Causes of High Electricity Bills in Thai Apartments

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, mania said:

Not really right?

 

Because the US ran out of (sufficient) buyers long ago

Wasn't a lot of the debt bought bu the Fed Reserve themselves? "Monetizing Debt" During QE/Bailouts etc etc

 

The whole thing boggles the mind as if they are buying their own dent with another IOU

 

Is it any wonder that all Fiat Currencies eventually fail?

This one due to Central Banks may take longer but eventually will also implode (my guess & hopefully after my time)

 

US Treasuries have been in high demand for several years now. Buyers everywhere, both foreign and domestic.THIS year that is likely to reverse as QT takes affect and budget deficits spiral upwards. Nothing wrong with higher yields if supply outstrips demand. It was the incredibly low yield these past several years that was the historic anomaly. Nothing wrong for investors I mean. Its going to present some problems for the government if their debtservice on treasuries and bonds picks up substantially.

[boomerangutang]

The government projects it will pay out about $474.5 billion in interest in fiscal 2017, which ends Sept. 30.

 

Mr. "I'm great with debt" Trump will pump that number up to a trillion, as fast as he can.  And it's doubtful he'll get Mexico or the Pope, or his daddy - to pay it.

 

 

[mania]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

US Treasuries have been in high demand for several years now. Buyers everywhere, both foreign and domestic.THIS year that is likely to reverse as QT takes affect and budget deficits spiral upwards. Nothing wrong with higher yields if supply outstrips demand. It was the incredibly low yield these past several years that was the historic anomaly. Nothing wrong for investors I mean. Its going to present some problems for the government if their debtservice on treasuries and bonds picks up substantially.

I am glad to hear that & to tell the truth it has been years since I looked closely/followed .

 

So is it above water now? Enough buyers per month that the FED need not buy any of their own paper/debt?

 

Would be interesting to know how many years will it take to catch up for the years the FED was buying what 80 billion a month+?

Edited February 9, 2018 by mania

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, mania said:

Not really right?

 

Because the US ran out of (sufficient) buyers long ago

Wasn't a lot of the debt bought by the Fed Reserve themselves? "Monetizing Debt" During QE/Bailouts etc etc

 

The whole thing boggles the mind as if they are buying their own dent with another IOU

 

Is it any wonder that all Fiat Currencies eventually fail?

This one due to Central Banks may take longer but eventually will also implode (my guess & hopefully after my time)

And Jesus is coming back any day now. We've heard that one for the last 2000 years. It seems like the predictions of the gold bugs have been going on nearly that long. They kept on predicting that Qe would bring on hyperinflation. Instead inflation levels never even came close to breaking 2%. Sociologists have noted that when an apocolyptic sect's prediction of the world coming to an end fail, the believers actually end up believing more strongly. Same thing with gold bugs and other fiat currency doomsayers.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

No I didn't. I've got nothing against Keynes, I'm not sure why you think I do. Probably related to all that fiscal stimulus business, huh? I'm not against fiscal stimulus and I'm not against Keynes, though I don't deify him as you seem to do. 

 

I think a lot of bullshit policy was done in Keyne's name. When you have to borrow to create the stimulus the affect of the stimulus is diminished. When the stimulus is largely directed at government spending (compared to private sector) you are going to get both a diminished GDP multiplier along with a diminished velocity of money:

 

Velocity of M2 Money Stock _ FRED _ St. Louis Fed.mhtml

 

I would have much rather seen the stimulus money used to provide SBA loans, go towards those "shovel ready jobs" that never came, or urban renewal projects which provide jobs immediately and well into the future. 

 

I know the economy is not the stock market and vice versa. Good luck with your studies.

On the one hand you say you've got nothing against Keynes, but on the other you say "When you have to borrow to create the stimulus the affect of the stimulus is diminished.:? That's like saying I've got nothing against Keynes except virtually everything.

 

"When you have to borrow to create the stimulus the affect of the stimulus is diminished." Really. Does WW2 mean anything to you?

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp

 

As for your velocity of money  and multiplier effect assertion. I don't see anything in the Fed link you provided that has anything to do with comparing the velocity of government spending vs, private sector spending.

