Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
If you read the article closely, you see that the hed is, typically enticingly, misleading to a significant extent. There are good arguments to be made (and have been made) that QE should have been waaay more. And as for waste, whatever that could conceivably mean, seriously --- consider the alternative. I expected the piece to explore that alternative bigtime, else to be some rightwingnut screed, but I suspected the latter was unlikely from MFool. Still, not good work.
I thought we could lay off the attack comments for a while. Guess a short while it is. Sad.
It took some time for me as I wanted to see how QE would work. It helped the banks for sure and the banks got very tight fisted and would not loan money. I actually believe a program similar to what FDR did would have worked better and this coming from a "rightwingnut screed". At least we benefitted and still do in many cases from all the infrastructure projects that were implemented during that time. It put people to work and gave some respect back to those that did. What we had was the "shovel-ready promise of 0bama but the shovels were never even made. The impact were virtually nil.
The history books most likely will not reveal the billions that were wasted on bankrupt solar and other projects that had grand introductions on national television but never got off the ground.
Google 'krugman QE arguments' if you want more. We are lucky QE did as well as it, as little as it was able to.
This short video is typical, anecdotal, gut-driven, and the big UBS econ guy wins and gets the last word: Government bad. Notice his laughable and unchallenged last sentence. Someone who does not have acquaintances using SS and Medicare, or takes airplanes, or uses the subway, or gets flu shots, or....
And of course, the private sector never invests in anything that fails.
The JPMorgan guarantees: people who go on and on about the much smaller loss at Solyndra, the case that launched a thousand hearings, would never get comparably worked up about it.
The obvious objection is that the government lost money on Solyndra, but hasn’t (yet?) on JPMorgan. But that’s less true than meets the eye. Solyndra was a small part of a broad program of loan guarantees, which inevitably ran the risk of loss — otherwise those guarantees wouldn’t have been worth anything, would they? And it was the only loss. And JPMorgan is also part of a broad program of guarantees, explicit on deposits, implicit through the general aspect of too-big-to-fail. There have been government losses on these programs, and will be in future — and misbehavior like what seems to have happened here feeds such losses. And as best I can tell, JPMorgan’s story looks a lot more like actual malfeasance. But of course JPMorgan wasn’t doing do-gooder liberal stuff like solar, it was just engaging in financial tricks of little or no social value.
I thought we could lay off the attack comments for a while. Guess a short while it is. Sad.
LOL. I knew this thread was probably going to go South with the title before reading it. Heaven forbid a political party is insulted, even in a roundabout fashion.
As for the solar companies, I think the concern that I have is not solar but cronyism. You can level that accusation at other administrations too, although I believe the recipients of prior administrations' cronyism have done a tad better.
If you want to get into it about solar, I think it's terrific. Additionally, I think there's a chance that it never really gets going because we have ZERO long-term vision in this country. We have no energy plan, we have no broad plan, we pull forward demand because better today and we say we'll figure it out tomorrow. We throw money at problems because figuring out sustainable solutions requires difficult and potentially unpopular decisions and politicians don't want that, of course. Thankfully we have some people like Elon Musk, someone with some vision. Yet, we don't focus on him in this country, we don't lift him up as a role model. Instead, we wonder what the F the Kardashians are doing.
"JPMorgan wasn’t doing do-gooder liberal stuff like solar, it was just engaging in financial tricks of little or no social value."
True. So, why does the government seem to cater to their every whim? Also, I remain fascinated by the strong desire to invest in these companies. You have analysts who say that "the issues are out of the way", then a number of banks have to restate earnings because of yet another round of legal issues. There will be more and people will get a slap on the wrist and it'll happen again because the banks are too big to go after and they'll play the "armageddon" card if someone does, because hey - they're smart. They were bailed out once and they know they'll be again if it comes down to that. Heads they win, tails they win and no one in this government is willing to do a thing about it. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html)
"Infrastructure projects would've been awesomest, but not possible, and you know why. "
NIMBY-ism, for one. The fact that the government can't work together, as well. However, there's a point where pointing political fingers becomes intolerable and a complete excuse for lack of leadership and it's simply putting political desires above the concerns of the nation. Where would we be as a country if some of our greatest leaders sat on their hands because the other side was being "meanies"? It's ridiculous.
