Is it “almost treasonous” for Fed to launch stimulus before election?

posted at 9:25 am on August 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Rick Perry had the commentariat hyperventilating yesterday, and not without reason, after an appearance in Iowa.  Perry told a Cedar Rapids crowd that any attempt by the Federal Reserve to implement an extraordinary stimulus — ie, a QE3 or “printing money” — before the election would be “almost treasonous.”  Perry warned that Texas would treat Fed chair Ben Bernanke “pretty ugly” if he visited the Lone Star State after such a move:

According to a video appearing on the left-leading website Think Progress, a reporter asked Perry what he would do about the Federal Reserve.

Standing next to a “Perry President” sign, the governor replied, “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.”

“I mean, printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history, is almost treacherous, or treasonous, in my opinion,” he added.

This wasn’t a good moment for Perry, but it will be a useful one.  He’s campaigning nationally now, not just in Texas, and that takes a different tone.  The “pretty ugly” part of the comment is being hyped as a threat of violence, but that’s stretching the argument to the breaking point.  “Pretty ugly” can mean a lot of things; it’s entirely ambiguous except that it expresses negativity.

Invoking treason is another matter.  People toss that word around irresponsibly, but it has specific legal definitions, none of which has to do with changes in Fed monetary policy whether or not it helps an incumbent American President.  A QE3 would be bad for the US, but politicians and bureaucrats implement bad policy without committing treason all the time (a lot more frequently these days, unfortunately).  Those competing for the opportunity to lead the nation should demonstrate that leadership by eschewing cheap demagoguery in favor of better arguments.  For instance, in this case it might be better to warn the Fed that any attempt to interfere with the political process through monetary policy will mean even closer political scrutiny of the Fed after the election, which is not just a legitimate point but also perhaps not a bad idea.

Perry needs to learn a lesson from this experience.  It’s good to offer red meat to the base, but it’s bad to let yourself get caught up in the feeding frenzy.

Having said that, perhaps the same press that caught the vapors from Perry’s intemperate remarks yesterday might want to report on the remarks of the Vice President comparing the administration’s Congressional opposition to “terrorists”.  Some of those screeching the loudest yesterday were among the quietest earlier this month.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM

And I told you that printing (creating actually) money and QE are not the same thing. I refuted what you said and provided a link to an article that explains it some detail. But you didn’t go to read the article.

Continue to curse the darkness instead of lighting any candles. I’m done with you.

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 3:11 PM

I know what Rick Perry is doing. He’s trying to get the conservative base riled up and support him. But you can’t go around calling people treasonous. Rick Perry was wrong for doing that.

SoulGlo on August 16, 2011 at 3:12 PM

I like Perry, but it does not do him any good if we spend days talking about whether he wants to kick Bernacke’s ass or whatever. Needless to say, Biden and Obama have both said far sillier things, but it still does not do Perry or his campaign any good. Rookie mistake.

Terrye on August 16, 2011 at 3:15 PM

TY, a beautiful quote from RR.

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 2:16 PM

You’re welcome. Thank you for inspiring me to find it!

If you run into that article you mentioned about the “Great Communicator” tag coming from the left, please post, I’d love to read it.

Missy on August 16, 2011 at 3:19 PM

And I told you that printing (creating actually) money and QE are not the same thing.

Your right, they aren’t the same.

On one hand you print dollar bills which are then converted into bits in banks computers or held in people’s wallets.

On the other hand you create the electronic bits in banks and the banks hand out the dollar bills. Or to be hyper accurate, the bits in banks that you just created allow for bits that were already there to be converted into paper.

IT IS THE SAME WITH REGARD TO THE VALUE OF THE DOLLARS IN THE SET OF [DOLLARS].

It makes no difference if you print paper bills or electronic bits in banks. The effect on the value of an individual dollar is the same.

If a bank gets a free dollar to put in their reserve so they can push out a dollar they already had, the bank didn’t create any value for that new dollar, the value remains the same, just the number of pieces of paper or electronic bits increased.

We could play this game forever where I say something, you change what I say and then try to attack that new position, but you’re a fool for doing it. It just shows that you are intellectually dishonest.

We could also talk in dept about asset exchange ratio and all the other minutiae of mechanisms that created dollars out of thin air with nothing to back it up in TARP Porkulus, and the QE’s, but I’ll wait and see if you develop a sense of honesty in your debate before I continue.

Be careful who you start accusing of knowing nothing when your argument is dependent on intentionally misrepresenting what I write.

There is no good (valid and truthful) argument that can be made for QE3. . . if you think you have one, let’s hear it.

So are you going to give it a go or can you only misrepresent what I say?

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 3:27 PM

No, no, no! That is not why QE isn’t the same as printing money.

A central bank implements quantitative easing by purchasing financial assets from banks and other private sector businesses with new electronically created money.

That is vastly different than simply creating new money and making it available for lending!!! I gave you a place to start learning and you refused to even glance at it based on the stupid post you just wrote. The quote above is from Wikipedia under the topic “Quantitative Easing.” Something that would have taken you 2 seconds to find on your own.

So stop badgering me with your ignorant demands when you cannot be bothered to learn a thing about the subject. You can continue to call me a liar and other names, but that only reflects on your lack of character, not mine.

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM

There’s no significant difference.

On one hand electronic dollars are created and exchanged for goods and services.

On the other hand paper dollars are created and exchanged for goods and services.

There is no difference between the value of a paper dollar or an electronic one.

Creating dollars out of thin air (paper or electronic) does not increase the VALUE of the money supply, nor does it cause the VALUE of the money supply to remain static.

Creating dollars out of thin air ONLY devalues all of the other dollars already out there.

There is no VAST difference between the two, the only REAL difference is who gets to spend the money first. On one hand it’s the federal government, on the other it’s banks preferred by the government.

The dollars were still created out of thin air, and they still devalue all the other dollars already in existence.

If you can prove how adding to the set of dollars by fiat does not devalue the dollars in the set previously, I’ll work hard to get you a Nobel or better. You can’t do it. Bernanke can’t do it (admittedly), Geither can’t do it (he’s tried), Obama simply says he’s done it (but he hasn’t).

Paper dollars and Electronic dollars are equal, whether you create them on a press or a keyboard doesn’t matter.

Whether or not the central bank gets an IOU from the government (for paper money) or a pledge of real property (from a bank) doesn’t matter to the VALUE OF THE DOLLAR ALREADY EXISTING, it simply goes down.

If you think it doesn’t, give us an example where it didn’t.

Your google-fu is lame, in the first case you tried to tie me up with something I never said (Inflation purely by policy) and now you’re giving me the first paragraph of wikipedia (this only shows me that you’re googling as you go ). Unfortunately for you, your wiki source confirms that the dollars were created out of thin air and by fiat.

So give us a historical example where adding currency to the currency supply created a positive effect on the VALUE of the currency, I’ll even accept a situation where the VALUE stayed level. Value it against, oil, gold, pork bellies, whatever you want, go ahead, try to google that up for us.

Creating money out of thin air devalues the money already existing. . . there is simply no way you can get around that. So either find a case where is doesn’t or quit trying.

You could of course continue by just changing something I wrote above and then argue against that.

I called you a liar (actually I said dishonest, intellectually), because you intentionally misrepresented what I wrote. You lied, I was trying to be somewhat nice about it, liar.

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Paper dollars and Electronic dollars are equal, whether you create them on a press or a keyboard doesn’t matter.

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 3:54 PM


OF COURSE THEY”RE NO DIFFERENT!
NOBODY EVER SAID THEY WERE!
MONEY CREATION IS NOT THE SAME AS QUANTITATIVE EASING!

And that is why the drivel and insults and self-defeating crap that you keep spewing is so freaking wrong.

Get it? Is any of this sinking in?

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 4:05 PM

My only demand is that you give us a good (valid and truthful) argument in FAVOR of QE3.

There is no good (valid and truthful) argument that can be made for QE3. . . if you think you have one, let’s hear it.

You seem to be supportive if it and want more, so tell us why.

That’s my only demand, if someone can give that to me I’ll be happy.

Of course it’d be a great bonus if someone could also show how adding to the set of dollars by fiat does not devalue the set of dollars already existing. As I said, if you can, I’ll help you get the Nobel or better.

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM

farewell speech in 1989:

“I wasn’t a great communicator,” said the man who talked his way into college, into radio, into the movies, into politics and into the presidency, “but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full blown from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation — from our experience, our wisdom and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries.”

Amen!

Missy on August 16, 2011 at 2:03 PM

You said it Missy!

itsspideyman on August 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

MONEY CREATION IS NOT THE SAME AS QUANTITATIVE EASING

Your right, it’s not. BUT. . . .

In order to Quantitatively Ease, you must first “money create”.

Yeah, QE is a description of what you do with the money you create, but you cannot QE without first “creating money”.

QE is not Porkulus, and it’s not TARP. Yet all three start at the exact same point “creating money”. All three have the same effect of devaluing the dollars already in existence.

