• 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!

LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

I've made it clear that I make no claims about this and have no claims to back up. Don't take cheap shots.

It's not a cheap shot, just saying that you haven't posted any countering evidence and only requested that he produce some sort of evidence. The funny thing is neither of you are producing evidence you're just talking about how the other should produce some evidence. :D
 
It's not a cheap shot, just saying that you haven't posted any countering evidence and only requested that he produce some sort of evidence. The funny thing is neither of you are producing evidence you're just talking about how the other should produce some evidence. :D

Well it is kind of hard to find evidence that someone is making up numbers. For instance, I could claim that Barack Obama killed 10 people yesterday. Prove me wrong. Kind of hard to do isn't it?

But I digress. I have some evidence.
Job Numbers Nonsense | Unemployment | Underemployment | Stimulus Package | SwiftEconomics.com
 
It's not a negative. But whatever - if you don't want to make a claim or can't, don't.

This nonsense again? Anyway, I have a link for you to respond to now. Go nuts.
 
This nonsense again? Anyway, I have a link for you to respond to now. Go nuts.

No thanks. What part of I'm not interested in debating this do you not understand?
 
Foreigner entities, central banks, and various financial institutions.

So how are banks going to be making loans if they're busy buying treasury bonds? Treasury bonds aren't as good as money because a bank can't hand out treasury bonds to the depositors. They want money.
 
So how are banks going to be making loans if they're busy buying treasury bonds? Treasury bonds aren't as good as money because a bank can't hand out treasury bonds to the depositors. They want money.

Ahhhhemm a central bank is not a commercial bank.
 
Really? which ones?

1205_clip_image012.jpg


"What are Banks doing with the Bailout Money?" by Cliff Küle. FSO Editorial xx/xx/2008
 
So how are banks going to be making loans if they're busy buying treasury bonds?

If they were buying bonds to the point where they were unable to loan........ there would not be reserves. We have been through this already; not sure your motivation for spinning the question.

Treasury bonds aren't as good as money because a bank can't hand out treasury bonds to the depositors. They want money.

What about reserves? You keep forgetting about the record levels, while rambling on about gibberish.
 
If they were buying bonds to the point where they were unable to loan........ there would not be reserves. We have been through this already; not sure your motivation for spinning the question.

We can't determine at what point they will start lending again because there is uncertainty. You can't just say that we are at 17x the legal minimum and declare that it is enough because that minimum is completely arbitrary. And besides, if those reserves are in treasury bonds, then it's not really a reserve.

What about reserves? You keep forgetting about the record levels, while rambling on about gibberish.

Are treasury bonds included in the reserves?
 
We can't determine at what point they will start lending again because there is uncertainty. You can't just say that we are at 17x the legal minimum and declare that it is enough because that minimum is completely arbitrary. And besides, if those reserves are in treasury bonds, then it's not really a reserve.

Are treasury bonds included in the reserves?

If you are going to argue your opinion... at least comprehend what you are discussing. You do not even understand what reserves are and yet expect your opinion to be a matter of relevance?
 
Last edited:
If you are going to argue your opinion... at least comprehend what you are discussing. You do not even understand what reserves are and yet expect your opinion to be a matter of relevance?

At least he's not blatantly lying about your position as others do in "economic" discussions.
 
If you are going to argue your opinion... at least comprehend what you are discussing. You do not even understand what reserves are and yet expect your opinion to be a matter of relevance?

Explain it to me then. You say that reserves are high, yet banks still refuse to lend. I say that it's because they're buying treasury bonds instead of taking a risk with the private sector. With so much uncertainty, I can understand. Now, if they have 17x the reserves that they need and they are not lending, and they're busy buying treasury bonds, I'm jumping to the conclusion that you are saying that treasury bonds are included in those reserves because they are as good as money (3% guaranteed return). Tell me why, despite having 17x the reserves that they need, that they are not lending, yet are able to buy treasury bonds.
 
Explain it to me then.

Do you remember this comment?

I've studied economics, just not to your liking.

And yet your errors are all covered in a macro principles course/text. So it seems as though the economics you have studied is not to your liking. Otherwise i would not have to constantly explain basic concepts... concepts that should be familiar to those having such a discussion.

You say that reserves are high, yet banks still refuse to lend.

When have i said banks refuse to lend. Banks refuse to offer prime or prime +1, prime +LIBOR to everyone wanting to take a loan. With historic low rates, consumer expectations play a considerable role expanding the cost of credit gap. The easy credit days of 2004 are gone and the consumers budget has deflated; therefore playing the blame game is questionable.

I say that it's because they're buying treasury bonds instead of taking a risk with the private sector.

Crowding out is a very real long term concern, but with private sector velocity still at uneasy levels this is a mere talking point at this time. Regardless, can you provide some recent info on the banking sector? Your article lacked quality and substance.

