GG

It's also clear that you don't understand motivations for private investment. There were deficits in Obama's tenure and there are deficits in Trump's tenure. Why didn't the economy grow at more than 3% when it should have been close to 4% given the big fall and unprecedented government intervention? What other data do you need to finally see that Keynes was monumentally wrong? [Broken Record /ON] Government deficits do not cause private wealth creation Government deficits do not cause private wealth creation Government deficits do not cause private wealth creation [Broken Record /OFF]

It's as if you missed the differences between the Obama & Trump approaches towards private enterprise? Shall we revisit the original thesis of the OP? I'll respond to the other items shortly. Yet it astounds me how you continue to speak in textbook economics when the talk is about corporate finance.

As always, you ignore the effect of fiscal policies on the financial statements of corporations. Said another way, your statistics are at least 2 steps removed from what finance execs care about when making major capital decisions. You said that the QE had no effect on the economy, then proceeded to argue that the banks did nothing with the liquidity but hold it in the Fed reserves. Again demonstrates how little economists understand the businesses they are opining on. I started in 2010 because that was the first year of financial statements after the crisis. If compare 2008 or 2009 to 2018, the evidence is even more striking of how JPM used newfound liquidity to juice its loan book. Its depository banking business has nothing to do with the cash it keeps with the Fed or how it uses liquidity provided by the Fed to stimulate its lending and the downstream effect on the economy. Central banks aren't the primary credit providers to the financial system - the inter-bank market is much larger. But the Fed's infusion of liquidity into the overall banking system in 2010 reopened bank lending because it offered market confidence that wasn't present in the inter-bank market at the time. Nobody argued that QE was the wrong move in the immediate post-crisis. The argument among adults was why was it still necessary 5 years after the crisis when the economy wasn't growing as expected. Technically QE is manufacturing assets out of thin air because the Fed needs cash or credit to buy the Treasuries and MBS that sit on its balance sheet. The assets don't just appear (at least if you apply any reasonable accounting principles)on the balance sheet out of thin air. The answer to why QE hasn't led to runaway inflation is because ..... Trump Seriously, the answer is because the US is afforded a lot more financial flexibility than any nation on Earth for all the reasons that have been previously discussed (largest economy, biggest market, reserve currency, etc). Essentially it's a race of time for the QE wind down before the next downturn hits (2 years or so). The current pace is about $50-$60/month, so it will take some time. I've never been a big deficit hawk because vibrant economies can perpetually run deficits in the 2%/GDP range for a long time. The cause of deficits also matter. I'm much more concerned about spending growing exponentially than revenues fluctuating from year to year.

Proof that Trump is a Nazi?

Stick to your point, and don't give me percentages when the topic is about dollars. Who cares about a percentage of TA, when TA went up by nearly 25%? Don't cite total cash, but cash held at the central bank as your theory states. Using JP Morgan as the banking bellwether, cash held at central banks declined from 2010 to 2018. That amount is tiny anyway at about $25 billion and has stayed in that band for 10 years. Loans to Customers though went up by almost $300 billion over that time frame. That's what QE did to the economy. To say otherwise is [insert DC Tom]

And if I looked at the balance sheets of the major money center banks from 2010 to 2018, that will show me a significant increase of reserves held at the central bank? All other asset & liability accounts would stay relatively constant?

You know better than to make this statement. What did the banks do with the $$ trillions of new reserves pumped onto their balance sheets? Did they stash it under the mattress?

That's probably their pic from the aging app that all the cool people are taking about

Sometime this weekend.

Who knows, maybe she was celebrating the jailing of the anti Islamic video maker?

I’ve reached the age where I can have this with me all the time in the summer, and not care what it looks like.

It wasn’t that long ago that people were fawning over Chiarrelli’s moves to toughen up that squad.

Would that include you walking back your Trump Russia thesis? I don't recall a single "Oops, my bad" post from you since you started that thread.

That's why I asked you to explain it to me.

OK, I'll bite. What's wrong with straws again?

That would explain his disappearance earlier this year.

Too lazy to search the election threads right now. This specific topic was discussed a lot - about how do the evangelicals accept Trump, given his sordid personal life? The answer always was that they were perfectly willing to overlook the peccadilloes, because he was set to deliver far bigger victories for them. They were right.

This was discussed a lot during the primaries & the general election, and the answer always came back to Trump being a vessel of frustration for the deplorables.

20 minutes and no Carolina swipe? Career stats.

You do not get lumped in as a liberal. You're firmly in the camp of a hot takes poster who now adds very little value to the discourse.

Aaaand another lazy take. You surely do a disservice to your other screen names, who were rarely lazy in their thoughts.

Yup that, but also the obligatory semi-annual cruises with they boys crowd

A friend just told me he's off on a 6 month tour as a performer

That's a very homophobic take.

I'm sure that Nancy is sharing the prelim findings of the FEC investigations.