It doesn’t matter what they do with the cash after they create it, the act of creating it destroys the value of what is in your wallet. QE is the same as Porkulus on that level as is TARP.

You brought out this “details of QE” and have been trying to catch me on it. YOUR OWN DEFINITION (from Wiki) states flat out that you must create money for quantitative easing.

NOW. . . tell me how adding to the set of dollars already existing doesn’t devalue them.

Pretty rich for you to try the “I never said” in all caps and bold. You’ve been doing that to me from the first reply.

So tell us why QE is a good thing there Sparky? Especially now that you admit that to QE you MUST “create money”.

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Is it “almost treasonous” for Fed to launch stimulus before election?

I can’t see how that’s really helped before, so why would one think it would work in the near future?

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM

I despise Ben’s QE policies! I have never said a freaking word in favor of them! What is your malfunction?

I provided a good article explaining just why money creation is not necessarily inflationary (including under the present economic conditions) but you are too interested in shrieking “liar, liar” to read it.

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

A central bank implements quantitative easing by purchasing financial assets from banks and other private sector businesses with new electronically created money.

Just in case you forgot what you copy and pasted.

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM

I provided a good article explaining just why money creation is not necessarily inflationary (including under the present economic conditions) but you are too interested in shrieking “liar, liar” to read it.

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Bull you did!

You first changed my position to “inflation is purely money policy” (which was your second dishonest move) and then you googled an article to refute that.

The problem is that I never said that inflation is PURELY a function of the money supply. I called you on your dishonesty and you doubled down and started getting insulting with the Beck comment and uppity about QE, about which your unfortunate Wiki quote betrayed you.

MY ORIGINAL FACT REMAINS — Printing money (through TARP, STIMULI OR QE OR FSM Poop) devalues the money in your wallet.

Inflation is most accurately seen in the MUST haves like food and energy and those are conveniently left out of the government inflation number, although the market prices it in.

I’m calling you intellectually dishonest because you are and have been throughout this interaction. You had me at Beck, you liar.

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Do you think that money creation is all there is to QE? Did you read the Wikipedia quote? Can you read?

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 4:32 PM

“most accurately” should read “most easily”; significant difference there. My apologies to any readers.

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Do you think that money creation is all there is to QE? Did you read the Wikipedia quote? Can you read?

Did I say that? NO.

Does is matter with regard to the value of money in one’s wallet? NO.

You seem to be the one with the reading problem. You have consistently misrepresented what I’ve written. You royally screwed up your Wiki quote. Can you play with scissors and paste?

Keep backtracking there Sparky. Or do you want to double down and try to tell us how QE3 doesn’t devalue the money in our wallet?

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Printing money (through TARP, STIMULI OR QE OR FSM Poop) devalues the money in your wallet.

None of those are the same as creating money you ignorant SOB! Stimulus is spending money on pork mostly. TARP is spending money for banking assets (mostly bundled home loans). QE is buying investment grade assets. All are inflationary, but none are the same thing as printing money you stupid sh-t!

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

None of those are the same as creating money you ignorant SOB! Stimulus is spending money on pork mostly. TARP is spending money for banking assets (mostly bundled home loans). QE is buying investment grade assets. All are inflationary, but none are the same thing as printing money you stupid sh-t!

TARP – Step one, create money. Step two, buy “troubled assets”

Stimulus – Step one, create money. Step two, buy “public works”

QE 2 – Step one, create money. Step two, buy “vaporware assets”

They ALL start at exactly the same place. Creating money.

My point remains the same. What exactly is yours? That a different crony gets the new money in their pocket first?

Are you REALLY going to try the “but the Fed is independent” tack now in order to differentiate them? Really?

Tell me how they don’t all start at the same place – Creating Money.

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:44 PM

You just said it! They start at the same place.

Creating Money: Step one, create money. Step two, there is no step 2 you stupid sh-t!

My point is precisely what I said it when I wrote my initial post. Creating money is not necessarily inflationary. The current economic climate is a case in point.

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Perfectly timed comment from Perry.

Americans can barely pick Bernancke out of a lineup – nor could they tell you what his job is.

In light of the recent downgrade and economic clusterfark we are in – pointing out the Feds policy is akin to treason is exactly what people need in their brains, not “food stamps for jobs” and “8% or bust” BS.

Perry led with the benefit, and will now let the left writers wring their hands on his words, which by default brings in Biden/Reid/DSW and every other nutjob liberal comment mentioned over the past 2+ years in a new light

Establishment Reps are too dumb to realize they are out to pasture, but we will use them for their money and influence, while they screech “thats not fair gents”.

