• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The coming 'tsunami of debt' and financial crisis in America

Here, here. You are presenting a position that is remarkable. Conservatives were previously arguing that raising the money stock would be inflationary and, therefore, the QE program was a failure because it will cause high inflation. Now, since QE did not cause high inflation, you make the exact opposite argument -- QE is a failure because it did not cause inflation.

If one is claiming that the middle class is shrinking and it is due to Obama policies, which policies might those be? What has happened over the last three decades in growing income inequality, with more and more income concentrated into the top class, which means less is available below. The latest data shows that "Average, or mean, pretax income for the wealthiest 10% of U.S. families rose 10% in 2013 from 2010, but families in the bottom 40% saw their average inflation-adjusted income decline over that period, according to the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances, which is conducted every three years." Obama didn't cause that. That is the legacy of rolling back taxes on the rich going back to the Reagan years and made worse under Bush.


Well Conservatives AND Ben Bernanke.

He sold QE on the basis it would be inflationary.

Monetary Stimulus wherever its implemented is supposed to be inflationary.

But a continued horrible economy keeps that inflation in check.
 
Typical, you get the answers for the same questions in another thread....I link to it....and instead of responding there....you giggle like a schoolgirl here.

Sad.
 
Well Conservatives AND Ben Bernanke.

He sold QE on the basis it would be inflationary.
Citation, please.

Monetary Stimulus wherever its implemented is supposed to be inflationary.
Only when holding a faulty view for the current economic environment and how QE was used.

But a continued horrible economy keeps that inflation in check.
Not in the context of QE, QE (and there was more than on type used) as it was used in these instances did not because of the circumstances. Without QE, the economy would be MUCH worse.
 
Typical, you get the answers for the same questions in another thread....I link to it....and instead of responding there....you giggle like a schoolgirl here.

Sad.

I just think its funny that you buy into the level of nonsense that that thread represents.
 
Well Conservatives AND Ben Bernanke.

He sold QE on the basis it would be inflationary.

Monetary Stimulus wherever its implemented is supposed to be inflationary.

But a continued horrible economy keeps that inflation in check.
QEx wasn't purposed for inflation at all but to right the economy.
link: Onswipe
 
I just think its funny that you buy into the level nonsense that that thread represents.
And this is another typical bs response from you, the response that I linked to was not in any manner legitimizing "what that thread represents".

SO we have you giggling.....and spewing out of context non-sequiturs.....while still avoiding responding to the post I linked to. This is even more stupid than ignoring posts directed to you and responding to posts not directed to you.

Pathetic.
 
Citation, please.

Only when holding a faulty view for the current economic environment and how QE was used.

Not in the context of QE, QE (and there was more than on type used) as it was used in these instances did not because of the circumstances. Without QE, the economy would be MUCH worse.


What happens when alll that new liquidity enters into the economy ?

Is the effect of Trillions in new liquidity entering into the economy Inflationary or deflationary ?

Well, it was SUPPOSED to enter into the economy via lending but over 80 percent of that liquidity sits idle on the FEDs books marked as " excess reserves ".

The fact that it sits stagnant kind of contradicts Bernakes initial QE pitch when he lamented the lack of access to credit as the reason for the Great depression lasting as long as it did.

In fact the ONLY effective economic policy so far in terms of climbing out of the recession are policies that incentivize new investment.

You're welcome Obama.

If not for Texas's booming economy you wouldn't have any positive news economic news to share.
 
What happens when alll that new liquidity enters into the economy ?
Again, still confused as to why your theory/model just doesn't work.


Before we go any further....please, I want to see that citation where Bernanke claimed any QE would be inflationary.
 
Back
Top Bottom