4 ms·

I think that's yingw787's point. That as we get deeper into this crisis, the Fed's actions start to look more and more like "printing money", but with a veneer

I think that's yingw787's point. That as we get deeper into this crisis, the Fed's actions start to look more and more like "printing money", but with a veneer of fiscal^H^H^H^H^H^H monetary policy. The $2,001 notes at 0% is the absurd extreme of this path. (EDIT: Yeah, I meant monetary)

SilasX 6y ago
Sorry if I’m slow, but, if true, I wish that point had been make explicit. That’s actually a good argument. As it stands now, that comment looks more like yet-another-pro-UBI post with a bizarre fantasy about the Fed breaking the law to make it happen, and I downvoted it on that basis. Edit: And I think you meant "veneer of monetary policy"? The argument would be that it's being framed as monetary policy even though it's substantively a fiscal policy, something the Fed is supposed to stay away from.
- tren-hard 6y ago
  And that goes against the HN guidelines for down voting comments. You're just suppressing someone else's opinion because you don't agree with it, not because it is wrong or inappropriate smh
  - SilasX 6y ago
    No, downvote for disagree is within the guidelines [1]. Even so, I try to instead use the standard of "does not contribute to the discussion", which I think this qualifies as (under my earlier understanding of the comment) because it's off-topic hobby-horsing, made worse by proposing a bizarre mechanism without acknowledging the illegality. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11649750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11649750
- function_seven 6y ago
  > Edit: And I think you meant "veneer of monetary policy"? The argument would be that it's being framed as monetary policy even though it's substantively a fiscal policy, something the Fed is supposed to stay away from. That's exactly what I meant. Fixed my comment, thanks.

4 ms·

I think that's yingw787's point. That as we get deeper into this crisis, the Fed's actions start to look more and more like "printing money", but with a veneer

by function_seven 6y ago

SilasX 6y ago
Sorry if I’m slow, but, if true, I wish that point had been make explicit. That’s actually a good argument. As it stands now, that comment looks more like yet-another-pro-UBI post with a bizarre fantasy about the Fed breaking the law to make it happen, and I downvoted it on that basis. Edit: And I think you meant "veneer of monetary policy"? The argument would be that it's being framed as monetary policy even though it's substantively a fiscal policy, something the Fed is supposed to stay away from.
- tren-hard 6y ago
  And that goes against the HN guidelines for down voting comments. You're just suppressing someone else's opinion because you don't agree with it, not because it is wrong or inappropriate smh
  - SilasX 6y ago
    No, downvote for disagree is within the guidelines [1]. Even so, I try to instead use the standard of "does not contribute to the discussion", which I think this qualifies as (under my earlier understanding of the comment) because it's off-topic hobby-horsing, made worse by proposing a bizarre mechanism without acknowledging the illegality. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11649750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11649750
- function_seven 6y ago
  > Edit: And I think you meant "veneer of monetary policy"? The argument would be that it's being framed as monetary policy even though it's substantively a fiscal policy, something the Fed is supposed to stay away from. That's exactly what I meant. Fixed my comment, thanks.