Pay attention – 2010 forward, including the tepid “established Reps” in Rep polls are dying on the vine and rightfully so. They point to outdated straw polls, conferences and states that mean nothing to the general populous, nor are they an indicator of anything substansive within national politics.

They are the canasta of card games, while Texas Hold Em rakes in billions.

Perry pun intended.

Odie1941 on August 16, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Oh. . . so now it’s “not necessarily”

Uh huh.

Your forfeiture is noted.

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Bombing New York city would be an act of war and therefore Treason when done by an American Private Bank.

Bombing the money supply is therefore also Treason.

None dare call it like it is.

So fear our is what empowers our enemies.

jimw on August 16, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:52 PM

It was always “not necessarily” you illiterate jack off. Go back and read, if you can.

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Aren’t these the people who said if we bring a knife, they bring a gun, we’re hostage-taking terrorists, and their strategy for 2012 is to “kill Romney”?

Maybe they should watch what the [blank] they say.

In other words, go [blank] yourself, Carney.

capitalist piglet on August 16, 2011 at 6:17 PM

It’s about time TRUE Americans started calling what the current administration is doing “treasonous” and “treacherous”. About. Damn. Time.

Truth hurts, Ed. I’m glad the rest of the country isn’t “Minnesota Nice”.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on August 16, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Rick Perry may have been the quarterback for his small town six-man football team, but he’s more suited as an Aggie yell leader.

What I mean is this: Texas politics loves the big hat, big gun swagger. As a fifth gen native with a family rooted in politics, I know and love our hyperbolic culture. And yes, many a Texan has scuffled successfully to the White House without colloquialisms and drawl turning off the electorate. Right now is a bit different. People are looking for a strong leader BUT also a sense of calm in this economic storm. His name is oft said, but we could really use a steadfast inspirational conservative akin to Ronald Reagan. Governor Perry is a pit bull. I love pit bulls, but they’re scary by reputation and most people don’t trust them. Perry can be a great pit bull to endorse a candidate, rile up and even inspire *the base* and smack down Obama on the sidelines, but he’s not the best choice as a leader of the pack who will instill confidence to the general voter.

It’s difficult for me to admit all of this because I really do like Rick Perry. I was even considering volunteering for him. But I’ve thought long and hard and just see him as a potential big, big mistake. Yes, even with as disasterous a president Obama is, you have to remember that the media is run by latte-sipping liberals and they will spin night and day to sell The One as being a victim of inherited circumstance and hammer over and over again that cowboy Perry is an eeeevil conservative worse-than-Dubya powder keg. Normally I’d say screw ‘em, let them spin — but now, RIGHT NOW is far too important a tipping point to risk that. Rick Perry has “caricature” built in to his personality and this will, unfortunately, make it easy for MSM to sell their narrative. We. Need. Someone. Else.

EarthToZoey on August 16, 2011 at 6:24 PM

I would rather have a candidate who HAS been doing this
for three years – not a “johnny Come Lately” who had a
“come to Jesus” moment and decided he should be president”.
Sorry, “All hat, no cattle” applies here.

Amjean on August 16, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Such desperation. Perry has been something these last three years: running TX, getting re-elected 2010 to run TX, and fighting Obama on the front lines on a myriad of issues. But maybe by “something” you meant: star in reality shows, be a talking head on FNC, write Tweets and FB entries, do a bus tour, or resign as Governor. Yeah, sorry, but Perry hasn’t done any of those things.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on August 16, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Oh, and I’ll add: you used the word “decide” — at least Perry has decided, unlike someone else who has not.

Aslans Girl on August 16, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Aslans Girl on August 16, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Sorry, you used the word “this” not “something”. Perry has been fighting Obama these last three years, not just with words on FB and Twitter, but on the frontlines and has been snubbed by Obama as a result (not getting disaster relief for the wildfires, not getting the space shuttle for TX, not getting help on the border).

Aslans Girl on August 16, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 4:52 PM

It was always “not necessarily” you illiterate jack off. Go back and read, if you can.

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 5:03 PM

OMG, are you really that stupid.

is the notion that seems so popular that all inflation is caused by and/or must/should be addressed by monetary policy.
MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Note the emphasis.

You also tried to offer this:

So here is the thing. You don’t get inflation purely from an increase in the money supply.
MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 2:50 PM

There are at least two other examples I could throw in. No “not necessarily’s” around I’m afraid. Actually, you seem to have a number of occasions where you want to get all uppity about hyper-accuracy, nope, no “not necessarily’s” out there on your part.

You should remember what you write before you tell someone to go back and read it and look like an idiot.

Your forfeiture was noted. . . you should have left it there, instead, you wrung your own neck again.

