May jobs #'s are in +280k, 2.3% increase in hrly wage uemp 5.5

[OverVolt]

Its impossible to reason with eski. He has like brain damage or something. Grammar and language skills are different parts of the brain. Dunno how many times I need to say it.

Don't let the grammar and learned reflex to cite sources (thanks to college) fool you. The man is incapable of critical thinking and genuine thought of his own.

 

[OverVolt]

It most certainly is not.


This is a basic analytic error. Higher inflation and higher interest rates are very closely related because higher interest rates are enacted specifically in response to higher inflation. That they are related is not only unsurprising, it is the whole point.

What you are doing here is akin to showing how ice cream sales rise as the temperature rises and then concluding that ice cream sales cause the weather to get hotter. Basic reverse causation error.

If you really want to look at the relationship between interest rates and inflation you need to look at the effect of a CHANGE in interest rates on CHANGE in inflation. (You should also control for other factors that influence inflation) If you go back and look at my chart you will see this relationship holds up quite well. As interest rates go up, inflation starts to go down shortly thereafter.

It seems that you've come to this conclusion through independent research. Is that right? If so, how do you square the fact that your conclusions are exactly the opposite of every economist and economic institution on the planet? Do you really think that by running such a basic analysis you've disproved the basis for all modern monetary policy? Does that seem likely to you? Isn't it quite a bit more likely that you don't understand what you're talking about?

The economists who set monetary policy and investors who try to profit off its de facto effects are doing entirely different sets of analysis.

Being capable of realizing that is fundamentally over your head. Woooosh. Thats the sound it makes going over your head. Inb4 you post some kind of rebuttal that to me, really just tells me how big of a wooshing sound it was.

That is literally every conversation I've ever had with you. I feel so so so so so sorry for your coworkers since you literally can't be reasoned with.

 

[fskimospy]

The economists who set monetary policy and investors who try to profit off its de facto effects are doing entirely different sets of analysis.

Being capable of realizing that is fundamentally over your head. Woooosh. Thats the sound it makes going over your head. Inb4 you post some kind of rebuttal that to me, really just tells me how big of a wooshing sound it was.

That is literally every conversation I've ever had with you. I feel so so so so so sorry for your coworkers since you literally can't be reasoned with.

Man, that's really sorry! Do you want to get them a card?

It's funny that you would write two separate posts about how bad my critical thinking skills are while 1. Claiming you don't care and 2. Having your second response be a complete non sequitur to what I wrote. Some mighty fine critical thinking skills there, haha.

You have to remember that critical thinking requires someone to both be able to accept good arguments and reject dumb ones. Mull that over.

 

[dank69]

The economists who set monetary policy and investors who try to profit off its de facto effects are doing entirely different sets of analysis.

Being capable of realizing that is fundamentally over your head. Woooosh. Thats the sound it makes going over your head. Inb4 you post some kind of rebuttal that to me, really just tells me how big of a wooshing sound it was.

That is literally every conversation I've ever had with you. I feel so so so so so sorry for your coworkers since you literally can't be reasoned with.

You are a retard and should stop posting. I don't say that often because it comes off as me wanting to suppress the opposition, but that isn't the case here. I just don't like seeing people embarrass themselves the way you are. Maybe that is your thing, though? Maybe you like looking like a fool? If that's really the case, keep dancing little monkey.

 

[TheSlamma]

Sweet, glad to know we've got all those 7-11 jobs filled.

UE6 still sucks. President has nothing to do with employment.

 

[ivwshane]

Sweet, glad to know we've got all those 7-11 jobs filled.

UE6 still sucks. President has nothing to do with employment.

You must be an alt account, your stupidity has a familiarity about it.

 

[OverVolt]

You are a retard and should stop posting. I don't say that often because it comes off as me wanting to suppress the opposition, but that isn't the case here. I just don't like seeing people embarrass themselves the way you are. Maybe that is your thing, though? Maybe you like looking like a fool? If that's really the case, keep dancing little monkey.

Honestly the feeling is mutual. The main reason we disagree is because one of us makes his own way and the other still suckles on the teets of his relatives. I can only recognize it so easily because it used to be me and I wouldn't ever go back to living that way.

