• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Econs 101 - We are so screwed

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
27,906
Points
113
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016...l-banks-ftcomhttpsnextftcomcontent9b1d8b.html

...Almost nine years after the west’s financial crisis started, interest rates remain ultra-low. Indeed, a quarter of the world economy now suffers negative interest rates. This condition is as worrying as the policies themselves are unpopular. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock, the asset manager, argues that low rates prevent savers from getting the returns they need for retirement. As a result, they are forced to divert money from current spending into savings. Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s finance minister, has even put much of the blame for the rise of Alternative für Deutschland, a nationalist party, and on policies introduced by the European Central Bank. ‘Save the savers’ is an understandable complaint by an asset manager or finance minister of a creditor nation. But this does not mean the objection makes sense. The world economy is suffering from a glut of savings relative to investment opportunities. The monetary authorities are helping to ensure that interest rates are consistent with this fact....

The savings glut (or investment dearth, if one prefers) is the result of developments both before and after the crisis.... Some will object that the decline in real interest rates is solely the result of monetary policy, not real forces. This is wrong. Monetary policy does indeed determine short-term nominal rates and influences longer-term ones. But the objective of price stability means that policy is aimed at balancing aggregate demand with potential supply. The central banks have merely discovered that ultra-low rates are needed to achieve this objective.... We must regard ultra-low rates as symptoms of our disease, not its cause....

[But is] the monetary treatment employed... the best one[?].... Given the nature of banking institutions, negative rates are unlikely to be passed on to depositors and... so are likely to damage the banks.... There is a limit to how negative rates can go without limiting the convertibility of deposits into cash.... And this policy might do more damage than good. Even supporters agree there are limits.... [Does] this mean monetary policy is exhausted? Not at all. Monetary policy’s ability to raise inflation is essentially unlimited. The danger is rather that calibrating monetary policy is more difficult the more extreme it becomes. For this reason, fiscal policy should have come into play more aggressively....

The best policies would be a combination of raising potential supply and sustaining aggregate demand. Important elements would be structural reforms and aggressive monetary and fiscal expansion.... Monetary policy cannot be for the benefit of creditors alone. A policy that stabilises the eurozone must help the debtors, too. Furthermore, the overreliance on monetary policy is a result of choices, particularly over fiscal policy, on which Germany has strongly insisted. It is also the result of excess savings, to which Germany has substantially contributed...

One way of looking at it is that two things went wrong in 2008-9:

Asset prices collapsed.
And so spending collapsed and unemployment rose.
The collapse in asset prices impoverished the plutocracy. The collapse in spending and the rise in unemployment impoverished the working class. Central banks responded by reducing interest rates. That restored asset prices, so making the plutocracy whole. But while that helped, that did not do enough to restore the working class.

Then the plutocracy had a complaint: although their asset values and their wealth had been restored, the return on their assets and so their incomes had not be. And so they called for austerity: cut government spending so that governments can then cut our taxes and so restore our incomes as well as our wealth.

But, of course, cutting government spending further impoverished the working class, and put still more downward pressure on the Wicksellian neutral interest rate r* consistent with full employment and potential output.

And here we sit.

J. Bradford DeLong on April 14, 2016 at 02:14 PM in Economics: Finance, Economics: Mac
 
That would be terrible indeed. Better for government to invigorate the economy than to let the decadent middle class would hoard the excess income in the banks to "save for rainy days".
 
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016...l-banks-ftcomhttpsnextftcomcontent9b1d8b.html

...Almost nine years after the west’s financial crisis started, interest rates remain ultra-low. Indeed, a quarter of the world economy now suffers negative interest rates. This condition is as worrying as the policies themselves are unpopular. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock, the asset manager, argues that low rates prevent savers from getting the returns they need for retirement. As a result, they are forced to divert money from current spending into savings. Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s finance minister, has even put much of the blame for the rise of Alternative für Deutschland, a nationalist party, and on policies introduced by the European Central Bank. ‘Save the savers’ is an understandable complaint by an asset manager or finance minister of a creditor nation. But this does not mean the objection makes sense. The world economy is suffering from a glut of savings relative to investment opportunities. The monetary authorities are helping to ensure that interest rates are consistent with this fact....

