Stonehenge said:

Taxes are a big reason why companies are offshoring. Its not the only reason but its a biggie. Why do you think google is headquartered in another country, Ireland I think? Its not for the cheap labor its because of taxes. Same for many others.

---

amp244 said:

And to Falcon, I don't think you know very much about Quantitative Easing, which they have been "tapering" off of for some time now.

---

amp244 said:

Secondly the great depression happened just under 20 years after the Federal Reserve took over, so I don't understand your "the alternative is a great depression" statement.

---

amp244 said:

Thirdly, when you say that the target rate of inflation is 3%, you are speaking about inflation as measured by the CPI.

---

amp244 said:

Consumer prices are one aspect of the overall economy. All of this inflation that I am speaking of is creating massive asset bubbles that will pop. And when that happens, then you will see all the backed up inflation reflected in the CPI.

---

amp244 said:

Lastly, the Federal Reserve is run by the Mega Banks. To say that the problem is the mega institutions and not the Fed is contradictory.

I'll source that one so I don't get called out. From the Federal Reserve's own webpage:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

"The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

Well look at that, they even get 6% dividends every year!

---

Quote:

The Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

---

amp244 said:

I think we need to return to a gold standard at some point. BBW, the economy is supposed to have bear and bull markets. There are supposed to be correction periods, these frequent and small downturns keep the gigantic ones from happening. With current economic policy, the day must be saved by printing more money, because the guys before fucked shit up so bad saving the day printing more money. If the bubble were to pop today all hell would break loose, so they print in an effort to create pseudo-demand. People fail to see that the long term effects of printing that money today will amplify the same problem and simply push it further down the road. You are trading future cataclysm for a little temporary relief. I take moral exception to this ideology.

---

qman said:

So bailing out the banks prevented a economic depression, or a depression for people that held those assets?  They scared people into the bailout, guess what, we would all still here today regardless.

---

KauaiOrca said:

qman said:

So bailing out the banks prevented a economic depression, or a depression for people that held those assets?  They scared people into the bailout, guess what, we would all still here today regardless.

---

Bernanke has admitted that 12 of America's largest financial institutions were literally days away from insolvency.  He said the situation was much worse than the public was ever told to try and avert a full blown bank run panic. 

He was certainly in a position to know ... Whether or not we needed 3 rounds of QE and ZIRP for 5 years now is a good question, but in terms of TARP and the big infusion of back door funds the FED pumped in, I think that is clear ... without it, much worse economic drop and tougher recovery.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

amp244 said:

And to Falcon, I don't think you know very much about Quantitative Easing, which they have been "tapering" off of for some time now.

---

I believe I am well versed in both the Federal Reserve and quantitative easing, but if you see a hole in my logic, feel free to debate me about the specifics (as opposed to 'you don't know much').

amp244 said:

Secondly the great depression happened just under 20 years after the Federal Reserve took over, so I don't understand your "the alternative is a great depression" statement.

---

I'm talking about the depression that was avoided in 2008.  Bernanke studied the first Great Depression in depth, and helped prevent another from happening.

amp244 said:

Thirdly, when you say that the target rate of inflation is 3%, you are speaking about inflation as measured by the CPI.

---

That's correct.

amp244 said:

Consumer prices are one aspect of the overall economy. All of this inflation that I am speaking of is creating massive asset bubbles that will pop. And when that happens, then you will see all the backed up inflation reflected in the CPI.

---

Which bubbles you are specifically referring to?

amp244 said:

Lastly, the Federal Reserve is run by the Mega Banks. To say that the problem is the mega institutions and not the Fed is contradictory.

I'll source that one so I don't get called out. From the Federal Reserve's own webpage:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

"The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

Well look at that, they even get 6% dividends every year!

---

I'll call you out on it anyway.  From your own link:

Quote:

The Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

---

amp244 said:

I think we need to return to a gold standard at some point. BBW, the economy is supposed to have bear and bull markets. There are supposed to be correction periods, these frequent and small downturns keep the gigantic ones from happening. With current economic policy, the day must be saved by printing more money, because the guys before fucked shit up so bad saving the day printing more money. If the bubble were to pop today all hell would break loose, so they print in an effort to create pseudo-demand. People fail to see that the long term effects of printing that money today will amplify the same problem and simply push it further down the road. You are trading future cataclysm for a little temporary relief. I take moral exception to this ideology.

---

I agree, but rather than just accepting boom and bust cycles, I'd rather we pass laws that prevent crisis from happening in the first place, like Glass-Steagall.

---

qman said:

KauaiOrca said:

qman said:

So bailing out the banks prevented a economic depression, or a depression for people that held those assets?  They scared people into the bailout, guess what, we would all still here today regardless.

---

Bernanke has admitted that 12 of America's largest financial institutions were literally days away from insolvency.  He said the situation was much worse than the public was ever told to try and avert a full blown bank run panic. 

He was certainly in a position to know ... Whether or not we needed 3 rounds of QE and ZIRP for 5 years now is a good question, but in terms of TARP and the big infusion of back door funds the FED pumped in, I think that is clear ... without it, much worse economic drop and tougher recovery.

---

So insolvency and bankruptcy can't happen anymore?  So be it, we have set a horrible precedent that people like Fal will complain about in the years ahead.

---

KauaiOrca said:

qman said:

So bailing out the banks prevented a economic depression, or a depression for people that held those assets?  They scared people into the bailout, guess what, we would all still here today regardless.

---

Bernanke has admitted that 12 of America's largest financial institutions were literally days away from insolvency.  He said the situation was much worse than the public was ever told to try and avert a full blown bank run panic. 

He was certainly in a position to know ... Whether or not we needed 3 rounds of QE and ZIRP for 5 years now is a good question, but in terms of TARP and the big infusion of back door funds the FED pumped in, I think that is clear ... without it, much worse economic drop and tougher recovery.

---

KauaiOrca said:

There were many things that could have and should have been done after TARP was approved ... For instance:

1. Revisit a modern version of Glass Steagall
2. Break up the banks into smaller units
3. Prosecute executives that were part of all the fraud
4. Place serious speed limits on HFT
5. More leverage restrictions with derivatives

For starters.

---

Stonehenge said:

>Google is headquartered in Mountain View, California ... not Ireland.

That may be but their tax base is in Ireland for most of their income.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes
Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.

Google’s income shifting -- involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” -- helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries.

---

amp244 said:

That is true of the MBS's but not the treasury bills. Either way they weren't simply granted money, they sold the MBS's, some of which have become profitable.

---

qman said:

amp244 said:

That is true of the MBS's but not the treasury bills. Either way they weren't simply granted money, they sold the MBS's, some of which have become profitable.

---

The got 100 cents on the dollar when in fact they were worth .50 cents, that's called getting free money for bad behavior.

---

qman said:

amp244 said:

That is true of the MBS's but not the treasury bills. Either way they weren't simply granted money, they sold the MBS's, some of which have become profitable.

---

The got 100 cents on the dollar when in fact they were worth .50 cents, that's called getting free money for bad behavior.

---

Stonehenge said:

You are mixing your metaphors, real estate has nothing to do with qe.

---