With so much uncertainty, I can understand. Now, if they have 17x the reserves that they need and they are not lending, and they're busy buying treasury bonds, I'm jumping to the conclusion that you are saying that treasury bonds are included in those reserves because they are as good as money (3% guaranteed return).

And there is the problem. You allow yourself to be controlled by ideology to the point where you rationalize your gaps in misunderstanding to fit. Assets are not reserves... just consider the vocabulary.... Reserves equate to cash/dollars. Assets can be debt, equity, land, derivatives (to a point), etc....

Tell me why, despite having 17x the reserves that they need, that they are not lending, yet are able to buy treasury bonds.

They were able to get into treasuries back in 2008 with newly issued TARP funds (along with offering other swap options, preferred stock, etc...) As for the current situation and purchasers of debt, well why don't you look that up. The truth might just shock you:rofl, but i doubt it.
 
Do you remember this comment?

And yet your errors are all covered in a macro principles course/text. So it seems as though the economics you have studied is not to your liking. Otherwise i would not have to constantly explain basic concepts... concepts that should be familiar to those having such a discussion.

You sure do a lot of talking down to people.

When have i said banks refuse to lend. Banks refuse to offer prime or prime +1, prime +LIBOR to everyone wanting to take a loan. With historic low rates, consumer expectations play a considerable role expanding the cost of credit gap. The easy credit days of 2004 are gone and the consumers budget has deflated; therefore playing the blame game is questionable.

You're still assuming that 17x some arbitrary amount should be sufficient for lending. A real number times something that means nothing, guess what, means nothing! We don't know when banks will feel comfortable loaning again, but with so many banks just failing or close to failing, it's easy to see why they're hesitant to loan. Government meddling with health care and its effect on employees is really adding to uncertainty. No one knows what's going to happen and so people are afraid to hire because they don't know in the end how much it will cost to hire someone right now.

Crowding out is a very real long term concern, but with private sector velocity still at uneasy levels this is a mere talking point at this time. Regardless, can you provide some recent info on the banking sector? Your article lacked quality and substance.

In other words, you don't like it and can't point out anything that you really can argue against. I'm not going to keep searching. The paper was good enough.

And there is the problem. You allow yourself to be controlled by ideology to the point where you rationalize your gaps in misunderstanding to fit. Assets are not reserves... just consider the vocabulary.... Reserves equate to cash/dollars. Assets can be debt, equity, land, derivatives (to a point), etc....

Yes, I know what you mean, yet I was trying to figure out where you were coming from. I know what reserves mean, but we've had issues with terminology before like with inflation.

They were able to get into treasuries back in 2008 with newly issued TARP funds (along with offering other swap options, preferred stock, etc...) As for the current situation and purchasers of debt, well why don't you look that up. The truth might just shock you:rofl, but i doubt it.

More talking down.
 
You sure do a lot of talking down to people.

Calling people for questionable comments is down talking?

You're still assuming that 17x some arbitrary amount should be sufficient for lending. A real number times something that means nothing, guess what, means nothing! We don't know when banks will feel comfortable loaning again, but with so many banks just failing or close to failing, it's easy to see why they're hesitant to loan.

It is a matter of timing.... Of course one could correctly argue that banks would not be assuming massive cash positions in a healthy lending environment; however this tone does not take into account the crux... which is credit worthiness.

A person with the means will not have any problem securing a loan. In November of 2008, you would have had a point. (When was the last time you took out a loan?)

So while banks have been tightening up lending restrictions (and rightfully so), responsible consumers are more apprehensive in acquiring debt (remember increased savings rates?). Strictly speaking: if you have want to take out a loan, and have the income required to do so...... YOU WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM! Banks are not going to lend on a regular basis to unworthy borrowers.
 
Last edited:
It is a matter of timing.... Of course one could correctly argue that banks would not be assuming massive cash positions in a healthy lending environment; however this tone does not take into account the crux... which is credit worthiness.

A person with the means will not have any problem securing a loan. In November of 2008, you would have had a point. (When was the last time you took out a loan?)

So while banks have been tightening up lending restrictions (and rightfully so), responsible consumers are more apprehensive in acquiring debt (remember increased savings rates?). Strictly speaking: if you have want to take out a loan, and have the income required to do so...... YOU WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM! Banks are not going to lend on a regular basis to unworthy borrowers.

Then what is the problem with the increased savings?
 
What's the problem?

Saving is good for the individual, but not for the economy as a whole.

People try to save more and therefore they spend less. Investment in the economy decreases.

This would not be a problem if credit was flowing smoothly, since saved money would be reinvested by the bank, however, credit has become harder to come by because of circumstances already described, this means there really is money being saved that is not being reinvested in the economy.

The economy as a whole is trying to sell more to save money and buy less, this creates a drop in demand. The drop in demand leads to a drop in revenues for comanies, downsizing, and unemployment. This means lower incomes, lower prices (deflation), and in turn less economic activity and even more saving. Possibly why banks are even more warry to lend right now.
 
Back
Top Bottom