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 7:04 PM

I was exploding the myth that printing money necessarily causes inflation. When I spoke of the “notion that seems so popular” I was describing the myth that needed busting. It is absolutely the case that you don’t get inflation purely from increasing the money supply as I have shown and referred to in the article you still haven’t read. The post clearly explains that creating money does not result in inflation under some circumstances. Dumbing it down to your level that means that creating money does not necessarily cause inflation. It may and it may not, depending on economic circumstances.

Keep on posting the self-congratulatory “forfeiture” crap, because it only reinforces just what a clueless, nasty, dishonest, rude illiterate you are.

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Nothingburger. It was inarticulate, if anything. But he did say, “almost treasonous,” which implies he’s comparing it to treason rather than calling it treason.

Of course, the problem with that is that Obama has done many things tremendously destructive to our nation, any of which could be called treasonous if you could prove they were intentional.

I doubt I’ll vote for Perry, but this business won’t influence me one way or the other.

didymus on August 16, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Or they’re just doing things that you disagree with, and that must mean that they hate their country because it isn’t what you would do?
Dave Rywall on August 16, 2011 at 9:52 AM

If QE3 is meant to be a stimulus doesn’t that kinda sorta say QE1 as a stimulus and QE2 as a stimulus failed?
Why would we do that again? Not saying that is treacherous, or treasonous but it sure sounds stupid.

The effect of QE “printing more money” make’s the dollar worth less yes?
This is the sort of thing that really screws the middle class. Treacherous, or treasonous? Robbing millions of Americans could be viewed as treacherous, or treasonous.

DSchoen on August 16, 2011 at 8:08 PM

People down South should think twice before yelling about treason. Just saying. Or is that just their hot-blooded “Celtic” temperament?

Seth Halpern on August 16, 2011 at 9:39 AM

People down South are some of the most loyal and patriotic Americans you could find. One of the big reasons why the South has trended solidly Republican since Vietnam is that the Democrats abandoned the defense of their country in favor of compromise with Communism, anti-war sentiment, distrust of the military, and believing that America was the problem, not a shining city on a hill. Saying things like that tends to make Southerner’s blood boil.

So what could you possibly mean by implying Southerners are a step away from treason?

didymus on August 16, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Some one once told this Yankee that “bless you heart” is a gentle way of saying “eff you.” True?
piglet on August 16, 2011 at 10:23 AM

No. “eff you.” is I’ll pray for you.

Bless your heart for asking!

DSchoen on August 16, 2011 at 8:15 PM

He actually said that Cindy and then went on his iPhone and got the statistics for where all the fat people live in the U.S. and what states have the most smokers. Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia blah, blah, blah.

They hadn’t heard about the Boeing/NLRB thing but they said Boeing has to follow “the rules” and so what if a 1000 new jobs are lost and that a private corporation has no right to move their business without Government approval.

Seriously, I’m surprised someone didn’t call the cops cause we got that loud.

How to debate with people like this?

Knucklehead on August 16, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Here’s a hint http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/how-to-talk-to-a-liberal-ann-coulter/1100321869

Just trying to be helpful

didymus on August 16, 2011 at 8:33 PM

The author effectively puts paid to that notion by demonstrating that the reason RR was so persuasive in his oratory was because his ideas were so sound and not vice verse.

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Obviously NOT a great communicator yourself if you’re going to use a phrase 80% of the country doesn’t even recognize….

didymus on August 16, 2011 at 10:05 PM

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Now you’re just FLAT OUT telling lies.

Firstly, no one ever said that money policy causes ALL inflation, EXCEPT YOU, when you were telling me that’s what I said, when I didn’t.

You tried repeatedly to double down and change what I wrote and you posted that article, which frankly, isn’t as good as you think it is and doesn’t address the argument AT ALL. It does address the argument you want to ascribe to me, but not my argument.

You haven’t addressed any points about the value of a dollar after money creation. All three examples ARE money creation with very slightly different after actions, and let’s be frank shall we Shirley. . . .ALL THREE ARE ONLY money creation schemes with different beneficiaries and associated made up names.

You tried repeatedly to deny that all three are money creation schemes and you failed miserably when you posted what you thought was a supporting quote that blew a hole in your own argument.

There is no substantive difference between the three and ALL THREE were the exact same sort of miserable failure for the economy and delivered benefits ONLY to select “preferred” groups.

