Opinionson the Chris Christie/CPAC issue

myp · Mar 7, 2013

Stonewall said:
But I don't think that, please again......read my posts. Central monetarism...that you were suggesting I find Marxist in flavor. Just wanted to clear that up, carry on.

What is "central monetarism"? I am not familiar with that term.

If you support monetarism in general, you support a central bank that sets a uniform policy that affects everyone who use USD. Wanting that policy to actually work how it is supposed to is hardly Marxist. You seem to have an issue with me saying that certain fiscal unity is needed (which is why the transfers are needed), yet you don't offer an alternative and at the same time say you support the Fed and monetarism too- well you can't really have it both ways as the EU is very clearly showing us right now. Recognizing that a dollar in New York should trade roughly the same as a dollar in Louisiana and that certain fiscal unity is needed for that is just accepting the situation. Unless you have a better explanation for what is happening in Europe, etc. and why I am wrong? If so, please do share.

Stonewall · Mar 7, 2013

myp said:
What is "central monetarism"? I am not familiar with that term.

If you support monetarism in general, you support a central bank that sets a uniform policy that affects everyone who use USD. Wanting that policy to actually work how it is supposed to is hardly Marxist. You seem to have an issue with me saying that certain fiscal unity is needed (which is why the transfers are needed), yet you don't offer an alternative and at the same time say you support the Fed and monetarism too- well you can't really have it both ways as the EU is very clearly showing us right now. Recognizing that a dollar in New York should trade roughly the same as a dollar in Louisiana and that certain fiscal unity is needed for that is just accepting the situation. Unless you have a better explanation for what is happening in Europe, etc. and why I am wrong? If so, please do share.

I don't support a central bank, myp, you do.

Aeonpax · Mar 8, 2013

Stonewall said:
Eating of their own was seen in our preparation, reaction, and response to both storms. Decades entrenched central government policies that are wholly incapable of managing weather events much less financial crisis or entitlement programs.......epic fails, A. And We the People.....I mean what in the world? We seem wholesale and completely dependent. I mean...does that not stare you straight in the face? I cannot see anyone focused here on the Republican eating of their own....look at these local governments that have been dominated by Democrats for decades! Their first reaction is show me the money.

It's always nice to have a deflection though, so I'll bite. John Roberts in my Conservative view did the exact right thing. He called it what it was...a tax, and left it to We the People electing a President in 2012. The election is what saved Obamacare.

Perhaps you missed the analogy here sir. When a Republican dares speak or act outside of the centrally controlled mindset of the party, members pounce on them with all the venom they can muster.

Christie has taken flack from his own party for putting the constituents of his state over the backwards ideology of the GOP. Such a stance, aside from being legal and ideologically just, is also moral.

myp · Mar 8, 2013

Stonewall said:
I don't support a central bank, myp, you do.

Okay, but central banking is hardly a Marxist hallmark. Again, Milton Friedman of all people supported a central bank and my monetary policy views are quite in line with him and the recent NGDPLT movement. Central banking is not anti-capitalist...

But since you don't support a central bank, what alternative would you like to see?

Stonewall · Mar 8, 2013

An alternative I'd like to see? From your viewpoint? A private and competitive banking system regulated with limited oversight from Congress. Where they can borrow money off the Fed...as they do now at a prime rate. A central bank or Fed that would not set national standards and polciies.

You're suggesting a central bank make policy for the states as well if I'm not mistaken. Not to just have oversight, but vast regulatory powers....correct myp? Our Fed(central bank) should concern itself with economic growth, the status of the dollar, insure private banking firms should We the People choose.......their ability to regulate and set policy should be restricted in my opinion, that ability should remain with our individual states.

I don't believe the federal government should be setting loan policies nor busy itself with executive payrolls or bonuses for example. Something tells me you're on the other side of the aisle there.

myp · Mar 8, 2013

Stonewall said:
You're suggesting a central bank make policy for the states as well if I'm not mistaken. Not to just have oversight, but vast regulatory powers....correct myp?

You are mistaken. I am saying the fiscal transfers (which are of course policy set by the Federal government and not the Fed) are necessary to maintain the uniformity needed for the Fed to do its job.

Stonewall said:
I don't believe the federal government should be setting loan policies nor busy itself with executive payrolls or bonuses for example. Something tells me you're on the other side of the aisle there.

Not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand and I actually lean heavily fiscally conservative- just not to the extreme outlier point.