People have had enough and - to some degree - the election showed that. That said, it probably changes nothing from the standpoint of you have this mindset in Washington that has not been changed by the election. Meet the new politicians, same as the old ones. I'd like to think of the results of the election will cause someone to realize how upset many people are at the direction of the country, but politicians will think, "Nah, it couldn't possibly be because of what I'm doing." So, more of the same.
The idea that "my political party is looking out for the country" is - to me - ridiculous. They're one and the same, they don't care about the people, but they'll certainly say the right things to rile their base up so that they can go online and yell at the other side and say things like "Teabaggers" and "Demorats" and "You evil right-wingers" etc etc. Meanwhile, the populace is divided and distracted yelling at each other (when everyone's just trying to get through the day) and the politicians can go on making excuses for why nothing gets done as we inch closer to "Idiocracy".
"And of course, the private sector never invests in anything that fails."
The desire to turn things into handouts for "favored friends and connections" is what's troubling. Is it investing in people who have a genuine desire and strong business plan or is it handouts for pals? Again, you can accuse prior administrations of that, as well, but again, the rather lackluster end results in this case called attention to themselves. As for cronyism, see also: the frequent discussion that because of Buffett's favored status within the administration, that's why Keystone XL has been delayed for several years and is now going to cost something like more than double the original amount.
"that QE should have been waaay more."
So, why not a gillion dollars. Or a zillion dollars. Or a quadrillion dollars. Why budget? Why not just make it so that we can have enough money to do whatever the hell we please? No such thing as mal-investment, QE to the moon.
Why not a zillion would be its folly plus the backlash. Teslas to Those People. But the stimulus argument is centered on insufficient demand, and since we deal in our own money, thank the Lord, more demand would be good and would cure a whole bunch of ills. Even the leftiest econs don't think it should be anything more than temporary benefits and infrastructure and energy and training investment. In other words, not austerity.
But not whatever the hell anyone pleases. So your arg may have run with an extreme version.
You do know the Christie tunnel story, yes? Also Ayotte's fighter story? All wild, and just so depressing.
What to do with the undeserving rich and the undeserving poor, that's another dilemma.
"The idea that "my political party is looking out for the country" is - to me - ridiculous. They're one and the same, they don't care about the people"
Comments
It took some time for me as I wanted to see how QE would work. It helped the banks for sure and the banks got very tight fisted and would not loan money. I actually believe a program similar to what FDR did would have worked better and this coming from a "rightwingnut screed". At least we benefitted and still do in many cases from all the infrastructure projects that were implemented during that time. It put people to work and gave some respect back to those that did. What we had was the "shovel-ready promise of 0bama but the shovels were never even made. The impact were virtually nil.
The history books most likely will not reveal the billions that were wasted on bankrupt solar and other projects that had grand introductions on national television but never got off the ground.
Your thoughtful posts have little to do with wingnutism, seems to me. Your felt attacked?
http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-is-right-2013-4 gets into it, the consequences of all of the phantom menace inflation hawk thinking.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/06/paul-krugman-battle-against-austerity is another.
Google 'krugman QE arguments' if you want more. We are lucky QE did as well as it, as little as it was able to.
This short video is typical, anecdotal, gut-driven, and the big UBS econ guy wins and gets the last word: Government bad. Notice his laughable and unchallenged last sentence. Someone who does not have acquaintances using SS and Medicare, or takes airplanes, or uses the subway, or gets flu shots, or....
http://www.msn.com/en-au/video/watch/krugman-political-ideology-and-infrastructure-investment/vp-BBbtOSR
Yes, it is surprising he did not shout Solyndra!
And of course, the private sector never invests in anything that fails.
The JPMorgan guarantees: people who go on and on about the much smaller loss at Solyndra, the case that launched a thousand hearings, would never get comparably worked up about it.
The obvious objection is that the government lost money on Solyndra, but hasn’t (yet?) on JPMorgan. But that’s less true than meets the eye. Solyndra was a small part of a broad program of loan guarantees, which inevitably ran the risk of loss — otherwise those guarantees wouldn’t have been worth anything, would they? And it was the only loss. And JPMorgan is also part of a broad program of guarantees, explicit on deposits, implicit through the general aspect of too-big-to-fail. There have been government losses on these programs, and will be in future — and misbehavior like what seems to have happened here feeds such losses. And as best I can tell, JPMorgan’s story looks a lot more like actual malfeasance. But of course JPMorgan wasn’t doing do-gooder liberal stuff like solar, it was just engaging in financial tricks of little or no social value.