TARP was a payoff to the auto unions and homebuilding unions, Stimuli was a payoff to the Public sector unions and government agencies and QE2 was a payoff to bankers. You want to pretend that they are substantially different when they simply aren’t and NO REASONABLE PERSON is trying to say that were qualitatively different in their results. IN FACT, the administration itself says that TARP was a failure, but necessary to avoid catastrophe, Stimuli was a failure because things weren’t “shovel ready” and QE2 was a failure because it wasn’t big enough and the vaporware was already effectively priced into the market.

So tell us what is so gaddam different about any of the three beyond what crony got their pocket lined first. You can’t, because they are all just money creation schemes.

All of these money creation schemes, regardless of who got paid are essentially the same when it comes to the value of the dollar. You’ve done absolutely nothing to prove otherwise except post links arguing points that no one is using but you.

You have no point. I’ve shown your lie with the “not necessarily”, I’ve shown that all three are and only are money creation schemes with merely different immediate beneficiaries.

MONEY CREATION by fiat devalues currency! There is no counter on the table and try as you might, to deny it, all three are ONLY money creation schemes.

Without “money creation” there is no TARP, period. Without “money creation” from thin air there is no Porklus and there is no QE2.

If you have some other point, one that actually addresses the issue brought up and which isn’t you changing what someone else has posited then bring it.

Go back and read your own posts, you have no valid or truthful arguments, anything you’ve posted that’s approaching truth depends on you changing someone elses’ premise first.

So unless you can show how Money Creation or TARP or Stimuli or QE2, 3, etc. didn’t and doesn’t devalue the money in our wallets, you’re just a lying hack. I’ll point out that you started off the insults.

Now why don’t you go find where you replied to me saying something about “not necessarily”.

Now I’m going to have some fun. . .

You say NOW you “can’t stand” Ben’s policies-

I despise Ben’s QE policies! I have never said a freaking word in favor of them! What is your malfunction?
MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Yet just one page back –

I don’t see money printing at this time to be a bad thing
MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Of course THEN, QE2 was by your own words “printing money”, but later, when I joined in, SUDDENLY, QE is so substantially different from “printing money” that you have to go all aggro, change other peoples statements and try to back up what amounts to a bald faced lie.

At this point I’ve got at least 5 direct contradictions in your statements over just 3 pages of comments. . . and you’re lecturing ME to go back and read?????

For reals man, your a caricature of the poor debater. You picked a target who was using some simple vernacular to make a simple and unassailable point and decided I was an idiot. So you tried some Google-fu and shot yourself in the foot. . . twice.

Give it up fool, you’ve been seen through.

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Some one once told this Yankee that “bless you heart” is a gentle way of saying “eff you.” True?
piglet on August 16, 2011 at 10:23 AM

In Bama, “bless your heart” is more generally associated with “suck it up” or if it’s man to man, it means “grow a pair”.

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 10:22 PM

People down South should think twice before yelling about treason. Just saying. Or is that just their hot-blooded “Celtic” temperament?

Seth Halpern on August 16, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Just FYI… though there’s a strong Scots/Irish tradition, you really couldn’t be farther from the truth.

How about those who take oaths to support and defend our Constitution:

Historically there has been a strong Southern military tradition, part of the Southern tradition of patriotism…

The South is overrepresented among military recruits. It provided 42.2 percent of 1999 recruits and 41.0 percent of 2003 recruits but contained just 35.6 percent of the population ages 18-24…

In addition to confirming the strong Southern military tradition, we also found an exceptional ten­dency for lower than average military participation in New England…

The numbers found that the certain sections of the country are also overrepresented in the Army, finding that 23% of all Army recruits came from the Southeastern United States (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida) while the region is only 18% of the total United States population….

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/11/Who-Bears-the-Burden-Demographic-Characteristics-of-US-Military-Recruits-Before-and-After-9-11

OnlyOrange on August 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Awwww . . . was little Ricky mean to Bennie Bernanke and Obami? Shame, shame.

Anyone can tell in 5 minutes that if you create more dollars out of nothing with no backing, it devalues the dollars we each already have.

Perry was absolutely right. It is “ALMOST treasonous” to do Quantitative Easing this year. Especially when it would be done to prop up Obama, not to help this country. I don’t think that’s an exaggeration at all. Because he said “almost.” Remember, “almost treasonous” is not a capital offense, like Rove called it. (They make me sick.) It’s not wrong to tear this country’s economy to shreds and make people suffer, but it is beyond the pale to speak so harshly. We need someone to wake people up and cut through the BS.

This stock market is not stable and QE only adds to the roller coaster. People’s 401K’s have tanked and many can’t retire, which doesn’t open up the few remaining jobs for the young graduates. This bad economy has made it bad for the old and the young. Not to mention the unemployed of all ages, the underemployed and those with wage freezes or furloughs or who went part time. Whatever little money people can save, they get no interest on, it if it’s in cash, but they can preserve their principal, unlike in the stock market.