Stonewall · Mar 8, 2013

The topic at hand is differences of opinion regarding a central bank. Please define what your suggestion would be, perhaps I am mistaken.

myp · Mar 8, 2013

Stonewall said:
The topic at hand is differences of opinion regarding a central bank. Please define what your suggestion would be, perhaps I am mistaken.

I don't think there is a stated difference in the role of a central bank (although I suspect if we got into the details we would differ on many issues there, but for the sake of this discussion so far that isn't really relevant)- the difference is in understanding the connection between fiscal and monetary policy and perhaps opinions on that matter. You made a statement criticizing transfers from richer states to poorer states or from states not going through disaster to those going through one. My point was that ever since the Articles were ditched, this has happened and since 1913 it has had to happen for the Fed to do what we both agree is its role.

Stonewall · Mar 11, 2013

myp said:
I don't think there is a stated difference in the role of a central bank (although I suspect if we got into the details we would differ on many issues there, but for the sake of this discussion so far that isn't really relevant)- the difference is in understanding the connection between fiscal and monetary policy and perhaps opinions on that matter.

Yeah....fiscal and monetary policy.....and how much of a role any 'central bank' plays in that policy was being discussed, I believe you even earlier asked me about my opinions on what role any central bank would engage......

You made a statement criticizing transfers from richer states to poorer states or from states not going through disaster to those going through one. My point was that ever since the Articles were ditched, this has happened and since 1913 it has had to happen for the Fed to do what we both agree is its role.

You made a statement about a monetary policy coming from a central bank that would applicable to all states. Care to elaborate?

myp · Mar 11, 2013

Stonewall said:
You made a statement about a monetary policy coming from a central bank that would applicable to all states. Care to elaborate?

Every state uses the USD. Monetary policy from the Fed impacts them all because of this. This is why you want a fiscal situation which allows for roughly similar implications of monetary policy changes for different states. In other words, you want the dollar to pretty much trade the same way it does in New York as it does in Missouri or at least have it trade in a certain range. And to have this happen you need some fiscal unity such as the transfers. Not having this can be a mess- look at how the Euro trades in Greece vs. how it trades in Germany. It makes the job for the ECB pretty much impossible without have monetary policy essentially make the transfers through inflation/deflation- something that politically is not going to be accepted and that again comes back down to the lack of fiscal collaboration.

Stonewall · Mar 15, 2013

Myp....if your idea of a 'central bank' is using the dollar across states or setting a prime interest rate....or insuring federal deposits...some regulation via law......then we have no disputes.

If you're calling for policies of stimulus, QE's, or central banks telling private banking concerns what their policies should be....then we have an issue.

It doesn't sound in your last backpedals that we do. Moving on.

David · Mar 15, 2013

Stonewall said:
Myp....if your idea of a 'central bank' is using the dollar across states or setting a prime interest rate....or insuring federal deposits...some regulation via law......then we have no disputes.

If you're calling for policies of stimulus, QE's, or central banks telling private banking concerns what their policies should be....then we have an issue.

It doesn't sound in your last backpedals that we do. Moving on.

He never backpedaled, you put words in his mouth and he spit them out.

Stonewall · Mar 15, 2013

David said:
He never backpedaled, you put words in his mouth and he spit them out.

We'll agree to disagree. I saw a clear backpedal.

Algalcal · Mar 15, 2013

I can hear the outcry now,the U.S.government is a big socialists, buying up people property who has falling on hard times.Those same people still will need homes to live in.Guess who would have to build those homes? The government. PS this statement is in response to post # 20,my bad sorry.

myp · Mar 15, 2013

Stonewall said:
Myp....if your idea of a 'central bank' is using the dollar across states or setting a prime interest rate....or insuring federal deposits...some regulation via law......then we have no disputes.

If you're calling for policies of stimulus, QE's, or central banks telling private banking concerns what their policies should be....then we have an issue.

It doesn't sound in your last backpedals that we do. Moving on.

First of all, I have not backpedaled. I have had no need to do so.

Second, the Fed doesn't insure federal deposits.

Third, YOU were the one who was criticizing the fiscal transfers and now YOU seem to be backpedaling. And to me that is perfectly fine- in fact, I applaud it- because unlike you, I believe that such matters should not be about dogmatism, but about scientific thought and scientific thought always changes when new facts come into play.

Fourth, I did not call for fiscal stimulus. What I said was the fiscal transfers to an extent are necessary. As for QE, if you believe in an interest rate target, then that is all that QE does. The Fed hasn't done enough QE to keep up to its 2% target.

Fifth, the central bank does not tell the banks what their policies should be. It does however have control over certain requirements and accounts at the Fed.

