Please excuse me for cursing, but sometimes ya just gotta: HOLY FUCK! Did you not read what I wrote? Point me to where I advocated the Fed doing anything? Read my post again, and if you want, answer what I actually wrote. Or not, your choice.
Nausea is indeed better than puking. But not 20 years of nausea! Anyone in their right mind would have chosen 6 months of massive difficulties in the economy, with the knowledge that, once fixed, we could return to the path of prosperity. But those in power didn't want that, as it meant a change to the status quo. So we'll instead limp along for 20 years, and never really fix anything.
Well, maybe if you wrote coherent sentences, I could understand your meaning better. Looks to me like you have some sort of strategy for what the Fed has to do in order to "keep prices worldwide even"...whatever the hell that is. I took that to mean you are suggesting the Fed print in order to do...whatever it is you're referring to. I suppose I should have just replied "what the hell are you trying to say?" So you're saying the Fed can do anything and it has no effect on Fiscal policy? Do I have to pull out the Fed governor speeches that warn the Fed could be enabling reckless congressional spending by keeping interest rates artificially low? So, the blue songbird eventually returns in spring and brings with it the happiness of summer? Great! So why is it again we are on QE3 or 4, or 5 if monetary policy is ineffectual at best? I speak several languages, but none of them allow me to coherently interpret just what the hell you are trying to say in the last paragraph. I'd advise putting down the glass of whiskey and attempting to clear your head before responding.
The money is merely a symbol, always has been. Therefore it can be destroyed just as easily as it can be created. That's never been easier, since paper is not central anymore. So, we're not "all going to die" (in the figurative sense) unless REALITY, ie. air, water, food, shelter cannot be produced here, on our territory. As long as those things can still be produced, men can always change the quantity and distribution of currency so that the game of trade and living can go on. But if you want the game to play like poker, that is, it's over when one guy (the few) have all the chips, it will get ugly. I suggest the rules of the game be changed to reflect the changing reality of production.
Can someone please ask the professor how the Fed can shrink it's balance sheet without upending markets into chaos now that it has them addicted to easy money? I'd ask him myself, but he has me on ignore for his inability to counter my points.
Lil' Ricky has me on ignore as well, he claims it's because I'm too honest and candid for his girly man sensitivities. Personally I think he's just a chicken shit coward.
You mean that commie dog ricter? I don't know if he has me on ignore or not. He may since he got all upset that I couldn't see his comments aimed at me about 6 months ago. If the Fed goes forward with its plan to buy an additional $40 billion in long-dated federal agency-backed debt and do so indefinitely, it will be adding nearly a half-trillion dollars a year to its already worrisome balance sheet. Shrinking the balance sheet to a more normal size by unloading all these long-dated assets will prove difficult, despite Chairman Bernankeâs brave assurances to the contrary. Almost by definition, this unwinding will occur as interest rates rise, making the sell-off difficult for the Fed and hard on the economy. Bernanke should find a convenient excuse to stop QE3 before he does any more damage. http://www.heritage.org/research/re...e3-a-policy-predicated-on-irrational-behavior
To ask the question is to answer it. As for the rest, if you don't understand it, fine. I'm not here to teach you English. Try translating it into one of your other languages and then back to English. Maybe that'll help. Or not. I'm not interested in someone who responds as you do.
I've posted this before, here it is again, the ultimate judgement, as far as I'm concerned, on the mere competence of Mises, much less his relevance to anything going on now. Simplistic and demagogic is all Austrian economics is, and that started with its, as they say in anthropology, "culture hero". The below has to do with a controversy in Austria over whether the central bank of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was attempting to maintain a pure gold standard, or managed its currency via manipulation of and placing restrictions on forward exchange, an approach that would violate gold-standard orthodoxy: Too long and technical? Sooo sorry.