Suddenly, there were charts everywhere!
I have a question, since there’s a lot of people here who know about the Fed: Romney recently said that if elected, he would replace Bernake as Fed Chairman. Isn’t there a really, really strong convention against that? I thought the idea was to keep the position as non-political as possible, which is why there are 14-year terms for the Board of Governors, and that while the Chairman slot was renewed more often, it was generally considered very poor form to push someone out–Greenspan was appointed by Regan, for example, but confirmed by Clinton.
Are these the same rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to hopelessly doomed subprime mortgage instruments right up tothe day before they collapsed?
The same rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to such instruments better ratings than they do to rich sovereign governments?
The same ratings agencies that, apparently, continue on as if the debacle of 2008 never happened? Like as if they were paid by the very banks whose investments they rate as safer than the government of the United States even after the 2008 meltdown?
Oh, they are? Just checking.
A weaker dollar does mean it’s easier for the US to pay back its obligations. You can argue that a weaker dollar will correlate with other factors that will mitigate that, but you can’t argue that a weaker dollar won’t make it easier to pay down the debt.
Moreover, there’s no necessary connection between the dollar being weaker and interest rates rising (note that credit rating fluctuations here are utterly meaningless except insofar as they actually have causal impact on T-bill yields.) In the long run, a weaker dollar should eventually lead to higher inflation, and higher inflation should increase interest rates. But even that doesn’t make your argument. You need the weaker dollar to specifically inflate the borrowing costs of the US government, and so far in spite of everything it seems that investors still see US debt as the safest place bar none to park money. Even compared to the government debt of countries with AAA ratings and no recent history of playing political football with their debt. So long as that’s the case, US borrowing costs will remain rock bottom.
You are correct in your understanding, but if a president truly feels the current chairman is doing a horrible job I think it is reasonable that he would replace him, strong convention or not. The chairman comes from the current board of governors, so Romney’s choice are limited to seven people.
It also makes domestically manufactured goods more competitive, which on the whole makes the whole thing a push.
Except that he gets to appoint one of those people every two years, and presumably would his appointee to be chair.
Those are marginal rates. They mean nothing.
I don’t think it’s a mystery. When the Fed buys bonds it increases reserves. Banks control the reserves, and use them to make loans and buy bonds. Increased reserves means increased demand for bonds. Since banks, collectively, can only shift reserves around, the supply of reserves will remain high as long as the Fed wants it that way. As long as the supply of reserves stays high, interest rates will not rise.
Wrong, two showed total tax receipts, which were by no means historically high.
Also, we can look at taxation as a percentage of GDP, PPP per capita and debt to GDP ratio and determine that rates of taxation are not good indicators for a country’s solvency.
Why don’t you and the IRS argue that one out, and tell me who wins?
It’s also been said the economists don’t understand economics. If the did, they would usually agree, just like accountants.Here’s one view of why that is.
Yes - but once the Democrat party reaches this “halfway point” there’s a new halfway point, which the obstructionist Democrat Party refuses to come to.