TPS

The issue is with your logic, or lack thereof. You are saying the "thing" that caused an other "thing" is irrelevant to a discussion about that other thing? How can you understand the hyperinflation in Germany if you don't discuss the causes, both economic and political? Why couldn't the government raise taxes? What were the politics that caused the economic situation? These are "things" that allowed the situation to occur, so you'd think that you'd want to understand those priors? This does help me understand why you don't understand the current non-inflationary situation in the US.

You must've written Wiki's bit on this, since you claim to be a student of history... They didn't provide an explanation either.

CPI dropped by 0.3% last month, but of course the government manipulates the numbers....

Way to encourage the Trogs Simon. If she isn't a communist fighting, free market, pro-finance person, she can't be qualified....

Hey, there's only person at PPP who's allowed to use the "i'm smart and know what I'm talking about" defense, and it's not you (or me).....

No, I'm saying that the amount the Fed gets when it unwinds the assets has no impact on the Fed's operations or taxpayers. The Fed doesn't mark2market and it's not a profit-making corporation. Btw, the fiscal mess started in 1981 with supply-side economics...

The competition begins in the 1960s--it didn't take twenty years to re-build. Why would taxpayers be on the hook for assets the Fed buys? Taxpayers don't fund the Fed (directly) or its asset purchases.

Yes, Bush Bad.

Read the post again. I agree that it doesn't work, and you support my reasoning--I've argued that exact point about commodity speculation...uh...demand. Did Japan suffer hyperinflation? Once again, I have NOT argued QE works; I have argued it won't cause hyperinflation.

Short-sighted. Financial regulations (Glass-Steagall, FDIC, among others) created financial stability in the US until deregulation took hold in 1980. Social Security created a safety net. The NIRA gave firms pricing power and workers bargaining power which allowed workers to match wage growth to productivity growth until the mid-1970s. And this is the crux of the issue in this thread. Since the mid to late 1970s, the wage share has been stagnant even though productivity has continued to rise. There has been a systematic shift of income from wages to profits, consistent with rising inequality. Workers have been on the run for too long, and they are fighting back. And the size of the Fed's BS matters to what/whom?

I've written previously (over 2 years ago) on why QE doesn't and won't work. My disagreement is that it won't cause hyperinflation in the US. Printing money in countries that are capital deficient (in the physical sense like hammers) fits your model; that does not describe the US. The US is operating at <80% capacity and the formal unemployment measure is almost 8%. Because your monetary beliefs are a one-size-fits-all, you can't see this.

Did so.

Yes, the democrats brought Hitler to power and caused WW2. Sheesh!

The New Deal worked out pretty decent for the working class.

Yes, and watch out for the bond vigilantes. Wait a second, Holy Crap! They must be Keynesians too!http://www.bloomberg...-inflation.html So, how many of you here still think this will cause hyperinflation? Einstein said something about expecting different results and insanity...

They better start paying their fair share of taxes too, the takers. And we better cut SS and Medicare, because they are getting too good of a deal. Damn unions.

I am talking about physical capacity utilization, not financial capital. There is NO scarcity of financial capital right now. If you look at the CBO's deficit projections, the primary deficit is expected to be in balance, so, yes, the interest expense is what is projected to drive growing deficits in the medium term.

And this describes precisely why you should increase the supply of money now because the money in circulation is less than the real supply of physical goods we can create right now. My story changes when resources (labor and capital) become scarce. It's as simple as that.

A good piece from Bloomberg this morning on global central banks and inflation. Of course, it supports the view (I've argued here for the past 4 years or so) that the Fed's "money printing" will not lead to significant inflation while there is a glut of labor and capital. A good test case coming up again as the Fed is expected to buy $40 billion of MBS and treasuries per month (until unemployment comes down).. http://www.bloomberg...n-mandates.html

Another sign of the coming apocalypse...

Buy more paper assets and cause bubbles

If you assume no change in the cap gains tax and revenues are ='96 value, how much more revenue was generated in each year from 97-00 by cap gains? $13; $23; $46; $61 (add $66 to each of these to get the actual cap gains revenue each year).So you think those values are more important than the additional revenues generated by increased income? The unemployment rate dropped a bit faster in the latter period because real growth was faster. From 93-96 growth averaged 3.5%, and from 97-00 it was 4.4%. Y2K and the internet bubble were the big pushers of real investment expenditures. Cap gains increased, but it was NOT the main driver of the revenue increase--it helped, but real GDP growth generates more income taxes because it spreads income gains across a wider base. And, No, a cap gains tax rate cut did not stimulate higher growth. It generated a higher after-tax return for wealthholders, and that doesn't impact the investment decision of corporations.

Well, duh! though, going off 1996 as a base, take away the extra $50 bil in 1999, there's no surplus; take away an the extra $60 bil, there's still a surplus.There is no comparison on which factor is more important for the total additional revenues generated--growth and lower unemployment generated 80% of the ADDITIONAL revenues from 1997-2000; capital gains 20%.

No. You said, "The rise in cap gains receipts contributed more to the rise in total revenues." I responded to that sentence, saying it's not true. Appropriate that you bring up clinton and morris, because you are now redifining what "is" is.... No one denied that capital gains did not contribute. The debate, AND bet, was on what had a bigger impact on generating the surpluses. I said higher income taxes paid from the u-rate falling to 4%, and you said cap gains. I'll go easy on you and hold you only to one beer....

Total taxes paid from 93-96=$2,283.929 Total taxes paid from 97-00=$3,373,568 Change in taxes paid 97-00=$1,089,639 Change in Cap gains 97-00=$224,000 %contribution from cap gains 20.5%; %contribution from ordinary income=79.5% As you said, Now if you are going to come up with a different definition of "contributed more than" that's up to you...