cause a currency collapse.

The sub-issue is Mr Sadjii's response. But we cannot even get to that until we solve the primary issue(s). I am advocating Mr Sadjii's position by default, in that I agreed that he was correct in his position. Of course the evidence that supports the sub-issue is contained within the primary issue(s). So in resolving the primary issue(s) we actually move to proving the sub-issue.

Those are the issues (above). Evidence posted by Mr Rederob and endorsed by yourself, by re-posting Mr Rederob's chart via Federal Reserve, prove that you are incorrect in your assertions (a) - (c).



This is proven with the facts:

(a) The US is printing money. This (above) is a chart of money in your pocket money; and
(b) The US currency (to date) has not imploded; and
(c) The US currency has not yet collapsed.

Therefore all of your assertions are incorrect. Are you ready to move forward?

I actually need go no further. However, out of politeness, I feel obligated to at least try and address your numerous other points.

5. Certainly I can agree that they both embraced aspects of Chartalism.

6. Still need to work harder on your sentence construction, but I do understand your point. Why don't you follow your own advice?

7. So many issues in one paragraph:

(a) Bernanke/Yellen believe their theories (Chartalism); and
(b) I believe my theory; and
(c) Both B/Y postulate that bubbles cannot be seen/popped or managed, hence created GFC; and
(d) Yellen was amusing: post doubling of house prices in SF and she saw no inflation.

(a) You actually have no idea what B/Y actually believe. You can comment on what they did, adduce evidence to support your viewpoint and make a case. You could potentially infer a 'belief' based on probability, but you do not know factually (unless you know them personally and have discussed this topic with them) what they believe.

(b) See above.

(c) I'm willing to accept that. However, you provide nothing but your opinion as evidence. Why should I accept it, especially from someone like you, a nobody on the internet?

(d) The use of the word 'amusing' turns the statement into nothing but personal opinion. As such, it is from you, a true statement, but one that I can accept or discount.

8. See [7a].

9. Simply self-pontificating opinion. See [7a].

10. I'm sure there is an argument in there somewhere. However until you can structure it in a coherent manner, it simply cannot be addressed.

11. You are discussing ways to burst a financial bubble. You provide 6 different possible approaches. What you have done is:

(a) identify an issue (financial bubble); and
(b) identified 6 ways in which (according to you) that financial bubble would be burst through implementation of 1 or more of these solutions.

That is the intended consequence.
What of the unintended consequences? Are there any? Do you know what they are? How could you manage them? Etc, etc.

12. Probably a wise decision.

13. I'm guessing that could be myself. I am however open to the idea it could be Bernanke or Yellen, you seem to move in exalted circles (at least in your own imagination).

14. Someone else I take it, disagrees with you. I'm shocked.

15. Remove the mirror.

16. Prove it.

17. Actually old chap, it is you who is confused, once again, the issues:



The evidence:



The only person discussing MMT/FOMO, is you.

I infer you are raising the red herring because you know that you are simply wrong. Instead of just accepting the error and moving on, you have such a monstrous idea of your own self-importance, you simply can't. The result is that you are now trapped in a nightmare of your own making.

Which is interesting given the nature of this forum. I remind you of this statement:



You claim to be a 'trader/investor'. Traders/Investors (the successful ones) know when to fold a position and move on. Therefore the inference is that you are either:

(a) Unsuccessful and just a 'wannabe'; or
(b) You are not actually a Trader/Investor for a large firm, viz. Investment professional at all, but simply someone just interested in the financial markets, trading their own account.

18. The problem for you is this: I actually understand the topic better than you do.

jog on
duc

 

[kahuna1]

Bzzz ....

 

[kahuna1]

You are not actually a Trader/Investor for a large firm, viz. Investment professional at all, but simply someone just interested in the financial markets, trading their own account

Tee hee .... yep .... you got me. Strangely some actually know my name .... might disagree with your latest conspiracy theory. Then again, who cares what a conspiracy theorist thinks ?

A few years ago two economists won the Nobel prize. One Schiller ... believed you could see bubbles, the other winning at the same time ... Fama ... for the total opposite theory about Chicago style economics that markets always represented the correct prices at all times.

Both actually had a go at each other, whilst accepting the prize at how silly the others ideas were.

