Ah, so you're saying we can't do it there, because everyone is an asshat. Gotcha. Why'd you waste time suggesting it, then? I guess we'll have to do it here!
You and I both know your views are marginal. Which is why you think they must be right. The very definition of a crank.
Those are very disturbing numbers! It isn't within the Fed's capability to affect this balance between full and part time employment to much extent. The Fed can provide stimulus and prevent deflation, and that does help increase employment, but how the money pumped into the economy is allocated is critical. This is as much, or more, under control of Congress as it is the Fed. The Fed can do their job well; yet without a cooperative Congress that pulls in a direction consistent with Fed initiatives, money pumped into the economy may flow eventually into hands that will perpetuate past economic defects. I am extremely concerned that those in the labor class are being shut out of opportunity, no matter how hard they work, to move to capital; opportunity that was there in the 1950-70 period. You can't expect anyone to work hard to better their lot if there is no incentive. There is no incentive without opportunity.
The point isn't that the Fed can correct this problem. The point is that economic policy is continuing to cause economic distress. The Fed can only react to try to keep economic activity of some sort moving by continuing to increase liquidity until they can see the economy improve so QE isn't required to keep us from falling into the abyss. I would just as soon let the fall occur so that the troubling policies that are root cause of the weak economy can be corrected both in the markets and in the government. The longer the Fed artificially postpones the inevitable the worse it is likely to be. I don't see the Obama Admin or Congress making any attempt to correct the problems they have created so long as the Fed keeps things just floating along. A crisis will make them act. The fear is that they will react with stimulus instead of policy change. That would be a mistake of monstrous proportions. And, that risk is great while Obama and Reid are running the show.
I prefer kook. It has that "get off my lawn you damned kids" type feel to it. Though for some reason that reminds me more of Scat.
Let's be accurate here, shall we? At no point during our conversation, do I recall making a statement that QE1, 2 and Twist worked. I said that I believed that they were warranted by the economic backdrop, which is a bit different. I have given you things that have, in fact, improved. The charts that you have commented on in the CR article don't just talk about the "extrapolated bright future". The extrapolations are in fact based on the data, which the charts summarize. Specifically: - Total housing starts, seasonally adj ann rate: Jan12 - 723k, Dec12 - 983k - Local and state govt employment: Jan12 - 18.979mil, Dec12 - 19.185mil - US budget deficit: 2012 - $1089bn, 2013 (CBO estimate) - $642bn - Total household debt balance: 2012 Q1 - $11.44trn; 2013 Q1 - $11.23trn - Household debt svc ratio: 2102 Q1 - 10.78%, 2013 Q1 - 10.49% Now you may choose to regard the above as insignificant or transitory. That judgment is subjective. However, one thing for sure. All of the above unequivocally constitute improvements. Indeed, you have summarized my view correctly. Now here's my question to you. Given the state of the US economy during 2008 and, subsequently, in 2010, 2011 and 2012, what would you have done, given how you feel about QE?