Add to that inflation, which anyone who has been grocery shopping lately can see is getting out of control. QE only makes our dollars worth even less on top of all this other stuff.

It’s a handy trick the government and the big players on Wall Street play when no one is looking.

But overnight people are looking now. Why? Because Rick Perry was so shockingly frank and correct. I watched CNBC this morning and the roundtable was talking about Perry and Obama, as if they were the only candidates running. (little win there for Perry who jumped to the front of the pack.) They seemed scared to make actual opinions that were critical of Obama and acted like Perry crossed a line. But none of them said he was wrong. That’s the important thing.

So, besides the GASP and embarrassment from the Republican establishment, what else happened today and what is the outcome of all this?

Perry’s statement was EFFECTIVE AND GOT RESULTS.

1. While most people are still in the dark about Quantitative Easing, a lot more people today know what QE is or understand it better. People didn’t pay a lot of attention to QE2 before, but they will pay attention to talk of QE3.

WIN.

2. While some may think Perry shouldn’t have spoken so harshly (and others are enjoying the sideshow and finally paying attention to the race now and like the guy more), Perry’s statement and all the serious discussions on QE today have swayed public opinion about a future QE3. They think Perry was uncouth, but right. QE3 not a good idea.

WIN.

3. Perry tied a future QE3 to politics and propping up Obama. So this places a hurdle to the Obama administration and his political strategy. They may still do it and explain it away, but they have to work a little harder now, if they do it at all. They have to first explain why QE3 would be good for the country to a public who is now listening to this topic and they have to bend over backwards to show it’s not for politics.

WIN.

Good boy, Ricky. Mommy’s proud of you. Now go play nice with the other children.

I swear the political discussions going on in the media are like Kindergarten. GASP – Michele Bachman got Elvis’ birthday wrong. Sometimes I think this is the Twilight Zone or something.

Republicans need to learn how to win. Otherwise, why don’t we run McCain again. He was nice.

Elisa on August 17, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Jason Coleman on August 16, 2011 at 10:16 PM

No idiot, there is no inconsistency in what I said. Saying that I approve of printing money is not the same thing as saying that I approve of QE, which is what Ben is doing. I can hear the centrifuges spinning trying to keep up with the demand for Weapons Grade stupidity you keep spewing.

Let’s try again:

QE 2 – Step one, create money. Step two, buy “vaporware assets”

Creating Money: Step one, create money. Step two, there is no step 2 you stupid sh-t!

Do you see the difference? Are you really such a dumb azz that you can’t tell one from the other? Why the holy hell do you keep insisting that they are the same thing?

P.S. The above questions are rhetorical. I am through arguing with your retarded azz.

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 7:21 AM

Your such a huge fan of Wiki there Brutae, I suggest you look up “money creation”.

Sorry, you lose again.

You brought up Wiki as a valid source. Just giving it back to you.

PS – If it starts with money creation, it’s a devaluation of the currency. You’ve yet to show anything otherwise. Of course now in your mind “buying vaporware” is the distinguishing feature, that’s pretty funny.

Jason Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 11:28 AM

MJBrutus on August 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM

I don’t have scads of time, but will give it a whirl.

What causes the dollar to weaken? Is it, perhaps, the lack of industrial output? To a degree, yes, that is a proximate cause. As a proximate cause it is, thus, not the source cause which deals with why output is going down. This has many sources to it: lack of demand, lack of resources to make goods, and rising prices for resources which cut into margins making goods less profitable to sell.

The major resource in any economy is: people.

People are not just consumers but creators of wealth – people labor and expect recompense for it.

The cost of labor as a resource is one that has overhead to it: when overhead increases the cost of goods must reflect this or the labor pool per manufacturer must be adjusted to balance off that increased cost.

The source of increased overhead are many, beyond buildings, and paying people more, and we have leveraged a high number of regulations on businesses that increase the cost of overhead via health, safety, workplace, and now health insurance. These things do not happen in a vacuum and if other producers have lower overhead and lower cost of labor their goods will be differentially more competative than those without that overhead.

Printing money does not address overhead costs and, instead, dilutes the value of the dollar which increases the cost of goods. This is a form of theft as it reduces the value of small money holders with ‘money in the bank’ and rewards larger holders of cash which can garner more of the new money than the smaller ones due to leverage of size. That is a solution in search of a problem as the problem is not and cannot be addressed by liquidity as the solvency of the industrial base is the problem. More money doesn’t make you solvent as the value per unit of currency drops and the costs rise. The VALUE is just the same but the COST increases.

