kaonashi

68 ms·

691.
by kaonashi 13y ago
It's not the minimum wage that hurts those people, but a lack of aggregate demand.
692.
by kaonashi 13y ago
First off, the Fed is a creature of Congress. Congress issues spending orders, the Treasury creates bonds and sells them to the primary dealers (who are contractually obligated to buy them), and the Fed will make liquidity available to tho
693.
by kaonashi 13y ago
Central banks sit on bonds because they buy them as part of their open market operations, and they are legally required to make a market for treasuries so the government is funded.
694.
by kaonashi 13y ago
The Fed cannot introduce 100 trillion into the economy without taking 100 trillion in assets out ; if congress were to introduce 100 trillion into the economy, of course there would be inflation. Also, people aren't going to buy 100
695.
by kaonashi 13y ago
Nobody is ever involuntarily sitting on bonds, they are easily liquidated at any point; you sit on bonds because you don't want to spend the money. >If it doesn't, then it's pretty much a failure as a quantitative easing.
696.
by kaonashi 13y ago
All money is printed. The debt is just outstanding bonds and will be paid as they mature, swapping one form of government liability for another.
697.
by kaonashi 13y ago
Not really. QE is a swap. Bonds (or other financial assets) for cash. If I take a bond from you and give you cash, are you going to interpret it as a windfall and go on a spending spree?
698.
by kaonashi 13y ago
The Fed does not own a helicopter. Congress does, but they're keeping it grounded. Your example is ridiculous and contrived, but if there is enough massage capability because everyone has the free time to do so and everyone decided th
699.
by kaonashi 13y ago
>But when you print money you de-value it Not necessarily; it depends entirely on how much capacity you have to absorb the extra spending.
700.
by kaonashi 13y ago
It's apples and oranges. When your debts are denominated in something you issue, your problems are inflation and unemployment; when it's not something you issue, your problem is solvency.
701.
by kaonashi 13y ago
Number of openings < number of seekers. It's not really a hard concept to grasp.
702.
by kaonashi 13y ago
Involuntary unemployment is at 7%; it's a macro issue.
703.
by kaonashi 13y ago
…and thus the internal contradictions inherent in Objectivism are laid bare.
704.
by kaonashi 13y ago
Well, considering javascript is exclusively single-threaded in a time where multi-core is becoming the exclusive means by which processors are scaling, it would be the one of the worst possible languages to converge upon.
705.
by kaonashi 13y ago
Well, there goes that.
706.
by kaonashi 13y ago
Hackbright has a demonstrable record of putting more women into tech. They are part of the solution. Once the representation starts to change, the calculus shifts so that the assholes become the outliers and they are the ones who start to e
707.
by kaonashi 13y ago
You're assuming the underrepresentation is due to benign preferences rather than an active hostility.
708.
by kaonashi 13y ago
They treat women differently from men within the greater context of a society that treats women differently from men in the opposite manner. To ignore the greater context is to miss the forest for the trees.
709.
by kaonashi 13y ago
This kind of comment that just plain ignores the fact that women's representation in tech is abysmal is rather tiresome. It's discriminatory, it's not sexist.
710.
by kaonashi 13y ago
The most obvious reason is that they happen to have documented proof of this particular agreement.
711.
by kaonashi 13y ago
This particular story seems to represent something very new and very troubling.
712.
by kaonashi 13y ago
Not really, no. The earth is warming, ice receded this summer at record levels; because of that record recession, the normal winter bounceback is higher than normal.
713.
by kaonashi 13y ago
> they emphasize who does it, and what is done Yea, that's what process usually entails. I don't see outcome in that list.
714.
by kaonashi 13y ago
>It means fixing inequality without the need to resort to redistributive taxation. National taxation in Britain doesn't redistribute, it regulates demand. The British government does not need to tax a pound to spend a pound. The l
715.
by kaonashi 13y ago
Drop in the bucket compared to fossil fuels.
716.
by kaonashi 13y ago
>career scientists get to make a name for themselves Yea, there's so much money in climate science, as opposed to say, energy extraction.
717.
by kaonashi 13y ago
It was at record lows, so the capacity for a record bounce-back is higher.
718.
by kaonashi 13y ago
The principles emphasize process over outcome. So it's not that they want people to lose their homes, but if things happen the 'right' way and that's the outcome, so be it.
719.
by kaonashi 13y ago
It's privatization of tax collection; a Randian/Thatcherite dream.
720.
by kaonashi 13y ago
I can't figure out a point to this conversation other than the pure link-bait and troll value.

More ›