Has the current presidential administration doomed our future?

[Ned]

Arrian, true.

But, the Dems still hammered George I because the left Saddam in power.

[Arrian]

The Dems? Seems to me it was Republicans who "hammered" him for leaving Saddam in power.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Arrian, no, you got it backwards. It was the Dems who were critical of Bush I, not the Republicans. Their current stance on Iraq is a 180 from the Clinton years.

[Arrian]

Meanwhile, I'd bet the Republicans were busy defending Bush I's decision back then, which, likewise, is 180 from now.

Politicians suck, don't they?

-Arrian

[Q Classic]

If good people actually went into politics, our future wouldn't be doomed as it is now.

So no, the current presidential administration hasn't doomed our future. It's been written in the blood of politics from the start, way back from when Ook the Caveman whispered to Tak the Caveman, "Doesn't Barg the Caveman look... tired to you?"

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Meanwhile, I'd bet the Republicans were busy defending Bush I's decision back then, which, likewise, is 180 from now.

Politicians suck, don't they?

-Arrian

Well, Arrian, they (members of the Bush administration) still defend Bush's decision not to take out Saddam and are somewhat critical of the current administration's effort in Iraq.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, I count debt as money.

debt is not a liquid asset, which is what you were referring to.

[Ned]

As the Fed found out, even stocks are "liquid" assets.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
As the Fed found out, even stocks are "liquid" assets.

Ned, do you know the difference between the M1, M2, and M3 measures of the money supply?

[Q Classic]

Though I know the actual definition of what liquid assets are, when I was younger I was always puzzled by it. Cash, a liquid asset, is very solid.

Indeed, the only liquid asset I could think of at the time that serves as money is latinum, found in bars of gold-pressed latinum.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Ned, do you know the difference between the M1, M2, and M3 measures of the money supply?

Yes.

As I was saying, the Fed was surprised that the fall of the stock market by itself could cause deflation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Yes.

As I was saying, the Fed was surprised that the fall of the stock market by itself could cause deflation.

If a stock market crash can cause delfation it's not because of a liquidity crisis. The value of stock has nothing to do with a liquidity crisis. Cash is what' s important. Economic agents need cash. Banks, firms and consumers all need cash for their own reasons. Although they may prefer stocks and bonds to other assets, they don't need them.

When you're talking about surpluses causing a liquidity crisis becuase there is less debt in the economy it doesn't make sense, becuase people don't really need to lend money. They do need cash however.

[Ted Striker]

This is the absolute worst President in the history of our nation. The only one worse than Bush is Logan. No, actually they're on the same level of incompetence:

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


If a stock market crash can cause delfation it's not because of a liquidity crisis. The value of stock has nothing to do with a liquidity crisis. Cash is what' s important. Economic agents need cash. Banks, firms and consumers all need cash for their own reasons. Although they may prefer stocks and bonds to other assets, they don't need them.

When you're talking about surpluses causing a liquidity crisis becuase there is less debt in the economy it doesn't make sense, becuase people don't really need to lend money. They do need cash however.

Perhaps you I armed not talking the same language. When the stock market collapsed, the purchasing power of Americans, 50% of whom now own stock, collapsed as well. That had a powerful effect on demand even though traditional measures of money were otherwise stable.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Perhaps you I armed not talking the same language.
When the stock market collapsed, the purchasing power of Americans, 50% of whom now own stock, collapsed as well. That had a powerful effect on demand even though traditional measures of money were otherwise stable.

That has nothing to do with liquidity. Now you are making an argument that the value of the stock market affects spending. Are you just dropping your argument about surpluses? I don't necessarily disagree that a stock market collapse can have consequences for consumer spending. What are you getting at?