The savings glut (or investment dearth, if one prefers) is the result of developments both before and after the crisis.... Some will object that the decline in real interest rates is solely the result of monetary policy, not real forces. This is wrong. Monetary policy does indeed determine short-term nominal rates and influences longer-term ones. But the objective of price stability means that policy is aimed at balancing aggregate demand with potential supply. The central banks have merely discovered that ultra-low rates are needed to achieve this objective.... We must regard ultra-low rates as symptoms of our disease, not its cause....

[But is] the monetary treatment employed... the best one[?].... Given the nature of banking institutions, negative rates are unlikely to be passed on to depositors and... so are likely to damage the banks.... There is a limit to how negative rates can go without limiting the convertibility of deposits into cash.... And this policy might do more damage than good. Even supporters agree there are limits.... [Does] this mean monetary policy is exhausted? Not at all. Monetary policy’s ability to raise inflation is essentially unlimited. The danger is rather that calibrating monetary policy is more difficult the more extreme it becomes. For this reason, fiscal policy should have come into play more aggressively....

The best policies would be a combination of raising potential supply and sustaining aggregate demand. Important elements would be structural reforms and aggressive monetary and fiscal expansion.... Monetary policy cannot be for the benefit of creditors alone. A policy that stabilises the eurozone must help the debtors, too. Furthermore, the overreliance on monetary policy is a result of choices, particularly over fiscal policy, on which Germany has strongly insisted. It is also the result of excess savings, to which Germany has substantially contributed...

One way of looking at it is that two things went wrong in 2008-9:

Asset prices collapsed.
And so spending collapsed and unemployment rose.
The collapse in asset prices impoverished the plutocracy. The collapse in spending and the rise in unemployment impoverished the working class. Central banks responded by reducing interest rates. That restored asset prices, so making the plutocracy whole. But while that helped, that did not do enough to restore the working class.

Then the plutocracy had a complaint: although their asset values and their wealth had been restored, the return on their assets and so their incomes had not be. And so they called for austerity: cut government spending so that governments can then cut our taxes and so restore our incomes as well as our wealth.

But, of course, cutting government spending further impoverished the working class, and put still more downward pressure on the Wicksellian neutral interest rate r* consistent with full employment and potential output.

And here we sit.

J. Bradford DeLong on April 14, 2016 at 02:14 PM in Economics: Finance, Economics: Mac

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/31357215/blackrock-to-restructure-after-tough-first-quarter/

how to believe blackcock when even they are cutting jobs.:D
 
That would be terrible indeed. Better for government to invigorate the economy than to let the decadent middle class would hoard the excess income in the banks to "save for rainy days".

in sinkies' case, it's borrowing money to hang flowers to impress mei mei.

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
from this piece of article, they just want pple to plough money into investment instruments.:rolleyes:

impressing a mei mei is a form of investment too, with the ultimate objective of inserting chinchin into cheechee.
 
in sinkies' case, it's borrowing money to hang flowers to impress mei mei.

View attachment 26293

Only morons will spend money to impress a KTV club singer. If she was any good, she would be a proper mainstream pop star, not whoring at a ktv or hang-flower-joint seedy clubs.
 
Only morons will spend money to impress a KTV club singer. If she was any good, she would be a proper mainstream pop star, not whoring at a ktv or hang-flower-joint seedy clubs.

come on ah john, local clubs are not seedy, they are just plainly low class suited for loser sinkies.:D
 
Only morons will spend money to impress a KTV club singer. If she was any good, she would be a proper mainstream pop star, not whoring at a ktv or hang-flower-joint seedy clubs.

You shouldnt speak like that about your mummy you ungrateful bitch.
 
Back
Top