Obviously, I am a value investor. Whilst Schillers index for housing can and is easily perverted, Fama and his Chicago style theories ones shared by Bernanke and Yellen are insane.

Stating that I dont know what I am talking about, or well ... I am wrong, which, honestly does not matter ... when two winners of the Nobel Prize win for totally different and opposing ideas, cannot even agree.

Your insistence, your correct, your theory is correct .... is pathetic.

Seriously ... you know more than I do about the topic ? IT is a theory, one is proven by fact and the other is just horse poo. That your still beating the drum about QE actions are printing money out of thin air is at best something even Fox news would not run. Central bank buys bond ... an asset .... pays for it with a promise to pay a liability ... whether its a credit in an account or a note ... or promise to pay ... the net end result is ZERO.

The bond matures ... the trade is reversed.
The bond is sold ... the trade is reversed.
Both will occur over time.

In the interim, that one asset is now in the central banks hands ... and a credit which is a liability on the other side.

That's a QE bond action.

MMT going full hog .... is printing actual cash, which the USA has NOT done above the growth of the GDP in dollar terms, would and does eventually impact the value of the currency. Government can just keep printing money to pay off its debts. The currency, if they did this, would .... crash.

Again.... you dispute this and well ... congratulations you have found me out.

I am a nobody, from nowhere ... who actually admits he knows nothing. The last is certainly true. Certainly a legend in my own mind and glad to be so.

Please some more, so I can take notes... and be inspired by your wisdom.

 

[ducati916]

1. Tee hee .... yep .... you got me. Strangely some actually know my name .... might disagree with your latest conspiracy theory. Then again, who cares what a conspiracy theorist thinks ?

2. A few years ago two economists won the Nobel prize. One Schiller ... believed you could see bubbles, the other winning at the same time ... Fama ... for the total opposite theory about Chicago style economics that markets always represented the correct prices at all times.

2. Both actually had a go at each other, whilst accepting the prize at how silly the others ideas were.

3. Obviously, I am a value investor.

4. Whilst Schillers index for housing can and is easily perverted, Fama and his Chicago style theories ones shared by Bernanke and Yellen are insane.

5. Stating that I dont know what I am talking about, or well ... I am wrong, which, honestly does not matter ... when two winners of the Nobel Prize win for totally different and opposing ideas, cannot even agree.

6. Your insistence, your correct, your theory is correct .... is pathetic.

7. Seriously ... you know more than I do about the topic ? IT is a theory, one is proven by fact and the other is just horse poo. That your still beating the drum about QE actions are printing money out of thin air is at best something even Fox news would not run. Central bank buys bond ... an asset .... pays for it with a promise to pay a liability ... whether its a credit in an account or a note ... or promise to pay ... the net end result is ZERO.

7. The bond matures ... the trade is reversed.
The bond is sold ... the trade is reversed.
Both will occur over time.

7. In the interim, that one asset is now in the central banks hands ... and a credit which is a liability on the other side.

7. That's a QE bond action.

8. MMT going full hog .... is printing actual cash, which the USA has NOT done above the growth of the GDP in dollar terms, would and does eventually impact the value of the currency. Government can just keep printing money to pay off its debts. The currency, if they did this, would .... crash.

9. Again.... you dispute this and well ... congratulations you have found me out.

10. I am a nobody, from nowhere ... who actually admits he knows nothing. The last is certainly true. Certainly a legend in my own mind and glad to be so.

Please some more, so I can take notes... and be inspired by your wisdom.

1. You start with another misrepresentation:



Here is what was actually said:



Understand the difference?

I'm sure you do. The reason I'm sure is that by removing the context, you alter the meaning of what was said. You need to alter the meaning of what was said because you cannot actually use the existing evidence to support your misrepresentation.

2. And this relates to the issues how? Not at all. Why pollute the thread unless there is actually a premise hiding in there somewhere.

3. If you say so. Far from obvious to me.

4. And this addresses the issue(s) in question how? Again, not at all.

5. So your argument seems to be this: if 2 Nobel Prize winners cannot agree, then this somehow proves that my assertions against you are...?

An example would help. But then of course, that example would probably be accompanied with some form of evidence (from myself), which again changes in a material way your attempt at providing an evidential basis for your assertion. This seems to have resulted to date in a number of misrepresentations and lies being highlighted.

6. I have not actually expressed a 'theory' at all. What I have done is provided you with evidence, which you yourself cited: this was originally posted by Mr Rederob.



Accepting that currency in circulation has increased. That old chap, is not a 'theory': that is a fact.

7. I have never mentioned QE on this thread. Another lie. See how it works: you lie, I identify the lie.

8. Asked and answered:



GDP can grow because of money (credit) expansion. That is not of course the only reason that can cause GDP to grow. But it is a relevant reason given the issue(s) being argued, which are:



9. A sentence without any coherency.

10. (a) You are an internet nobody. Correct.
(b) You do not claim to know nothing. Incorrect, another lie.
(c) Is again incoherent: a contradiction.

One thing that I have noticed is this uncanny similarity to Mr Trump, whom you discuss ad nauseum. You demonstrate no embarrassment in your lies. You simply carry on telling further lies. Ironic.

jog on
duc

 

[kahuna1]

I bow before your wisdom ...

Please ... the buzzing noise ... stop !!
Also turn off your web camera its very distracting whilst I take notes on your theories.



Bzzz bzzz bzzz

 

[kahuna1]

Last try ..

That you lack even the understanding of what and why the M1 has risen, and deny you ever mentioned QE is an astounding admission of your total lack of understanding of the issue.

QE .... where the central bank ... buys bonds and then issues credits in accounts, notes or whatever ...

One is an increase in ASSETS held by the central bank, they being securities and bonds, IN the case of the USA its holding post GFC went from under 1 trillion to now 4 trillion.

It has risen by 3 trillion. Its assets ...



Opposing this ... YES its novated all risks ,... taken them onto the goverment side, that being both Duration risk and also actual Credit risk or Counter-party Risk as a lot of these NEW securities are NOT goverment treasuries or even close, they are Mortgage backed securities from the GFC with 20 plus year terms still left.

Simply put, one would expect there to be an equal and corresponding CREDIT on the other side. Not printing money, not devaluing the currency ... it is NET zero.

This is in your pet M1 ... an expansion of M1 ... your evidence such as it is.



You will note ... ONE has risen 3 trillion and accordingly so too has the other.
One being an asset .... one being actually a liability or what the FED owes for its bond purchases via its promises to pay and credits to accounts institutions hold at the FED.

NET NET ... zero.

QE is a convoluted part of the Chicago MMT and drip down economics theories.

The Fed has removed as such 3 trillion in long dated debt form the overall market and replaced it with zero dated promises to pay. Not cash on issue. I already provided the CASH on issue FRED chart which you even disagreed with that.

If in say 2000, the USA economy was 9 trillion in 2000 dollars. Each year GDP growth and small inflation now has the GDP as 22 trillion. Of course the money in circulation issued by any central bank will and should rise as the GPD and Inflation makes the nominal amount of dollars need to be higher over time. If say in 1925 when the USA economy was around 100 billion, and now its 22.5 Trillion so its 225 times larger one would expect currency issued to be 225 times MORE than in 1925 or somewhere in that region.

Conflating and confusing ... what M! is and why its risen 3 trillion in 10 years without understanding the USA federal reserve now holds 3 trillion MORE in assets ... bonds ... one side ... liabilities ... the money or promises to pay totally cancelling out the NET ... making it zero ... I would have thought an easy concept to understand.

One is a debit ... one is a credit. One is a liability .... one is an asset. Focusing on just one side, the M1 without looking at the other side or sides ... in this case ... if I look at USA Fed total liabilities ...



So inside the FED .... the liability is the above and the asset is holdings of bonds.

The M1 is the impact on the outside ... of the QE action. IT is all about QE ... not anything else at this stage.

I am hoping and in fact praying this explains the transaction and gives some greater understanding of WHY the M1 has expanded .... and its irrelevant overall ... other than supporting the credit markets and is not actually printing money to inflate their way out of it.

 

[ducati916]

1. Last try ..

2. That you lack even the understanding of what and why the M1 has risen, and deny you ever mentioned QE is an astounding admission of your total lack of understanding of the issue.