As for the solar companies, I think the concern that I have is not solar but cronyism. You can level that accusation at other administrations too, although I believe the recipients of prior administrations' cronyism have done a tad better.
If you want to get into it about solar, I think it's terrific. Additionally, I think there's a chance that it never really gets going because we have ZERO long-term vision in this country. We have no energy plan, we have no broad plan, we pull forward demand because better today and we say we'll figure it out tomorrow. We throw money at problems because figuring out sustainable solutions requires difficult and potentially unpopular decisions and politicians don't want that, of course. Thankfully we have some people like Elon Musk, someone with some vision. Yet, we don't focus on him in this country, we don't lift him up as a role model. Instead, we wonder what the F the Kardashians are doing.
Kim Kardashian's mobile game makes $700,000 a day. $700,000 a day. WTF? (http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/30/technology/kardashian-app-game/)
"JPMorgan wasn’t doing do-gooder liberal stuff like solar, it was just engaging in financial tricks of little or no social value."
True. So, why does the government seem to cater to their every whim? Also, I remain fascinated by the strong desire to invest in these companies. You have analysts who say that "the issues are out of the way", then a number of banks have to restate earnings because of yet another round of legal issues. There will be more and people will get a slap on the wrist and it'll happen again because the banks are too big to go after and they'll play the "armageddon" card if someone does, because hey - they're smart. They were bailed out once and they know they'll be again if it comes down to that. Heads they win, tails they win and no one in this government is willing to do a thing about it. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html)
"Infrastructure projects would've been awesomest, but not possible, and you know why. "
NIMBY-ism, for one. The fact that the government can't work together, as well. However, there's a point where pointing political fingers becomes intolerable and a complete excuse for lack of leadership and it's simply putting political desires above the concerns of the nation. Where would we be as a country if some of our greatest leaders sat on their hands because the other side was being "meanies"? It's ridiculous.
People have had enough and - to some degree - the election showed that. That said, it probably changes nothing from the standpoint of you have this mindset in Washington that has not been changed by the election. Meet the new politicians, same as the old ones. I'd like to think of the results of the election will cause someone to realize how upset many people are at the direction of the country, but politicians will think, "Nah, it couldn't possibly be because of what I'm doing." So, more of the same.
The idea that "my political party is looking out for the country" is - to me - ridiculous. They're one and the same, they don't care about the people, but they'll certainly say the right things to rile their base up so that they can go online and yell at the other side and say things like "Teabaggers" and "Demorats" and "You evil right-wingers" etc etc. Meanwhile, the populace is divided and distracted yelling at each other (when everyone's just trying to get through the day) and the politicians can go on making excuses for why nothing gets done as we inch closer to "Idiocracy".
"And of course, the private sector never invests in anything that fails."
The desire to turn things into handouts for "favored friends and connections" is what's troubling. Is it investing in people who have a genuine desire and strong business plan or is it handouts for pals? Again, you can accuse prior administrations of that, as well, but again, the rather lackluster end results in this case called attention to themselves. As for cronyism, see also: the frequent discussion that because of Buffett's favored status within the administration, that's why Keystone XL has been delayed for several years and is now going to cost something like more than double the original amount.
"that QE should have been waaay more."
So, why not a gillion dollars. Or a zillion dollars. Or a quadrillion dollars. Why budget? Why not just make it so that we can have enough money to do whatever the hell we please? No such thing as mal-investment, QE to the moon.
In all seriousness, some concerns about the effect of QE on insurance companies and pensions (see Genworth this week):
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229574
I'm not going to get into it with this thread because the upset over anything having to do with politics is really absurd. Said what I have to say.
But not whatever the hell anyone pleases. So your arg may have run with an extreme version.
You do know the Christie tunnel story, yes? Also Ayotte's fighter story? All wild, and just so depressing.
What to do with the undeserving rich and the undeserving poor, that's another dilemma.
Got my vote on that!