I know I went off-topic a bit but at least that was inspired by prior comments. Wtf does this have to do with the effects of higher oil prices?
Lone and free-mind Israel could/may attack Iran and middle east which will lead to World War 3. So you can understand what will happen to USA and world economy.
Not really. Either way, again, what does this have to do with the impact of oil prices on the US economy?
This may be true but the effect will still be quite negative, regardless of how it affects other countries.
Morganist, I wonder about your general idea of commercializing macro economic policy, it seems a bit off. I don't mind people who make a go of it at all and try something new, however I do mind people who pretend to be all high and mighty while they still have a donations button on their website which is supposed to publicize their "research" (or whatever it is that stuff is). Answer. Everyone has to work. I would need to earn a living. If I spend time on calculations then I should be paid. I sacrifice my time now and get paid on adoption or use of the calculations. The only point you make that *may* be true is that the relative purchasing power of the US compared to EU and China will go up in the event of an oil price shock, however who cares about that anyway? The goal of economic policy is to all get richer (preferably us a little more and certainly not less richer than them). Answer. Actually it is deeper than that. The countries that have been affected by the unrest are mainly supplying European countries and thus Europe is more heavily impacted than the US. Your point that consumption increase in China will lead to a worse situation for the US is also slightly strange. How exactly would that be the case? (Assuming China's production capacity in the short term is very limited and in the long term is at least not infinite) There will have to be increased imports from US by China to meet this increased consumer demand. This will be good for the US trade deficit which should be a positive. Answer. You are missing other aspects. The more China makes the more power it has. The more arms it can buy etc. Also, for some reason which I haven't been able to really understand, the Chinese like the worst of American exports like Chevrolets and what not (instead of the good stuff like peanut butter M&M's, Reese's, mountain dew, root beer and In&Out). Annoys me to great extent that we in Europe also get Chevrolet but none of the above mentioned things. If you might just have concluded something like "Short Hang Seng/Shanghai Comp/CAC40/EuroStoxx50, long S&P500/Russell2000 with/without currency hedges and whatever other hedges may be necessary" you might have actually made a valid suggestion which could bring valid trade ideas to readers here (even if your arguments to do it is totally wrong) but instead you just ramble about what a great macro economist you are and how you "invent models". Answer. Who is being materialistic now. You seem to only understand macro economics as a way of making money for trading. Not as a subject that can be used to improve the quality of life. Or in this case reduce the deterioration of quality of life. Do you really think a more powerful China will be beneficial to the rest of the world?
Are you proposing that there might a future where the UK or the EUR replaces the bank of england or the ECB with your patented calculator? And solves the problems of business cycles and world hunger? Is that really how you think it all works? Perhaps it is in your brave new world where your racial superiority grants a key to the great console of economic policy levers.
First of all it is not a racial thing. My name is Morgan. If you research that name you will see there are a lot of banks with that name. The big problem is national debt and debt in general. This constrains the ability to control aggregate demand. I suggest that the government would have to use a new methodology not because they want to but because they can not use the current one effectively. They could not get away with interest alterations without impacting the economy in a detrimental way. I could deliver an alternative. Your understanding of economics is based on the neoclassical synthesis. It is a general understanding of economics that merges developments of finance and economics over the last few hundred years. You see it as an absolute but do not understand the reasons why it developed and the alternatives. You need to open your mind.
Um... my doorman's last name was also morgan - I don't think having a fairly popular last name opens doors at publically traded banks or confers special insights. Also, you keep assuming that economists are only train in neoclassical methods. That's the decidedly not the case. As a trader in the macro markets, I like to keep a very open mind. However, you are a charlatan.
No the neoclassical synthesis is not the neo classical school of thought. It is the amalgamation of schools that has developed to a general understanding of economics. In relation to the surname. Assuming there is no link. though there is evidence to suggest there is. That doesn't detract from my immediate family. Who all worked in relevant fields. I don't really understand why you call me a charlatan or why you would bother to take time to insult someone on an internet forum. You may think I am lost but I do not think I am. However I am doing something which amounts to creative action. You are just insulting me and do nothing creative. Perhaps you might consider a cross word.