3. QE .... where the central bank ... buys bonds and then issues credits in accounts, notes or whatever ...

4. One is an increase in ASSETS held by the central bank, they being securities and bonds, IN the case of the USA its holding post GFC went from under 1 trillion to now 4 trillion.

5. It has risen by 3 trillion. Its assets ...

View attachment 103449

6. Opposing this ... YES its novated all risks ,... taken them onto the goverment side, that being both Duration risk and also actual Credit risk or Counter-party Risk as a lot of these NEW securities are NOT goverment treasuries or even close, they are Mortgage backed securities from the GFC with 20 plus year terms still left.

7. Simply put, one would expect there to be an equal and corresponding CREDIT on the other side. Not printing money, not devaluing the currency ... it is NET zero.

8. This is in your pet M1 ... an expansion of M1 ... your evidence such as it is.

View attachment 103450

9. You will note ... ONE has risen 3 trillion and accordingly so too has the other.
One being an asset .... one being actually a liability or what the FED owes for its bond purchases via its promises to pay and credits to accounts institutions hold at the FED.

10. NET NET ... zero.

11. QE is a convoluted part of the Chicago MMT and drip down economics theories.

12. The Fed has removed as such 3 trillion in long dated debt form the overall market and replaced it with zero dated promises to pay. Not cash on issue. I already provided the CASH on issue FRED chart which you even disagreed with that.

13. If in say 2000, the USA economy was 9 trillion in 2000 dollars. Each year GDP growth and small inflation now has the GDP as 22 trillion. Of course the money in circulation issued by any central bank will and should rise as the GPD and Inflation makes the nominal amount of dollars need to be higher over time. If say in 1925 when the USA economy was around 100 billion, and now its 22.5 Trillion so its 225 times larger one would expect currency issued to be 225 times MORE than in 1925 or somewhere in that region.

14. Conflating and confusing ... what M! is and why its risen 3 trillion in 10 years without understanding the USA federal reserve now holds 3 trillion MORE in assets ... bonds ... one side ... liabilities ... the money or promises to pay totally cancelling out the NET ... making it zero ... I would have thought an easy concept to understand.

15. One is a debit ... one is a credit. One is a liability .... one is an asset. Focusing on just one side, the M1 without looking at the other side or sides ... in this case ... if I look at USA Fed total liabilities ...

View attachment 103451

16. So inside the FED .... the liability is the above and the asset is holdings of bonds.

17. The M1 is the impact on the outside ... of the QE action. IT is all about QE ... not anything else at this stage.

18. I am hoping and in fact praying this explains the transaction and gives some greater understanding of WHY the M1 has expanded .... and its irrelevant overall ... other than supporting the credit markets and is not actually printing money to inflate their way out of it.

1. Let us hope so.

2. I have never mentioned QE, far less advanced it as a theory of anything on this thread. That, as we shall see, is the foundation of your confusion.

3. I understand what QE is. Here is your error: QE is Monetary Policy. Mr Sadjii and therefore myself are not discussing Monetary Policy. We are discussing Fiscal Policy. Fiscal policy is also executed through the Federal Reserve. Which is why this explanation was posted and why you are so confused and wrong:






Government deficit spending is Fiscal Policy. Here is the Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_policy_of_the_United_States

I have highlighted the relevant passage for you:



4 -17. Now if you had been respectful and actually read what was provided to you, viz. that what was actually being discussed was Fiscal Policy and not Monetary Policy at all, just think how much more intelligent you would have appeared instead of demonstrating your complete lack of attention to detail.

jog on
duc

 

[kahuna1]

I did try ....



ding ding ding ding ....

please at least turn down the sound,.

 

[kahuna1]

Moving on ....


Trump and the coronavirus task force is pushing the CDC to change its methodology for how they count coronavirus deaths, which could lead to far fewer deaths being counted than originally reported. The Trump administration specifically wants the agency to change how it works with states to count coronavirus-related deaths. Dr. Deborah Birx has reportedly urged CDC officials to exclude from coronavirus death-count reporting for individuals who either did not have confirmed lab results and are presumed positive or who had the virus and may not have died as a direct result of COVID-19. Trump has suggested that coronavirus deaths could have been incorrectly tallied or inflated by current methodology. Dr. Anthony Fauci, however, said the U.S. death toll count is likely higher than is reflected in government data. Meanwhile, researchers have developed a new method to compare and merge coronavirus models into a single “ensemble” projection. The result? 110,000 dead Americans by June 6. Total U.S. deaths currently stand at ~84,000. (Daily Beast / NPR / Washington Post)


Dr Fauci is out ... and religious far right Dr Birx is in !! Hmmm .... whom do you prefer ?