You're likely 30-40 and can't make a major decision without consulting google and your mom to make the decision for you.

 

[dank69]

Honestly the feeling is mutual. The main reason we disagree is because one of us makes his own way and the other still suckles on the teets of his relatives. I can only recognize it so easily because it used to be me and I wouldn't ever go back to living that way.

I'm 41 with a wife, 2 kids and more money than I know what to do with. Where does that leave you?

 

[OverVolt]

I'm 41 with a wife, 2 kids and more money than I know what to do with. Where does that leave you?

Can't think for yourself at 41 its worse than I thought . I'm envisioning an everybody loves raymond situation to be honest.

 

[dank69]

Can't think for yourself at 41 its worse than I thought . I'm envisioning an everybody loves raymond situation to be honest.

You're projecting, bro. And Everybody Loves Raymond sucks.

 

[TheSlamma]

You must be an alt account, your stupidity has a familiarity about it.

Proof UE6 still isn't in the crapper?

And proof that the job growth is in quality sectors?

No, you are the MORON who runs around demanding proof from others and can't produce an OUNCE of it himself, captain hypocrite ivwshane at your service.

If the numbers really were this low then why are there so many poor people?

 

[dank69]

Proof UE6 still isn't in the crapper?

And proof that the job growth is in quality sectors?

No, you are the MORON who runs around demanding proof from others and can't produce an OUNCE of it himself, captain hypocrite ivwshane at your service.

If the numbers really were this low then why are there so many poor people?

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

 

[TheSlamma]

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

Okay 10.8% is considered "good"

Now what kind of jobs are those? is that drop we are seeing since 2010 a bunch of above poverty wage jobs?

edit: I see construction and medical field jobs both went up by 45,000. Both of which sound good depending on the position. Most doc office medical assistants make about $10-$14 an hour. And most construction workers are at best the same, but it's better than McDonalds so that is good to see.

 

[dullard]

This is a basic analytic error. Higher inflation and higher interest rates are very closely related because higher interest rates are enacted specifically in response to higher inflation. That they are related is not only unsurprising, it is the whole point.

You misread the chart. I plotted inflation for the year AFTER the rates were set. You are talking about inflation the year BEFORE. Yes, rates are sometimes set in response to inflation. But they often are not set in response to inflation. I plotted what happened after the rates were set.

It seems that you've come to this conclusion through independent research. Is that right? If so, how do you square the fact that your conclusions are exactly the opposite of every economist and economic institution on the planet? Do you really think that by running such a basic analysis you've disproved the basis for all modern monetary policy? Does that seem likely to you? Isn't it quite a bit more likely that you don't understand what you're talking about?

You still have it backwards. Try more data. What did you say about the US rates/inflation. Oh yes, you ignored it saying, "the most recent years are different". Now what do you have to say about Japan for the last 30 some years? Will you waive that off calling it also different? What about Europe? Is that also different? How many times can you ignore the data and just keep sticking to your ignorant guns? Actually, can you show a time where you were correct? Monetary policy is FAR from a settled fact (just look at the US fed bankers bickering over two completely opposing paths forward). Parroting back just one side that is disproved again and again with actual data doesn't really help your cause.

Try plotting the graph you asked me to plot. I'll wait.

 

[fskimospy]

You misread the chart. I plotted inflation for the year AFTER the rates were set. You are talking about inflation the year BEFORE. Yes, rates are sometimes set in response to inflation. But they often are not set in response to inflation. I plotted what happened after the rates were set.

I most certainly did not misread the chart, and rates are set based primarily on two criteria: inflation rate and unemployment. As rates go down, employment goes up, but inflation goes up. The fed has a mandate for maximum employment consistent with low, but steady inflation.

If you look at the chart, you will see that inverse relationship between rates and inflation. It is strong enough you don't really need a more sophisticated analysis, but really we should be controlling for other things. As I mentioned before, you should be looking at changes in inflation, not the absolute level. That was a basic analytic error.

You still have it backwards. Try more data. What did you say about the US rates/inflation. Oh yes, you ignored it saying, "the most recent years are different". Now what do you have to say about Japan for the last 30 some years? Will you waive that off calling it also different? What about Europe? Is that also different? How many times can you ignore the data and just keep sticking to your ignorant guns? Actually, can you show a time where you were correct? Monetary policy is FAR from a settled fact (just look at the US fed bankers bickering over two completely opposing paths forward). Parroting back just one side that is disproved again and again with actual data doesn't really help your cause.

