"This time is different" - Rogoff & Reinhart

Anyways, we can choose austerity or stimulus, be that monetary or fiscal.

Well, we have mostly austerity taking place in Europe, and it's not doing any good for any of those countries GDP, and even less for living conditions.

"Austerity or stimulus" is a false dilemma. Illegitimate debts should be cancelled, not paid by the inflation tax. Austerity in the context of the sovereign debt crisis simply means using taxpayer dollars to pay off bankers who have conspired with politicians, instead of financing schools and roads. Nobody other than elite bankers wants this.

Europe could arrive at some standard of debt legitimacy, and selectively forgive all debts that don't meet that standard, while protecting legitimate mom and pop bondholders. The problem would then lie with insolvent banks who would undoubtedly hold their depositors and Europe hostage with threats of economic armageddon. But then the ECB could simply call their bluff and not bail them out, or, alternatively, bail out depositors directly and let the banks fail (or, as I would have done, let banks AND depositors fail). This would have been a better alternative if it was done in the US, as opposed to rewarding bank executives with massive bonuses, and keeping TBTF banks alive.

Unfortunately, the ECB, the Fed, and the IMF work for the banks, not the public, so to say this type of solution is unlikely to happen would be an understatement.
 
Last edited:
"Austerity or stimulus" is a false dilemma.
I agree. The best solution would be a mixture of Austerity to cut losses and eliminate waste, combined with Stimulus to encourage confidence and promote growth.

or, as I would have done, let banks AND depositors fail
Yes, that would be super idea. :rolleyes:

There are few things that would make me consider taking up arms against my government. Having my life savings wiped out because they 'let banks AND depositors fail' would definitely be one of them.
 
I agree. The best solution would be a mixture of Austerity to cut losses and eliminate waste, combined with Stimulus to encourage confidence and promote growth.

Yes, that would be super idea. :rolleyes:

There are few things that would make me consider taking up arms against my government. Having my life savings wiped out because they 'let banks AND depositors fail' would definitely be one of them.

guys, all joking and banter aside, I think everybody needs to go read this now

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/why-u...ic-consequences-eurozone-canadian-banks-jeffe

if they are anywhere near correct, there may not be any real choices left. for a change I really hope they're wrong, but as ever I tend to doubt it.

their article is based on and builds on this from Reuters

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuter...d_the_great_Wall_St_re-hypothecation_scandal/
 
Last edited:
I agree. The best solution would be a mixture of Austerity to cut losses and eliminate waste, combined with Stimulus to encourage confidence and promote growth.

Yes, that would be super idea. :rolleyes:

There are few things that would make me consider taking up arms against my government. Having my life savings wiped out because they 'let banks AND depositors fail' would definitely be one of them.

Why? Do they have a contractual obligation to "help you out"?

Suppose they borrow money to "help you out". They are borrowing from the future. And those people of tomorrow would look at your actions as stealing from them, through the government as your agent.

So as I see it, you can either come clean now, or face those people tomorrow. And I don't think that would be pretty.
 
"Austerity or stimulus" is a false dilemma. Illegitimate debts should be cancelled, not paid by the inflation tax. Austerity in the context of the sovereign debt crisis simply means using taxpayer dollars to pay off bankers who have conspired with politicians, instead of financing schools and roads. Nobody other than elite bankers wants this.

Europe could arrive at some standard of debt legitimacy, and selectively forgive all debts that don't meet that standard, while protecting legitimate mom and pop bondholders. The problem would then lie with insolvent banks who would undoubtedly hold their depositors and Europe hostage with threats of economic armageddon. But then the ECB could simply call their bluff and not bail them out, or, alternatively, bail out depositors directly and let the banks fail (or, as I would have done, let banks AND depositors fail). This would have been a better alternative if it was done in the US, as opposed to rewarding bank executives with massive bonuses, and keeping TBTF banks alive.

Unfortunately, the ECB, the Fed, and the IMF work for the banks, not the public, so to say this type of solution is unlikely to happen would be an understatement.

Fiscal austerity is reduction in public spending and monetary austerity is reduction of money supply (low inflation targeting). This is relevant to both Europe and the US. And the point here in regards to the thread is that "this time is different" also applies to the lessons learned from the Great Depression. You can throw in WWII and post-WWII economy as well. And that is that stimulus is capable returning the economy to prosperity faster.

The things you are advocating are very much of the stimulus type even if it doesn't seem that way to you.
 
I agree. The best solution would be a mixture of Austerity to cut losses and eliminate waste, combined with Stimulus to encourage confidence and promote growth.

I think you have to first understand what I wrote in order to agree. Nowhere did I promote "stimulus". I am actually in favor of real austerity, which is rolling back government to constitutional levels, not fake austerity, which is simply the looting of taxpayer dollars, by bankers.

Yes, that would be super idea. :rolleyes:

There are few things that would make me consider taking up arms against my government. Having my life savings wiped out because they 'let banks AND depositors fail' would definitely be one of them.

Why should other taxpayers be forced to pay for your poor decision to leave your own money with corrupt banks? They shouldn't.
 
Fiscal austerity is reduction in public spending and monetary austerity is reduction of money supply (low inflation targeting). This is relevant to both Europe and the US. And the point here in regards to the thread is that "this time is different" also applies to the lessons learned from the Great Depression. You can throw in WWII and post-WWII economy as well. And that is that stimulus is capable returning the economy to prosperity faster.