 

"I would have much rather seen the stimulus money used to provide SBA loans,"

You think SBA loans in a time of depressed demand are a good idea? What sort of loans would these be?

 

""shovel ready jobs" that never came " Really? Never? You got some data to back that up? Because I'm confident I could data to show that's false.

 

Why would urban renewal projects not face the same delays as other infrastructure projects?

[lannarebirth]

8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

On the one hand you say you've got nothing against Keynes, but on the other you say "When you have to borrow to create the stimulus the affect of the stimulus is diminished.:? That's like saying I've got nothing against Keynes except virtually everything.

No it isn't. The reason you think that is because you think governments borrowing money is the only thing Keynes ever wrote about. It isn't. I recommend your reading him. He wasn't a one trick pony.

 

Staying with the equine theme, you can get it from the horse's mouth:

 

 

 

Quote

"I would have much rather seen the stimulus money used to provide SBA loans,"

You think SBA loans in a time of depressed demand are a good idea? What sort of loans would these be?

 

""shovel ready jobs" that never came " Really? Never? You got some data to back that up? Because I'm confident I could data to show that's false.

 

 

You may recall that "shovel ready" was supposed tocreate 2.5 million jobs across thousands of projects. Here's what really happened:

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by lannarebirth

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

No it isn't. The reason you think that is because you think governments borrowing money is the only thing Keynes ever wrote about. It isn't. I recommend your reading him. He wasn't a one trick pony.

 

Staying with the equine theme, you can get it from the horse's mouth:

 

 

 

 

You may recall that "shovel ready" was supposed tocreate 2.5 million jobs across thousands of projects. Here's what really happened:

 

 Please. Deficit spending during a crash like the recession or depression is the heart and core of Keynes. It's like saying I've got nothing against Einstein but I reject relativity.

As for your graph, starting in 2011, the Republicans controlled the house of representatives. And they refused to pass further infrastructure spending. That's what the graph shows.

[lannarebirth]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 Please. Deficit spending during a crash like the recession or depression is the heart and core of Keynes. It's like saying I've got nothing against Einstein but I reject relativity.

 

The multiplier effect I mentioned in a previous post is of Keynesian origination. Put this on your reading list:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money

[ilostmypassword]

31 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

The multiplier effect I mentioned in a previous post is of Keynesian origination. Put this on your reading list:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money

I know all about the multiplier effect. It's your assertion that it's greater with private spending than with government spending that I questioned. If anything, the opposite is the case during a financial recession or depression.You didn't get that from Keynes.

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I know all about the multiplier effect. It's your assertion that it's greater with private spending than with government spending that I questioned. If anything, the opposite is the case during a financial recession or depression.You didn't get that from Keynes.

No, I didn't get it from Keynes. You're the one who brought up Keynes, not me. I'll leave you to it.  

[lannarebirth]

26 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

No, I didn't get it from Keynes. You're the one who brought up Keynes, not me. I'll leave you to it.  

 

I think we've exhausted your pet topic but I'll leave you with this:

 

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/third-quarter-2017/reader-exchange

[lannarebirth]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 Please. Deficit spending during a crash like the recession or depression is the heart and core of Keynes. It's like saying I've got nothing against Einstein but I reject relativity.

 

I just know you're going to stalk me on some other topic and bring this up again so I'm going to do you a solid. What you seem to believe is not at all the heart and soul of Keynes. Keynes believed that the economy was more or less self correcting. He was not a strong proponent of government fiscal intervention in the economy despite what you and seemingly many others believe. I believe you are under the spell of Neo-Keynseian or New Keynesian theory (2 different schools)which depart from Keynes substantially in many key areas.Particularly in the belief that markets are not substantially self correcting and that government stimulus is the preferred remedy to drive demand in an economic downturn. 

[Scott]

I think the discussion of Keynes and his economic philosophy is leading us a little far astray.  

[thaibeachlovers]

The politicians ( of both sides ) have once more proven that they are swampy creatures that looooove to spend other people's money.

Why bother spending only what they take in when the corrupt banking system will aid them in ripping off future generations? It's like they learned nothing from 2008.