Possibly they can find another few islands to bury the bodies as they did in NY ?

 

[kahuna1]

Gosh ....

Worse .... far worse ...

all in one day.

Trump’s “Lightning Fast” COVID-19 Test May Be Seriously Flawed, New Study Shows
According to their findings, at least one-third, and as many as 48 percent, of tests used in the ID NOW test present a false negative result, compared to other tests where nasal swabs are used. In other words, close to half of the results from the Abbott Laboratories test may not be trustworthy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...vid-cases-unreviewed-study-says?sref=jFvCme3g

Golly ... get a test, it says your safe ... and it has a 50% fail rate ?

You must be joking ? This Nation is a circus. Lets hide bodies and create tests designed not to work.

Virus meanwhile is so happy and excited that the White House itself is using this test !!

 

[joeno]

Moving on ....


Trump and the coronavirus task force is pushing the CDC to change its methodology for how they count coronavirus deaths, which could lead to far fewer deaths being counted than originally reported. The Trump administration specifically wants the agency to change how it works with states to count coronavirus-related deaths. Dr. Deborah Birx has reportedly urged CDC officials to exclude from coronavirus death-count reporting for individuals who either did not have confirmed lab results and are presumed positive or who had the virus and may not have died as a direct result of COVID-19. Trump has suggested that coronavirus deaths could have been incorrectly tallied or inflated by current methodology. Dr. Anthony Fauci, however, said the U.S. death toll count is likely higher than is reflected in government data. Meanwhile, researchers have developed a new method to compare and merge coronavirus models into a single “ensemble” projection. The result? 110,000 dead Americans by June 6. Total U.S. deaths currently stand at ~84,000. (Daily Beast / NPR / Washington Post)


Dr Fauci is out ... and religious far right Dr Birx is in !! Hmmm .... whom do you prefer ?

Possibly they can find another few islands to bury the bodies as they did in NY ?

The 4th Reich can't be having commie/athiest scientists

Hyperbole aside, it's another day another Trump tirade. The world needs to sanction him and America until they get a better system in general on every level from political to corporate. A lot of people are tired of their bully tactics and warmongering. I don't agree with China but trying start WW3 because the virus "originated" from there is beyond ridiculous. Can the world nuke America for the swine flu? Can we bomb em for AIDS? How about for the GFC.

 

[kahuna1]

Now if you had been respectful and actually read what was provided to you, viz. that what was actually being discussed was Fiscal Policy and not Monetary Policy at all, just think how much more intelligent you would have appeared instead of demonstrating your complete lack of attention to detail.

That being creating money, printing it out of thin air ? I did read as you say what was provide to me, in fact read it a few times.

Fiscal policy is run by elected officials.

Monetary policy is run by independent central banks. Ours the RBA the USA Fed Reserve.

The central bank does NOT dictate or run fiscal policy, nor does it implement it. It has NO control over goverment deficits or taxes or spending. NONE. It also has little control over the issue of debt via the goverment to fund its activities. It can make recommendations to the goverment and what maturities to issue, but for say Australia its a different body that runs the issuance.

Fiscal policy cannot ... and does not set nor ever has set recently how much money is printed. This is the role of the Monetary policy side. In this case of the USA the Federal reserve. It does not take orders from USA Treasury about issuing notes. Printing cash or what levels to do so is NOT a fiscal policy. Whilst the USA Treasury engraving department prints notes, it takes instruction from the Federal reserve NOT the president or any elected official.

Monetary policy is run by the central bank. Most have similar mandates, IGNORING at times totally the wishes of the goverment of the day. In the case of the Federal Reserve its actually not even owned by the goverment, its owned by its member banks. Its member banks appoint heads of the various branches and then, recommends board members to the President who then are approved by the Senate. Removing say a Fed Chair as Trump recently mumbled about is virtually impossible prior to their term expiring. Trump, was upset, the Fed was raising rates when he wanted them falling. This was PRE Covid19.