There is no lack of actual funds in the US economy, not one bit of it. There are institutions which are seizing up because they cannot accurately gauge the future cost of their primary resource: people. If you cannot gauge that single resource, above all others, for future costs, then hiring comes to a standstill. Nothing done with money policy will change this, and only addressing the cause of increased overhead will.

Disruptions of other resources do have profound effects, yes, but oil is not a source of liberty and productivity: you are. Gold is a spend it once deal, and if you don’t buy something to earn more by creating things of value with it, then it is a temporary buffer at best… gold holds value but creates NONE.

Increased amounts of money do no good if the overhead to start a business, expand a business, or even keep on the workforce you have is eroded away over time. The concept of a profit margin and having more than you put into production allows for marginal expansion of companies. If you want NEW sources of energy and NEW companies you want to LOWER the marginal cost of hiring and retention of personnel not RAISE IT. We are doing the opposite of what is necessary and reaping the pain.

The correct answer to inflation: do nothing, add no regulations, and do anything possilbe to make sure businesses understand that this will be the case for the next 5 years at minimum. That was what was advised to Reagan when he took office with this problem: ‘Don’t just do something, sit there.’

Worked, too.

The Fed is trying to print money no one wants and hand it out to banks so that it can be pulled back in, later. If we CAN’T do that then the money gets into the economy. The answer to inflation is not to print money: Weimar showed that to be destructive and a fool’s errand. Better to do NOTHING than do something that unsettles the market and makes people view the currency as being undermined by their own government, no?

If you want to stop inflation, do nothing, or actally start repealing regulations that add to the cost of human overhead and overhead in general for businesses. That will allow businesses to see that they can actually HAVE a profit margin, and then seek to expand their companies and hire more people. Money is just a form of transactional value and when the currency is debased no one trusts it any more and it becomes worthless. And when it is caused by a spendthrift government that can’t live within its means, then the Nation pays with untrustworthy currency… and a government doing too much and losing the faith in it to live within its means like everyone else.

ajacksonian on August 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM

ajacksonian on August 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Thank you for your thoughts. The key is here, as I see it:

The Fed is trying to print money no one wants

Since no one wants to borrow money, we in fact do not see a dilution of the value of money. That is where I part ways with you. Our current worries are not inflation caused by diluted money, but lack of growth. Businesses do not want to borrow money, even at cost of next to nothing that the Fed is offering it.

For the time being, I don’t see having excess funds available as a bad thing although it could well become a bad thing if demand for money picks up. It is when demand for money rises and the price of money does not also rise that we enable a glut of money to debase our currency.

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Brutae:

Tell us again how:

MONEY CREATION IS NOT THE SAME AS QUANTITATIVE EASING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

Don’t try to attack link, remember you went to them first.

A central bank implements quantitative easing by purchasing financial assets from banks and other private sector businesses with new electronically created money.

Tell us again how WSJ, NYT, Hotair, Obama’s trio, Krugman and Von Mises all have it wrong.

Jason Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Here’s an interesting comment of yours where you state that QE2 was printing money. Ooops!.

You also in the same quote, state that QE2 (printing money) devalues the currency.

It is clear the Chinese can’t/won’t buy our government debt forever. They surely won’t when they see that we’re out to screw them by devaluing the money we’re paying them back with. So the Fed is directly financing big gov. The Feds are simply printing money (or the modern equivalent) and lending it back to themselves!
MJBrutus on November 4, 2010 at 3:54 PM

A twofer.

Here’s a discussion about QE2 where you also call QE, “printing money”

The Benanke seems to think that since inflation and growth tend to be correlated (he must have slept through the Carter years) that he can bring about growth through printing money.
MJBrutus on July 15, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Jason Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Jason Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 11:28 AM
Jason Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM
Jason Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Let’s try again:

QE 2 – Step one, create money. Step two, buy “vaporware assets”

Creating Money: Step one, create money. Step two, there is no step 2 you stupid sh-t!

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Ah, I get it you scoundrel.

Your hiding behind “same as”. Ahhh. The definition of “is” defense from the anti-beck gold bug.

Ok huckelberry, find where I said that “Quantative Easing is the same as money creation.”

I see you’re making up things I said again, and making that your argument. So ok Brutae, find the exact quote where I said that “Quantative Easing is the same as money creation.”.

Quantative Easing is money creation. I’ve said that.

Jason Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Is it “almost treasonous” for Fed to launch stimulus before election?

Yes.

petefrt on August 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4