4 ms·

You make all good points and seem to have way more knowledge than I do on these points. I'm a complex systems person though, and it's the interactions between

You make all good points and seem to have way more knowledge than I do on these points. I'm a complex systems person though, and it's the interactions between all these things which has spoiled my appetite. I'm not saying I'm right or that anyone should follow my lead, simply pointing out that these things, taken as a whole, makes the future seem very uncertain and leads me to side with the more cautious camp.

rolltiide 7y ago
It's fair. I don't know what anybody is going to do. But lending hasn't dried up and interest rates will be lower than ever letting businesses roll over any maturing debt for some time. If people collectively decide to stop buying that stuff then yeah you'll get your crash, distressed companies, and massive layoffs. but with the European Central Bank starting up QEternity and the Federal Reserve about to start to QE4eva, they're going to be pumping all debt and holding it to maturity...
- remarkEon 7y ago
  Yep, came here to say essentially this with regard to the Central Banks. I have to wonder if Central Bankers are feeling more and more politicized these days, and will now employ these "creative" options without regard for any long term consequences - whatever those may be.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    > I have to wonder if Central Bankers are feeling more and more politicized these days I don't think the big ones feel anything. (Fed, ECB) ECB's frontman was a Goldman Sachs alumni, accountable to no one, doing private placements with his buddies, issuing corporate bonds directly to the ECB instead of the ECB picking them up on the secondary market. The US Fed gets a chairman to just the Board of Governors, who is more accountable to the other people on the board of governors, and then the actual Federal Reserve. They are not accountable to the US President or the American people in any capacity. They transcend administrations and are completely divorced from main street rhetoric. They don't care and don't have to. They emerge from their screens a few times a decade and say "huh, there's new pronouns now" and go back to resource management monopoly that they've been playing for 100 years. > and will now employ these "creative" options without regard for any long term consequences I think so, when you look at the incentives. The consequences are very few: there is a risk that the people are disillusioned by how resources are distributed since not everyone has to exchange labor or capital for resources (ECB buying newly issued bonds for billions of euros that didn't previously exist). there is a risk of hyperinflation if there is a real disruption in the need for the monetary union's currency, but uncontrollable need to inject more of the currency into the market. In the mean time, they can keep assets on their balance sheet forever, with only a slight embarrassment if those assets cause losses (such a bonds that default).

rolltiide 7y ago

It's fair. I don't know what anybody is going to do. But lending hasn't dried up and interest rates will be lower than ever letting businesses roll over any maturing debt for some time. If people collectively decide to stop buying that stuff then yeah you'll get your crash, distressed companies, and massive layoffs. but with the European Central Bank starting up QEternity and the Federal Reserve about to start to QE4eva, they're going to be pumping all debt and holding it to maturity...

remarkEon 7y ago
Yep, came here to say essentially this with regard to the Central Banks. I have to wonder if Central Bankers are feeling more and more politicized these days, and will now employ these "creative" options without regard for any long term consequences - whatever those may be.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  > I have to wonder if Central Bankers are feeling more and more politicized these days I don't think the big ones feel anything. (Fed, ECB) ECB's frontman was a Goldman Sachs alumni, accountable to no one, doing private placements with his buddies, issuing corporate bonds directly to the ECB instead of the ECB picking them up on the secondary market. The US Fed gets a chairman to just the Board of Governors, who is more accountable to the other people on the board of governors, and then the actual Federal Reserve. They are not accountable to the US President or the American people in any capacity. They transcend administrations and are completely divorced from main street rhetoric. They don't care and don't have to. They emerge from their screens a few times a decade and say "huh, there's new pronouns now" and go back to resource management monopoly that they've been playing for 100 years. > and will now employ these "creative" options without regard for any long term consequences I think so, when you look at the incentives. The consequences are very few: there is a risk that the people are disillusioned by how resources are distributed since not everyone has to exchange labor or capital for resources (ECB buying newly issued bonds for billions of euros that didn't previously exist). there is a risk of hyperinflation if there is a real disruption in the need for the monetary union's currency, but uncontrollable need to inject more of the currency into the market. In the mean time, they can keep assets on their balance sheet forever, with only a slight embarrassment if those assets cause losses (such a bonds that default).