Wow, how can get paid $2,500/month to post Bloomberg spam? That sounds like a fantastic deal! If you extrapolated that to an annual salary, about 35% of Americans work jobs that pay less than that.
This is really scary because it means that if somehow billionaires and companies that received assistance from Quantitative Easing decided to spend their wealth, it would cause considerable inflation.
Quantitative easing has literally zero to do with what you're proposing, the amount of money infused was pretty small compared to the size of our economy (arguably way too little), and the rest of us would've been even more fucked had it not happened.
Correlating QE to billionaire spending and inflation is like correlating how much change you find in your couch to your maximum potential earnings. It doesn't make sense.
And don't get me wrong, I totally hate Bloomberg and I know he has literally zero business being president. I'm not shilling for him, he's a piece of crap, don't vote for him...
I just really fucking hate it when people say things that sound "right" or even "informed" about economics that aren't because the whole science gets shit on daily by people who have no business talking about it without stating "I know nothing" before posting. If you don't make posts on physics theories don't make them about economics; it's actually even more hurtful because getting through the misinformation is harder and more prone to error.
Edit: to be clear, we essentially bailed out the banks with absolutely no repercussions except to the working class through deflated bonds and interest rates.
Here's the Gini coefficient from 2000 until now for the USA; which, measures income inequality:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/219643/gini-coefficient-...
It was anything but a disastrous policy, it was a disaster mitigating policy... it was one completely underfunded by any sane measure, but did mitigate disaster.
Yeah, the banks got bailed out and no one got tried. Those two things are completely independent of each other. One has to do with economic policy and the other one is with governmental policy.
Don't blame the bailout because the motherfuckers didn't go to jail.
Look at capital gains vs savings rates over the last 12 and cry. Then look at pension funds debts.
Finally, the Gini coefficient did go up from the highest of all first world countries to the highest by a significant amount.
The bailout wasn’t the problem. There was no punishment, yes, and QE was a hands down unmitigated robbery and the major factor in the populist upswings around the world.
Here’s a good one:
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/08/homeownership...
Of course you have to correlate it. Do you know what QE was? Without QE fixing the balance sheets of the banking system and low interest rates, we'd most likely be facing major deflation. Without QE and low interest, bloomberg's net worth would be much smaller and that most definitely would affect his spending.
> it's actually even more hurtful because getting through the misinformation is harder and more prone to error.
The fact that you correlated economics to physics/science makes it difficult to take your argument seriously.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/10/17/eid-economics-...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/nobel-...
At best you can argue that economics is a pseudo/soft science like political science than a real/hard science like physics.
You linked to absolute bullshit.
Dody T. Eid is a fucking nobdoy. Straight up just some jackass who has no background in economics writing very conservative op-eds. Next up is Joris, who let me quote the wikipedia block from google: "[..] is a Dutch non-fiction author, anthropologist, news correspondent, and TV interviewer. Wikipedia"
You can credit my Economics background for my astute bullshit detector.
> Of course you have to correlate it. Do you know what QE was? Without QE fixing the balance sheets of the banking system and low interest rates, we'd most likely be facing major deflation. Without QE and low interest, bloomberg's net worth would be much smaller and that most definitely would affect his spending.
Yeah, great idea deflation, that's how the great depression happened because the government at the time and federal bank said "piss off wankers." It triggers a deflationary spiral, which stops spending, and causes economic collapse, here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Deflationary_spiral
It's safe to say it's you, friend, who does not know anything about QE, economic history, theory, or its application.
FWIW, I hate Milton Friedman and think he was an asshole who had an enormous amount of bullshit ideological driven policies that strayed far from the science, but god damn he hit the nail on the monetary policy preventing the great depression... which is exactly what happened in 2008/9 by the FED holding interest rates low or negative.
I do like Keynes mostly, but unfortunately, because a lot of America has no idea about how economics works, especially on a macro scale, we didn't get the "new deal." We should have we got "the shitty deal," which was no investment infrastructure.
Is that because of all the bullshit in economics gave you ample practice in detecting bullshit? Well be patient with me because my limited economics background most likely pales in comparison to yours.
> Yeah, great idea deflation
I didn't say deflation is great. You are reading into things too much. I just said QE and low interest rates had an impact on inflation. Something which you cavalierly dismissed. I said QE and low interest rates prevented deflation.
> It's safe to say it's you, friend, who does not know anything about QE, economic history, theory, or its application.
All you've provided are just ad hominems and just cnbc talking points with nonpertinent rants on the side. Everything you disagree with is "bullshit" and everything you say is "gospel". Typical economics background behavior.
For someone "with an economics background", you would know how it has so many "gurus" and so much unsettled "science" in it. How one nobel prize winning economist could say the world economy is going to collapse after the previous election and another can say it will be great and economics couldn't settle the issue either way.
But then again, this comment thread is precisely why I view economics as a religion rather than a science. Where people make up shit that aligns with their agenda and worship their prophets ( Keynes, Marx, etc ). Sometimes it's hard to differentiate between a religious zealot and someone with "an economics background".
In reply to this:
>> I rely on Matt Levine to explain, more clearly than I could, how brokerages make money
You wrote:
> You rely on someone who never worked for a brokerage to teach you how brokerages worked?
Maybe you should really think that through in the context of economics.
You are invested in this. That's the type of religious zeal I'm talking about.
> Maybe you should really think that through in the context of economics.
Only if economics worked like brokerages work.
The fact that you have to go "3 days back into comment history" rather than using the "science" in economics to support your argument should tell you something. That's the difference between religion, economics, political science, etc and physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. One responds with straw man and red herrings, the other responds with actual science and facts.
Or maybe people should just stop relying on Tw/Fb/etc for their news.