Central banks wear a few hats and some roles are often shared between other independent bodies.
Main role is to maintain LOW inflation.
Secondary main common role is full employment implying decent GDP growth.
Other is financial market liquidity and stability along with supervision
Another is currency stability.
Supervision of banks and their adequate provisions for capital and so on.

Different nations often share this with other similar totally Independent from the government bodies. APRA is Australia and so on.

That these TWO vastly different things, Fiscal policy and Monetary policy are not understood is clear.

Being not rude, but in utter disbelief, I counted 30 or more urban myths and insane theories you postulated. 30 !! You and Sandiji.

M1 ... which you keep pointing to. USA abandoned M3 I think some time ago, but yes its expanded.

Every day it expands and contracts. Waving I told you so that they are printing more cash due to your chart whilst ignoring the Economy went from 9 trillion to 22.5 trillion so of course, cash on issue, INCREASED .... to facilitate commerce cash issued went up accordingly.

Having now wasted a few hours reading your beliefs, and trying .... trying to understand ... your theories, but failing because they are contrary to not my opinion but, total and complete lack of understanding or economics even at a basic level.

I do think where your being led astray with M1 and your theory is or error I can now see.

You showed a Wikipedia definition of what is in M1 ... which was, incorrect in so far as its incomplete.

Yes cash notes and coin ... but ... also inside M1 there are demand deposits.

USA Federal reserve is a bank. It requires others to firstly have capital reserves there which it is required to pay an interest rate upon. Secondly over and above those are excess amounts that also require interest to be paid upon. These are DEMAND deposits.

Able to be demanded with NO notice at all. They are part of the M1 as are cheque accounts which one may have with a bank, they can be demanded with NO notice.

Since Trump declared an emergency mid March 2020, USA Federal reserve has barely issued any new cash. NONE ....

The M1 has however risen by over 1,000 billion. The printing of cash did not occur.

The actual QE amount of new bonds the Federal reserve purchased was much more than 1,000 billion.

M1 .... whilst it has Demand deposits and those accounts that pay interest via the FED .... the rate and mechanisms going on are complex. Being polite, that, our level of understanding is clearly vastly different, I will simply somewhat. The Federal reserve every day has a cash target. It conducts open market operations to increase or decrease liquidity of cash to get the CASH rate being traded for overnight cash to its target. That's 0.25% right now.

IT does so, via either adding liquidity or draining it. It will enter repurchase agreements where it buys bonds or Tnotes ... issued by the Treasury, not the Fed ... and credits their account. Or it will do reverse repos .... they are a SWAP .... they may be overnight, or for a few days r a week and recently pollution the issue was extreme illiquidity in this market and the Fed had to do term repos for much longer periods.

All these effect M1. Not for long and for good reason. Cash rate is 0.25% ... the rate paid for reserves and excess in your Fed account is 0.1% ....

If as you postulate and insist that M1 going up or down has anything at all to do with Fiscal policy or clear absolute evidence of printing money is incorrect.

A bank will not keep excess funds it needs above reserves paying 0.1% when the overnight cash rate is 0.25% .... it would have an opportunity cost of 0.15% which on billions is massive. Some with these accounts and non banks but requiring demand deposits they will need accept this penalty and in extreme times often the banks themselves USA this top of the line, central bank as preferred despite the cost as they are unsure of the credit risk or counterparty banks even massive ones. At times one sees the two largest banks NOT lending to to each other excess reserves of cash and the central bank one side being used a ultra safe depositor ... rarely ... but other side lender of last resort and using things like the discount window.

QE and bond buying, same thing, DURATION s just different.
Instead of an overnight liquidity swap ... I give you my bonds a security and the next day I give them back when you return cash plus 0.25% interest. .... QE or outright bond buying ... 1 month 1 year one decade ... same thing. No different. That the Fed is buying NOT USA goverment issued Treasuries or notes, but lower grade ones, but Premium A+ ... credit rated, is another topic.

The goverment does not order the Fed to do it, it does it by itself. Monetary policy.

The Central bank cannot order the goverment to raise or lower taxes, and in the case of the USA fed, it rarely even comments on the absurd dent the USA has and insane Fiscal policies. Running a massive 5% to GDP deficit pre 2020 when stock markets are at all time highs, INSANE. Doing the same running a stimulus via over spending when employment is at all time lows, again insane.