The things you are advocating are very much of the stimulus type even if it doesn't seem that way to you.

Serious question: ARE YOU JUST MAKING THINGS UP???

Because if you are not, please lead us to authoritative references that show that someone else agrees with your definitions in bold above.

Because if you are making these definitions up, then there is no one else in this discussion using the same definitions as you. And if you are not making them up but they are actual economists definitions, then some of the people in this forum, including myself, are using the phrases quite differently.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Serious question: ARE YOU JUST MAKING THINGS UP???

Because if you are not, please lead us to authoritative references that show that someone else agrees with your definitions in bold above.

Because if you are making these definitions up, then there is no one else in this discussion using the same definitions as you. And if you are not making them up but they are actual economists definitions, then some of the people in this forum, including myself, are using the phrases quite differently.

Thanks.
Here is one.
http://econ.economicshelp.org/2011/12/how-does-austerity-affect-economy.html

Monetary policy. Austerity involves lower domestic demand. However, if monetary policy can be loosened (e.g. lower interest rates or increased money supply) then the deflationary effects of spending cuts can be offset. For example, in the Euro, countries like Greece have fiscal austerity, but there is no corresponding loosening of monetary policy (e.g. the ECB increased interest rates in early 2011 and didn't pursue any quantitative easing). By contrast, the UK has more flexibility because the Bank of England pursued quantitative easing.

Most short definition simply talk about cutting back on spending. When you also maintain monetary austerity, meaning that you don't do the open market operations to increase money supply, you further increase the effect of cutbacks on spending.
 
Why should other taxpayers be forced to pay for your poor decision to leave your own money with corrupt banks? They shouldn't.
People who invest money into savings accounts to earn interest are taking a risk and ought not be bailed out if that investment goes sour.

However, there is a case to be made for protecting money that is in ordinary everyday trading accounts. (Banks should not be allowed to loan out money from these accounts but that is another matter). In days gone by it was mainly businesses that had trading accounts. Ordinary people were paid in cash and used cash in their daily business. Any decision to invest their excess money in a bank account was taken after considering the risk involved.

Nowadays, most major financial transactions take place via bank accounts and it is very difficult to function without one. Hiding your cash under your mattress is not really a viable option anymore. It is for this reason that banks can get away with no longer paying interest on these accounts and, in fact, slap on fees and charges instead.

Zero return should mean zero risk.
 
Yes, that would be super idea. :rolleyes:

There are few things that would make me consider taking up arms against my government. Having my life savings wiped out because they 'let banks AND depositors fail' would definitely be one of them.

I missed this. So would you advocate people who have lost their life savings in the MF Global implosion a few weeks ago taking up arms against the government?

I tend to agree with the others, if you store your life savings in an imaginary medium, in the biggest ponzi scheme ever known to man which allows infinite hypothecation (and hence invisible leverage) and have no interest in it other than expecting somebody to save you if it blows up, then I think you would have gotten just your rewards.

Those who "saved" in Icelandic banks at 7% when everybody else was getting 3 or 4% were taking a risk, whether they understood it or not.

it is not the government's job to save you from your own stupidity using other people's money.
 
Last edited:
I missed this. So would you advocate people who have lost their life savings in the MF Global implosion a few weeks ago taking up arms against the government?

I tend to agree with the others, if you store your life savings in an imaginary medium, in the biggest ponzi scheme ever known to man which allows infinite hypothecation (and hence invisible leverage) and have no interest in it other than expecting somebody to save you if it blows up, then I think you would have gotten just your rewards.

Those who "saved" in Icelandic banks at 7% when everybody else was getting 3 or 4% were taking a risk, whether they understood it or not.

it is not the government's job to save you from your own stupidity using other people's money.

I would recommend that Roger Ramjets buy gold. It never goes down in value.
 
I would recommend that Roger Ramjets buy gold. It never goes down in value.

if or when you actually mean that, I'll be selling ;)

btw you never answered my question here and as you appear to be almost the perfect contrarian indicator I would actually like to know.

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer said:
For the record, I predicted the bursting of the gold bubble 2 years ago.

kevsta said:
hahahaha why doesnt that surprise me? and from a stocks merchant too ..and at what price was it exactly may I ask? just for the record, obviously..
 
Last edited:
"..still not different.."

Ken Rogoff at Davos

Bloomberg

Europe is "clearly unprepared for a Greek default",

"there's going to be an endgame to this and it's not going to be pretty.... If you are just printing money and you are not making fundamental change you either lose money and you will have to recapitalize with the ECB or you will get inflation."

"it's not just Greece. You are going to see other restructurings before this is over."

"Once you set the precedent then say Portugal are going to say 'hey, look how much you gave Greece. How come we don't get the same?'
 
some of you people are utterly pathetic. there really is no other word for your childish nonsense, you think you are so clever and yet you are just the saddest little authoritarian pseudo skeptics giggling away amongst yourselves in your fragile little ivory towers, with zero clue, and worse still, zero interest in what is barreling down the road at you.
Stop holding back and say what you really think!

Do MBAs think that pieces of eight have an autonomous guiding force?
Yes, actually. And houses and computer networks and stock shares. It's called commodity fetishism and people just keep falling for it. :)
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom