[Rich]

It's like how Republicans talk about what great warriors they are and haven't won a useful war since the 19th century

Grenada, Panama and Iraq 2003 were all useful wars. When W stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln and announced mission accomplished he spoke truth. Power had been permanently transferred from the Sunni Arab minority to the Shia with Sunni Kurd majority.

However its certainly true that the US has not fully recovered form or dealt with the defeat in Vietnam. A war that Nixon had one, but that Defeatocrats insisted on throwing away. The American (and to some extent the European right) looked to both Israel and the Afghan Mujahedin as alter egos to fight their battles for them. Instead of striking down our enemies, Severe punishment strikes against the North korea regime, Saudi and Pakistan are long overdue, we prefer to cheer on Israel striking its enemies. Our support for Saddam and the Khmer Rouge in the eighties were further examples of our pathetic weakness.

[The Immortal Goon]

Grenada, Panama and Iraq 2003 were all useful wars. When W stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln and announced mission accomplished he spoke truth. Power had been permanently transferred from the Sunni Arab minority to the Shia with Sunni Kurd majority.

However its certainly true that the US has not fully recovered form or dealt with the defeat in Vietnam. A war that Nixon had one, but that Defeatocrats insisted on throwing away. The American (and to some extent the European right) looked to both Israel and the Afghan Mujahedin as alter egos to fight their battles for them. Instead of striking down our enemies, Severe punishment strikes against the North korea regime, Saudi and Pakistan are long overdue, we prefer to cheer on Israel striking its enemies. Our support for Saddam and the Khmer Rouge in the eighties were further examples of our pathetic weakness.

As the only person that thinks that going to Iraq was a good idea, that's fine. But this wasn't supposed to be promoting the Democrats. Big peace-loving Democrats that intern and nuke the Japanese, set up the Middle East into imperialist zones, and denying the rights of small nations any autonomy.

[Crantag]

Some may argue it's just a hype, but I'd rather wonder whether some people know what they're doing. It seems Trump was right when he said he was the king of debt.

I do think they certainly know what they are doing. Large deficits are in line with a weak dollar. That said, it may be more than a cynical whim to suggest that the eventuality is driving the supposed policy, rather than the other way around. But, us rubes aren't privy to any of this sort of information.

[mikema63]

I seriously doubt that a particularly unified plan was developed in the course of 528 people with various interests trying to build some semblance of a deal. The majority of which are held hostage by the crazy part of their own party and their crazy president and the minority with enough power to close the government if they don't bilk a bunch of funding from the party in charge.

[Beren]

I do think they certainly know what they are doing. Large deficits are in line with a weak dollar. That said, it may be more than a cynical whim to suggest that the eventuality is driving the supposed policy, rather than the other way around. But, us rubes aren't privy to any of this sort of information.

It's more than a cynical whim, it's a conspiracy theory.

I don't think they cut taxes and go on a deficit spending spree to weaken the dollar (if that's what you mean), they'd rather do it through monetary policy, but if that is the case, I'd still wonder if they know what they're doing.

[Crantag]

It's more than a cynical whim, it's a conspiracy theory.

I don't think they cut taxes and go on a deficit spending spree to weaken the dollar (if that's what you mean), they'd rather do it through monetary policy, but if that is the case, I'd still wonder if they know what they're doing.

It is not at all a conspiracy theory.

Trump and his guys (Mnuchin) went to Davos and announced a weak dollar policy.

Deficit spending means new bond issues, which means expanding the USD monetary base. This occurs as a matter of course.

Crafters of such a policy would be easily able to justify this to one another, as in line with a weak dollar.

I am absolutely not spouting off with conspiracy theory.

Moreover, all of these economic processes and levers are dynamic. The coherence of the dynamic processes to policy agendas is at best only loosely approximatable. This creates a high potential for conclusions to drive analysis.

I don't know if it is your lack of understanding of these economic processes or your misreading of my post, that would lead you to suggest I am on a conspiracy tick; as I am not on such a tick.

[Beren]

I don't suggest you're on a conspiracy tick @Crantag, but what you suggest is a conspiracy. In my opinion they just don't care if the dollar gets weaker, as it may even help the economy. However, I'd consider that a kind of high stakes gambling myself.

[Crantag]

I don't suggest you're on a conspiracy tick @Crantag, but what you suggest is a conspiracy. In my opinion they just don't care if the dollar gets weaker, as it may even help the economy. However, I'd consider that a kind of high stakes gambling myself.

I gotta tell you, you are flat wrong.

For one, in conventional economics fiscal and monetary actions are both policy levers, which are complementary to one another. Therefore, you seem to misunderstand the nature of economic policy, as you seem to think that engaging fiscal policy levers is unconventional, whereas it is not.

And as I said, the pursuit of a weak dollar has been broadly interpreted as a policy direction, since Trump and Mnuchin went to Davos, and raised it. I think moreover that the notion is more than speculative when it was reported by the press. That is to say, I believe that the reporting that the Trump administration announced in Davos a week dollar policy was factual reporting. Moreover, it is in line with this fiscally.

We need to get over the hump of 'principles of macroeconomics' before we can proceed though. There is nothing conspiratorial about using fiscal policy levers. It is, rather, conventional to do so.

[Finfinder]

What a joke, as if this OP will change one vote from Republican to Democrat.

[Beren]

Well @Crantag, I'd still believe this is somewhat unconventional, but it doesn't mean it's unintentional completely. It wouldn't surprise me much if they meant to fund the tax cuts and the spending spree through a weak dollar and inflation created by the deficit they made.

[Rich]

To be a real fiscal conservative, you've got to be prepared to cut spending and raise taxes. I take the old Friedman view that fiscal stimulus is not necessary to stimulate the economy. However I think monetary policy has been too tight since the crash and in Japan for long before the crash. Governments should have monetised not just quantitatively eased.

[Crantag]

Well @Crantag, I'd still believe this is somewhat unconventional, but it doesn't mean it's unintentional completely. It wouldn't surprise me much if they meant to fund the tax cuts and the spending spree through a weak dollar and inflation created by the deficit they made.

Rich just used the term I was also going to use, e.g. 'quantitative easing', which is precisely the name of exactly what you refer to here, and what I have been speaking of.

Quantitative easing isn't new, but it was the Japanese that pioneered its contemporary use in modern monetary governance, from the early 1990s. It was moreover practiced with renewed earnestness in the US since 2008.

Quantitative easing is basically just a fancy word for the ancient practice of debasing the currency, as far as I can tell.

[Zagadka]

What a joke, as if this OP will change one vote from Republican to Democrat. :lol:

Yes, we are quite aware that you would refuse to admit being wrong at pain of death.

[Beren]

Quantitative easing isn't new

Maybe it isn't, but both Wikipedia and Investopedia say it's unconventional.

And the Bank of England too!

Also, the US economy doesn't need that now.

[Crantag]

Maybe it isn't, but both Wikipedia and Investopedia say it's unconventional.

And the Bank of England too!

You should know better than to quote such sources for the purposes of a serious discussion on economics.

Nevertheless, that is not important, because you are also mis-characterizing entirely all that I have said.

I never said that quantitative easing was conventional. If you read my posts critically, you might have gotten the sense I was suggesting it was the opposite of conventional.

Now, there is a caveat here, which I also raised in my last post, namely that the US has been doing a lot of quantitative easing ever since 2008.

If you would have asked about whether quantitative easing was conventional I would have said it normally was not. But than, it is I who only just raised the concept, to begin with.

What you started off with was notions that the government engaging fiscal policy levers was not normal, and that to suggest a potential coordination between fiscal and monetary policy was to suggest a conspiracy. In this, you were wrong, and it is that which I have been pointing out.

[Beren]

What you started off with was notions that the government engaging fiscal policy levers was not normal, and that to suggest a potential coordination between fiscal and monetary policy was to suggest a conspiracy. In this, you were wrong, and it is that which I have been pointing out.

So it's been about the conspiracy thing all along? Sorry, I should have used another expression then. All I meant to say is that the GOP is all about tax cuts rather than a weak dollar or anything like that.

[Crantag]

So it's been about the conspiracy thing all along? Sorry, I should have used another expression then. All I meant to say is that the GOP is all about tax cuts rather than a weak dollar or anything like that.

No, it hasn't only been about the terminology you chose.

You have now for a third or so time brushed over the weak dollar statements at Davos.

Perhaps the biggest issue with your original notion regarding conspiracy is that the week dollar is in line with actions as well as statements. It is also in line with the present economic trajectory.

You seem to be caught up on the audacity. It is audacious, but you can't be so easily surprised by the actions of international criminal syndicates which control governments and which pander to High Finance.

Now am I being conspiratorial?

[Beren]

You have now for a third or so time brushed over the weak dollar statements at Davos.

You must be confusing me with someone. You should slow down a bit perhaps.

[Crantag]

You must be confusing me with someone. You should slow down a bit perhaps.

No, no I am not.

You entirely brush over it each time you say something to the effect of: "I don't believe a weak dollar is a policy direction".

It's fair enough to argue matters like the extent to which their announcements were realistic--the president does not wholly control the economy for instance--but that doesn't seem to be your tact; rather you seem to want to pick and choose among information snippets. You seem in pursuit of a confirmation bias.

Again, it is audacious but none of the potentialities I have suggested are I think unprecedented, within the context of prevailing norms.

[Hindsite]

To be a real fiscal conservative, you've got to be prepared to cut spending and raise taxes.

But that is not popular at this time. It was not even popular during the Ronald Reagan years, because he also cut taxes and increased spending. That appears to be what Trump has in mind to please more people.