Is the US economy in recession?

[Wezil]

You should go back there Ben. They actually like you.

We at Poly are like your family in that we don't.

[Wezil]

Ok in honour of Wezil I'm back on the wagon!

Don't do it for me, do it for yourself. It's hard to look good in such a discussion.

Sadly there are a handful of posters here that can't resist Ben's trolls. He won't go anywhere until they do.

[Ben Kenobi]

We at Poly are like your family in that we don't.

You're right about that. I have folks on Poly that I consider family. I'm very thankful for them in my life, because without Poly I would not have gotten a chance to meet them. Wonderful folks.

[Dinner]

Ben is a ****. In recessions you are suffering from over supply and lack of demand. All the factories could produce more but no one is buying so they lay off workers and wait until new orders arrive. The whole idea of Keynesian economics is to create demand thus causing factories to rehire, restart production lines, and thus increase employment.

[giblets]

Ben is a ****. In recessions you are suffering from over supply and lack of demand. All the factories could produce more but no one is buying so they lay off workers and wait until new orders arrive. The whole idea of Keynesian economics is to create demand thus causing factories to rehire, restart production lines, and thus increase employment.

Preferably with a monetary stimulus, but we don't see Bernanke getting enough done.

[Jaguar]

He's getting there. The articles I've read suggest that Bernanke is more dovish than the rest of the board. I agree with the Bernank and I disagree with his more obstreperous underlings.

[DinoDoc]

Can someone tell me why if the first 2 quantitative easing cycles by the Fed failed a third one will do the trick?

[giblets]

Can someone tell me why if the first 2 quantitative easing cycles by the Fed failed a third one will do the trick?

They didn't fail. They just didn't do enough. That's why he's doing another one.

[Jaguar]

An ideal easing policy would state the target that the Bernank intends to reach, so I don't want to go too far out on a limb to defend QE, but even the most ineffective forms of QE should be, at worst, neutral. The current round is better than previous ones because it continues automatically until the Bernank's (unspecified) target is reached.

[giblets]

Dinodoc, can you tell me why we shouldn't have another quantitative easing? Best case scenario, it works. Worst case scenario, nothing happens.

edit: cross post.

[DinoDoc]

Dinodoc, can you tell me why we shouldn't have another quantitative easing?

This question is stupid and you should feel bad for asking it.

Jaguar: Interesting view. It's just starting to seem to me at least as if we're nearing the end of what monetary policy can reasonablly be expected to do. What's Bernank gonna do next if this has the same result as the 1st 2 QE? Lower interest rates again?

[MrFun]

Yes, because clearly jobs bills create jobs - why else would they be called jobs bills? There's no way you could call something that doesn't actually help the economy a "jobs bill".

What the fvck do people who blame Obama for the economy want him to do, then?

[Jaguar]

Why is it a stupid question? What do you think are the bad effects of QE?

What's Bernank gonna do next if this has the same result as the 1st 2 QE? Lower interest rates again?

He should tell us how long he intends to keep this massive-sized monetary base we have. If he's going to contract it fast the moment we have recovery, then the size of the monetary base doesn't matter. But if he's going to keep a big monetary base for a while, then we'll spend more and raise nominal GDP.

[giblets]

This question is stupid and you should feel bad for asking it.

No it's not. What the hell is wrong with you?

[giblets]

What the fvck do people who blame Obama for the economy want him to do, then?

Disband the federal government causing a miraculous recovery.