Anyway, interest rate cuts, is it the right thing to do?
-
suhredayan wrote:
disagree, it is the people who borrow money, is creating the jobs and making the economy grow.
Wow, you have no idea. Where does the money that is lent, come from ?
suhredayan wrote:
Fed can print the bills and give it to the borrowers provided the economy is robust.
The more money they print, the less the money is worth. That's called a banana republic.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The Quran or Sharia still holds that this is the case. It was never so in the United States, nor as far as I am aware in any European country.
It was very much the case in colonial America. Polite society, still having either traveled or being directly descended from English or other European polite society, held it to be "unseemly" either to 1) talk about how you earn money and 2) to earn money through interest. This is not something that is commonly known because capitalism required us to forget it [I'm not *necessarily* judging here, merely observing], but it's a commonly treated subject in history texts that go beyond dates and places. It is a subject that is treated in the Christian Bible. And Benjamin Franklin, for example, struggled most of his life to be precisely part of this "polite society", the great irony being that the American Revolution all but obliterated it.
Rob Graham wrote:
He made a general assertion that it is better to help those who borrow than those who save,
Hmmm ok I suppose. For what it's worth, I don't think particularly highly of the government helping either group, but if it's going to, it would seem to make sense to help borrowers only when not helping presents a clear danger to economic stability, but generally to always support savers.
Patrick Etc. wrote:
I don't think particularly highly of the government helping either group, but if it's going to, it would seem to make sense to help borrowers only when not helping presents a clear danger to economic stability, but generally to always support savers. Quote Selected Text
I think we are in complete agreement.
-
suhredayan wrote:
Printing money in Zimbabwe and in U.S.A are two different things.
Not at all. they may differ in degree of impact or the degree to which they are practiced, but that is all. A little poison may not kill, or may kill slowly, while a lot of poison kills quickly. In either case, the most prudent course of action is to avoid poison entirely.
-
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with hyperinflation[^] or even Hyperinflation History: When Hard Cash Goes Soft[^]
-
Oakman wrote:
We'll just sell more bonds to China
They have enough problems with existing, do you really think they are stupid enough to permit this to continue. Better bet might be the Saudi's, they are cash rich and perhaps looking to invest their wealth, after all, the oil ain't going to last a great deal longer (few decades presumably) and they have expensive tastes and need to protect an uncertain oil-free future. Anyhow, balancing the books, an ironic joke. :laugh:
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
do you really think they are stupid enough to permit this to continue
Well, I'm the one who has been preaching never underestimate your enemy, but so far they have been. Maybe they consider the US too big to fail?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Maybe there isn't one.
Actually, that's the most obvious conclusion. The next most obvious is that the assumption that providing capital for the level of invention and innovation on the scale we're used to is a worthwhile goal - maybe it isn't. Maybe accepting a slower rate of development is a fair tradeoff for increased stability and an ability to have an economy not based entirely on credit. There mere suggestion, of course, gets one shouted down as a communist.
Patrick Etc. wrote:
Maybe accepting a slower rate of development is a fair tradeoff for increased stability and an ability to have an economy not based entirely on credit. There mere suggestion, of course, gets one shouted down as a communist.
Which doesn't make you one, no matter what Stan thinks. That conclusion was, indeed, where I was going. I suspect that we may never again see the excesses in using pretend capital that have been prevalent in the 90's and oughts. That may, or may not, mean that the US is not the economic powerhouse (or ersatz economic powerhouse) that it has been and that in turn may mean that the global economy may need to grow at a slower pace, but the Declaration of Independence mentions life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it never guarantees the right to turn large profits.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
do you really think they are stupid enough to permit this to continue
Well, I'm the one who has been preaching never underestimate your enemy, but so far they have been. Maybe they consider the US too big to fail?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Maybe they consider the US too big to fail
You could be right, but then, China has a certain hunger that could potentially gobble up American in a more ruthless way than those tiger economies of recent history. Then China would assume the role that the United States has played for many a decade - namely the economic powerhouse of planet Earth. And when that happens, China, rather than the United States, could also become the World's Policeman. Are you prepared for that eventuality, if not, you had better evaluate and plan for such.
-
Oakman wrote:
Maybe they consider the US too big to fail
You could be right, but then, China has a certain hunger that could potentially gobble up American in a more ruthless way than those tiger economies of recent history. Then China would assume the role that the United States has played for many a decade - namely the economic powerhouse of planet Earth. And when that happens, China, rather than the United States, could also become the World's Policeman. Are you prepared for that eventuality, if not, you had better evaluate and plan for such.
-
suhredayan wrote:
Fed can print the bills and give it to the borrowers provided the economy is robust.
Printing money is poison to the economy in the long run (and sometimes in the short run - how do you think Zimbabwe got to where it is today). Even in a robust economy, printing money causes inflation, which in turn makes the money worth less and less. You seem to believe that one can really get something for nothing. It's pretty clear that you haven't a clue when it comes to economics. people who borrow money beyond their means to repay got us in the financial crisis we are in today. That is why the Mortgage market collapsed, starting this whole chain of events leading to bank failures and general economic malaise.
suhredayan wrote: Fed can print the bills and give it to the borrowers provided the economy is robust.
And you thought his first response was ingnorant sheesh
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Does the differential reduce though? I know a lot of UK banks wont go below 3% for example.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Not sure, but I believe it's regulated as to how much they can add to the interest rate. Today's quick check has rates running from 5.2% up to 6.5%. Also, the banks make money on "fees" they charge and those can run from $500 up to $2000 for those same lending institutions...anyway, they're making thier money, though I think it's less now with the bad economy then before...
-
fat_boy wrote:
So, over to oil. My god, sub 50 a barrel, and four months back pundits were talking of 200 a barrel. How wrong can they be. And what explains the drop in proce? Can demand, and supply really drive price swings like this?
I can't remember when demand and supply last drove the prices of oil. The culprit is futures trading.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
The culprit is futures trading.
This is what I thought, and hence, what afected food prices in the first half of this year since foods became seen as fuel alternatives.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription