The Glade 4.0

Eh, the first attempt at quantitative easing wasn't so obvious or blatant, so it's not really fair to call this QE2.

_________________

QE2 is what its known as and it is the second attempt in this fiasco so I think it fits - besides its also a boat.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmo:

You're latching onto a media designation that doesn't properly address what the initial policy action actually was. It was not quantitative easing in any true sense, because the debt assumed during TARP and the Stimulus Bill weren't taken up through deliberate or actual monetization; rather, those liabilities were assumed with the intent of the debt being repaid.

_________________

Depends on who you are assuming was assuming they would be repaid.

Nah its not just the media, hell Woods and Schiff have been calling it QE2 for a while before anyone in "the media" was using the term.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Word.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Tom Woods and Peter Schiff aren't exactly credible sources on the matter, Elmo.

_________________

Krugman and Paulson or Woods and Schiff.

Hrmmm...

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

False dilemma, Elmo.

_________________

Just pointing out when two groups of entirely opposed people in the same field refer to the same event with the same terminology one is pretty sure that anyone else referring to it as that will be understood.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Except Krugman and Paulson are doing so retroactively. Any knowledge Hank Paulson had that debt was monetized in bad faith was occluded entirely from the general public until after the fact. Indeed, at the time, Krugman and Cowen both supported the action, because the stated assumption from the parties in power was that any debt assumed would be repaid through "sane" fiscal policy. Now, I objected to it at the time, continue to object to it, and called it a monetization of debt then, but that doesn't change the fact that it was neither overt nor obvious use of quantitative easing. Indeed, the Fed wasn't actively acting to fix bond rates for the procedure at the time.

_________________

I agree with you in the main, here, with a few exceptions.

Obviously, I don't think the recent increases in the budget were necessary (TARP, stimulus et al) and I believe the way they were implemented were actually detrimental. The detrimental part stems from the subversion of the whole risk/reward paradigm in a free market, as well as creating uncertainty as to whether there would be new regulations/taxes involved that would change things further. The uncertainty is, in my mind, worse than what would have occurred if there were concrete regs/taxes that could be dealt with; if you don't know what's coming, you can't make plans - so nothing gets done.

As for diversification of the debt, I guess you could beg other countries to buy it, but really there's no practical and effective way (that I can see) to diversify the debt holders - those with the cash can buy it, those who don't can't.


I can understand that, but I guess it goes back to the idea that if you know your comments are going to cause a discussion you don't want to participate in, why make the comments?



Again, I don't disagree with you wholly here, but I think our responses to such situations are different. While I think there are more occurrences of "crazy liberal/conservative plot BAD!", than there are of "that was a sucky situation with no good answer so we chose the one that [we hope] was least damaging", I would rather the word gets out even if it's only partial and not the full situation. That way if people are inclined/spurred by others to find out the whole truth, they've got that option. It seems that if there is a choice between partial revelation or ignorance of the situation, you would rather people remain wholly ignorant.

As for first impressions in situations like you mentioned, there are a couple of ads running out here in CO that provide great examples of what I think happens when that kind of deception is used - and found out. The ads sponsored by the NEA both attack the Republican candidates for different offices who have advocated a "Fair Tax" - getting rid of income taxes etc. and replacing those taxes with a 23% sales tax. The ads only mention that the candidates advocate raising the sales tax "saving the top 1% $thousands and costing the hard working middle class families $thousands". Without exception, everyone I've spoken to has either seen right through that ploy, or when I asked about the reason for the sales tax increase came to the realization that the NEA was trying to play them for a fool, and greatly disliked that. I believe the "first impression" there came back to bite the opposition in the ***. Education will do that to the ones who play the public for fools. Ignorance keeps them fools.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

That's a really good question, and one that I ask myself regularly. At some level, the answer is that stopping making comments would in effect remove me from the community here, which I'm not quite ready to do yet. Although I would be lying to say I haven't thought about it from time to time.

I watched the commercial and didn't think it was racist at all, but I can understand how some people would interpret it as such.

I watched it for the first time a few minutes ago and don't see it as racist at all.

It was just prescient imagery, the inevitable conclusion of an accurate assessment where a chain of logic and analysis of the situation is applied. It's just a matter of time and I don't believe it's something to fear.

I don't think it'll be celebrated quite like the commercial shows, or accomplished in the time frame indicated. It'll take longer and the US will just be absorbed the way the US has absorbed other cultures.

I don't believe I'll ever see it, and I'm glad because it would be quite a shock, but for the people that do experience it (my great great grandchildren, I think), I think it'll be gradual and feel quite natural.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

What has Thomas Woods had to say that you particularly disagree with, Khross?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Because a huge population doesn't come with its own burdens? Where are you getting this "greater natural resources" from?

As for "not killing us"; they can't even get here, and we could return China to the 16th Century on a half-hour's notice (and no, they cannot do the same in return).

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I meant economically, not them sailing over here and invading.

Think carefully about what I said.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm inclined to say the video is a little bit over the top, and done so intentionally. The mood, especially the lighting, seems like a conscious decision at least. If my Chinese professor for a networking class I have now was the professor in this video (he is a little goofy!) and the lighting was at normal classroom levels, you could have the exact same dialogue and it wouldn't seem nearly so ominous.

This could qualify it for "fear-mongering" or something similar, I suppose. It's probably over-simplifying the economics, but can you even address economics in a commercial without it being oversimplified? Economists with Economics degrees don't exactly always agree on much -- trying to get across a simplified economic message in a commercial is probably going to have to cut corners or make assumptions somewhere.

All of this has nothing to do with whether or not the ultimate message behind the commercial has merit or not. I'm inclined to say that it's something we should be more aware of than we are, but the commercial loses points for being a bit dramatic about it.

Cynical ol' me keeps thinking that our debt will never be paid down, however, and the solution to this problem is going to be found in some sort of roundabout fashion. Conflict of some sorts? Indirect dealings? If I knew I'd probably be of some value. It certainly won't end up with the Chinese "owning" the Americans, whatever that is even supposed to mean, but it won't necessarily be pleasant for the US.