Conversely .... the goverment cannot .... order the central bank to issue currency in the form of notes, nor what level of interest rates is correct. That is monetary policy.

Of course one wants things rowing in the same direction. both momentary and fiscal policy set to either stimulate or contract activity. Sadly, its often not the case, and Fiscally the USA was all taps open in 2019 whilst ignoring the debt, deficit and all other things. Fiscally they halved the tax paid by cooperates since 2000 as a percentage of GDP and 33% of the 1980 level.

USA ... is run for the few.

I am hoping, but not seriously expecting this to help a better understanding of Fiscal and monetary policy.

If you were to suggest every day as the central bank is adjusting liquidity via buying or selling bonds or shorter term notes, its actually printing cash, and wheeling it around,or then burning it, when draining the liquidity, the actual process of what M1 and M2 and roles of Fiscal and Monetary policy may become clearer.

Have fun

 

[rederob]

Can the world nuke America for the swine flu? Can we bomb em for AIDS? How about for the GFC.

What about for Fox News?

 

[investtrader]

This (orange dotard aka trumplethinskin) shall pass.....

 

[kahuna1]

This (orange dotard aka trumplethinskin) shall pass.....

Sadly toilet paper supplies are insufficient to aid with this event due to the "Fake Flu"

 

[kahuna1]

Its just keeps getting more evident.

Humans matter for naught.

150,000 Americans Sacrificed for the Stock Market': Kushner Reportedly Advised Less Covid-19 Testing to Calm Wall Street

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...rket-kushner-reportedly-advised-less-covid-19

SAME STORY different outlet ...

https://truthout.org/articles/trump...ared-kushner-said-it-would-spook-wall-street/

Gee this is even the best of the 14th May 2020.

Back with a tantrum ... I was expecting one ... possibly two ...

 

[kahuna1]

This tantrum was expected .... still actually amusing ....

Dr Trumps first tantrum ...

Trump criticized Dr. Anthony Fauci’s warning about the risks of reopening schools and businesses too soon as “not an acceptable answer,” accusing the nation’s top infectious disease expert of “wanting to play all sides of the equation.” Trump, however, told reporters he was “surprised by his answer,” adding: “To me it’s not an acceptable answer, especially when it comes to schools.” Past public disagreements between Trump and officials have been followed by an eventual dismissal or resignation. See: Tillerson, Rex; Sessions, Jeff; Bolton, John; Kelly, John. (New York Times / Washington Post / CNN / ABC News / NPR / NBC News)

Second, just as amusing ....

Trump, Azar attack ousted vaccine doctor as "disgruntled employee
Trump: "To me, he is nothing more than a really disgruntled, unhappy person. ... I don't know, I never met him, I don't want to meet him, but I watched him, and he looks like an angry, disgruntled employee who, frankly, according to some people, didn't do a very good job."


https://www.axios.com/trump-azar-rick-bright-testimony-603ec8db-e57d-41c8-b84c-9f9813b30619.html

Classic ... I thought a vaccine was important ?

The Whislteblower ... and a third Tantrum erupted .... on Trump twiiter show ...

Whistleblower Rick Bright Details Failure to Act on Mask Shortages
Dr. Rick Bright on the moment he realized the US was headed toward a crisis: “We’re in deep ****. The world is. We need to act,”

https://www.motherjones.com/coronav...ght-details-failure-to-act-on-mask-shortages/

Being fair ...

Democrats in USA are identical on the main to Republicans.

Nancy Pelosi had a new bill for 3 trillion. About 15% of USA GDP ...
She is a democrat ... 3rd Richest in the house.
A corporate democrat, kleptocrat identical to Trump in many ways ...

In Nancy Pelosi bill .... Lobbyists get bailed out ... loan sharks .. and the humans ? Well forget them.
Possibly she can get some funds for more Botox and plastic surgery for herself ?

Debt Collectors Get a Bailout in Democrats’ New Pandemic Relief Bill

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ailout-in-democrats-new-pandemic-relief-bill/

I await the next Tantrum ... meanwhile food-bank lines are, astounding and half those who applied for unemployment have been rejected or not processed as of 14th May 2020.