New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Is it time for the FED to restore interest rates?

Days

Commentator
The US military played a prominent role in building the Transcontinental Railroad in the 19th century and organized crucial aspects of FDR's New Deal in the 20th. If some Pentagon thinkers believe climate change represents a legitimate national security risk, the US military could direct a 21st century Green New Deal program capable of providing jobs for millions of unemployed young people from Yucatan to the Yukon. Perhaps the US Constitution could be amended to permit the Pentagon to partially fund its operations with revenues received from new infrastructure projects once they go into operation?
funding is a piece of cake and doesn't require legislation. The Treasury can print money and morning the coffee feels right to them. All they need is the boss to order it up.
 
funding is a piece of cake and doesn't require legislation. The Treasury can print money and morning the coffee feels right to them. All they need is the boss to order it up.
I wonder if Bernie has the balls for that one? I feel a little guilty saying a full blown economic Depression next spring might put a socialist in the White House in 2017, but, should such an event occur, the groundswell of public opinion could forge a huge "bully pulpit" in the Sanders's Administration.
 

Days

Commentator
I wonder if Bernie has the balls for that one? I feel a little guilty saying a full blown economic Depression next spring might put a socialist in the White House in 2017, but, should such an event occur, the groundswell of public opinion could forge a huge "bully pulpit" in the Sanders's Administration.
The slim ray of hope, and I think it is very slim, is that Sanders could be so desperate to beat Hillary, that he spills the beans to the American public. I don't think it is that damn difficult to explain this to the American public, just keep it simple and be honest; Hillary would never do it to her Wall Street backers, and you don't hear any of the republicans saying boo about it... he would become the nation's only hope. Politicians being what they are, I could see him promising it and then not doing it after it gets him elected.

But, sure, if the FED pops that stock bubble - and they claim they are determined to do so - you could easily be looking at the job side of depression, we already are in a housing depression.
 
Hillary would never do it to her Wall Street backers, and you don't hear any of the republicans saying boo about it... he would become the nation's only hope. Politicians being what they are, I could see him promising it and then not doing it after it gets him elected.
I haven't "chosen" between a Democrat or Republican for any national office in decades, so I'm hard pressed to believe Bernie will win the nomination or become a significant threat to Empire if events should conspire to deny Clinton her place in History. On the other hand, I don't see anyone else in 2016 who offers more. JFK may have shown all subsequent commanders in chief who truly rules in the US.
"Sanders has yet to lay out a detailed foreign policy agenda. In fact, his campaign website does not address a single foreign policy issue (unless you count climate change).

"But his admission that he would not end the drone program signifies that military force in countries like Yemen, Somalia, and parts of Pakistan will be continued under a potential Sanders administration."
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/08/31/3697175/bernie-sanders-wouldnt-end-obamas-drone-program-promises-to-use-it-very-selectively/
 
By how much did Quantitative Easing worsen income inequality in the US?

According to Gerald Epstein, co-director of PERI and Professor of Economics, probably not by as much as you think.

Sharmini Peries conducted a recent ~9:00 minute interview with Professor Epstein for TRNN:

"It has been a year since the Federal Reserve ended its policy of quantitative easing. This is where the Federal Reserve bought up over $4 trillion in financial assets of the big banks following the onset of the great recession. What do we know about the effects of this policy and the impact it has had on us in the U.S.? Joining me now to discuss all of this is Prof. Jerry Epstein..."

"PERIES: So Jerry, did quantitative easing increase income inequality?

"EPSTEIN: Yes, it probably did. But not probably by quite as much as some of the strongest critics have suggested. You know, there's a big debate now among economists and politicians and others about the effects of quantitative easing.

"And even though it ended over a year ago, as you said, it's still a big debate because the Federal Reserve has still, as you know, continued to keep interest rates down at zero..."

"PERIES: So you mentioned earlier that it had a modestly dis-equalizing effect despite of having equalizing changes to, say, employment or mortgage financing. Explain that a little bit more, the different effects it has had.

"EPSTEIN: Right. So the debate is--some people say, look, the Federal Reserve, as I just said, they buy up all these financial assets, and that increases the value of these assets.

"And who owns the assets?

"Well, it's well known that it's primarily the 1 percent, and the 0.01 percent of the income and wealth distribution that own most of the financial wealth.

"So by definition, when the Federal Reserve is doing something, printing money to buy financial assets, driving up their prices, that's going to immediately help the rich and the banks that own these assets first. And in fact that's what we found out, by looking at these data.

"However, as Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen and other economists have argued, that's not the only effect. In fact, various channels through which this quantitative easing can affect people in the economy.

"As you said, it can also, lower interest rates generate more investment and employment.

"Another thing it can do is lower refinancing costs for people who have home mortgages or student loans.

"That can help people in debt, who are typically people in the middle or lower end of the income distribution.

"But on the other side it can also lower interest rates for savers. People who have money in the checking and savings account, which tend to be more middle class people. So their returns on those kinds of investments go down.

"So the real thing that's difficult and that we tried to do was to, how do you balance off all of these impacts? How do you estimate these countervailing impacts? So what we found was that overall, equity prices went up significantly, and did help the wealthy significantly..."
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15048
 
Top