Stonewall · Mar 16, 2013

myp said:
First of all, I have not backpedaled. I have had no need to do so.

Then perhaps I did misread as I stated in post #47 that I may be mistaken.

Second, the Fed doesn't insure federal deposits.

I believe I'm referring to the FDIC, a discussion on or of deposit insurance coverage for the most common ownership categories that depositors can have at each FDIC-insured depository institutions isn't necessary. It's a congressionally created entity that you and I agree on as far as a role for any central bank.

Third, YOU were the one who was criticizing the fiscal transfers and now YOU seem to be backpedaling. And to me that is perfectly fine- in fact, I applaud it- because unlike you, I believe that such matters should not be about dogmatism, but about scientific thought and scientific thought always changes when new facts come into play.

The criticism of these "fiscal transfers" you're not seeing in context. This thread has jumped as most do. I'm pointing out the need for not only 'fiscal transfers' during our recent weather events, but flat out rescue and recovery when it's more than as plain as the nose on anyone's face obvious there was zero preparation, an absence of resolve nor leadership....not to mention the embarrassment of bring diagnosed with an illness of government dependency. I wasn't leaning to scientific thought process there, myp. I was speaking to human behavior. Society. Our culture, today's American culture. Storms.......we seem powerless in front of. This monetary policy discussion was a sidebar, it began discussing Chris Christie with superstorm Sandy references.

Fourth, I did not call for fiscal stimulus. What I said was the fiscal transfers to an extent are necessary. As for QE, if you believe in an interest rate target, then that is all that QE does. The Fed hasn't done enough QE to keep up to its 2% target.

Setting a prime rate wasn't what I was speaking to, QE efforts are buying of their own securities, increasing money supply. Stimulus. Do you support these efforts or not?

Fifth, the central bank does not tell the banks what their policies should be. It does however have control over certain requirements and accounts at the Fed.

myp · Mar 17, 2013

I know the FDIC insures deposits, but the FDIC and Fed are two different things...

As for critically analyzing even behavior, culture, etc. I see no methodology greater than those through science there either- economics, statistics, neurophys, micro, etc. beat dogma or pseudo-intellectual methods any day.

You realize that the point of QE is to bring down the rate right? We are at the zero-lower bound- QE pushes it down. Increased money supply is needed right now if you want to keep to the 2% inflation target- in fact, the Fed has not done enough of it (judging by their failure to meet a 2% target) because of what I believe is political worries. Remember, MV=PY. The supply of money is not being increased in a vacuum where all the other variables are constant.

Stonewall · Mar 18, 2013

Want to increase the money supply, myp. Cut corporate taxes.

This I believe is where you and I differ..again I might be wrong. Your answers are a centralized banking authority using QE methods and or money supply policies tryong to tweak the US economy. I say get the hell out of its' way. Let the free market decide, any government should react and assist....not try to maintain and manage.

myp · Mar 18, 2013

Stonewall said:
Want to increase the money supply, myp. Cut corporate taxes.

That is fiscal policy and this is about monetary policy- Congress is hardly the place to go if we are looking to have a stable currency. You agreed that setting the Fed Funds rate should be a policy tool of the Fed- you realize that reducing the Fed Funds rate effectively increases the money supply, right? That is the whole point. So when you hit the ZLB, increasing the money supply through QE does the same sort of thing albeit through a different market and means. Because you can't make the Fed Funds rate negative.

Stonewall said:
This I believe is where you and I differ..again I might be wrong. Your answers are a centralized banking authority using QE methods and or money supply policies tryong to tweak the US economy. I say get the hell out of its' way. Let the free market decide, any government should react and assist....not try to maintain and manage.

I refer you to my response above. The point of setting the Fed Funds rate IS to change the money supply. That is what it is. PY=MV; can't control V, but can sure as hell control M.

misterveritis · Mar 19, 2013

myp said:
That is fiscal policy and this is about monetary policy- Congress is hardly the place to go if we are looking to have a stable currency. You agreed that setting the Fed Funds rate should be a policy tool of the Fed- you realize that reducing the Fed Funds rate effectively increases the money supply, right? That is the whole point. So when you hit the ZLB, increasing the money supply through QE does the same sort of thing albeit through a different market and means. Because you can't make the Fed Funds rate negative.

I refer you to my response above. The point of setting the Fed Funds rate IS to change the money supply. That is what it is. PY=MV; can't control V, but can sure as hell control M.

How is it working? Does this do anything other than reduce the value of each dollar?

Opinionson the Chris Christie/CPAC issue

Similar threads