Try plotting the graph you asked me to plot. I'll wait.

No, this is a further example of your lack of understanding. Recent years are not different because the relationship is not there, it's that our independent variable has hit the zero lower bound and therefore the relationship can't easily be seen in a chart. The current interest rate that would be associated with solid inflation is currently negative.

So when you ask me when the last time my view on this was right was, I would say today. Or yesterday. Or any other day in the last 40 years.

There is in fact ZERO debate in monetary policy about the inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation. None. If you think otherwise, link to it.

I have asked you repeatedly why you think that by running a basic analysis any stats 101 guy can run that you have uncovered a truth that has evaded literally every monetary institution on earth, but you continue to refuse to answer. Why? (Although by not accounting for reverse causation you would still be graded poorly in that stats class)

Please provide even a single source that backs up your view on the relationship between interest rates and inflation. Just one. I'll be waiting.

 

[OverVolt]

Oh dear god lol.

http://www.economonitor.com/dolanec...ive-easing-did-not-do-three-revealing-charts/

Not that you can read or comprehend it.

Nice grammar tho, as usual.

I don't think a single person takes you seriously eski. You just talk over people. I don't think you are capable of comprehending when someone is criticizing you. Both on the boards and IRL.

 

[OverVolt]

There is in fact ZERO debate in monetary policy about the inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation. None.

The purpose of lower interest rates on housing for example is to push up the housing prices for the same monthly payment. Thats the goal. Thats what has been allowing a recovery in housing prices even though wages were stagnant the last couple years. I don't even know why I'm trying to reason with the brick wall though. I guess its just natural. Like how a cat brings a mouse to its owner by instinct because it thinks you are a big dumb retarded cat. Kinda like that.

 

[fskimospy]

The purpose of lower interest rates on housing for example is to push up the housing prices for the same monthly payment. Thats the goal. Thats what has been allowing a recovery in housing prices even though wages were stagnant the last couple years. I don't even know why I'm trying to reason with the brick wall though. I guess its just natural. Like how a cat brings a mouse to its owner by instinct because it thinks you are a big dumb retarded cat. Kinda like that.

It's amusing to me that you are saying things that agree with my position all while complaining about how dumb and terrible I am. It's even more amusing about how you keep coming back and doing it after complaining about how pointless it is.

At this point you appear to be inserting non sequiturs about QE and random other thoughts you're having while I'm trying to tell dullard that raising interest rates doesn't raise inflation, but in fact does the opposite.

Fed policy acts primarily through things like housing, because housing is a long term investment, and long term investment prices are more sensitive to interest rates. That is a means to an end, however, which is the Fed's dual mandate, not the purpose of the policy.

From this thread and how you're embarrassing yourself about climate science have you considered that you might be projecting a bit?

 

[Blackjack200]

There is in fact ZERO debate in monetary policy about the inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation. None. If you think otherwise, link to it.

Well, not zero.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-04/reality-might-topple-a-beloved-economic-theory

But the banner of the Neo-Fisherites was taken up by Steve Williamson, formerly of Washington University and now of the St. Louis Fed. Williamson had been one of the many economists warning in 2010-2012 that QE could cause runaway inflation. But unlike the signatories of the famous 2010 open letter to former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Williamson changed his model of the world when the world didn’t seem to fit his old model. In 2013 he came out with a new paper suggesting a way that QE could be deflationary.

I'm not sure what to think. I mean, you've had persistant low inflation for years in the face of near zero interest rates.

On the other hand, you had enormous wealth destruction in 2007-2010, and tons of people still unable to spend money, so it's also possible that inflation is low because of these other factors, and raising the fed rate would just make it lower.

 

[dank69]

The purpose of lower interest rates on housing for example is to push up the housing prices for the same monthly payment. Thats the goal. Thats what has been allowing a recovery in housing prices even though wages were stagnant the last couple years. I don't even know why I'm trying to reason with the brick wall though. I guess its just natural. Like how a cat brings a mouse to its owner by instinct because it thinks you are a big dumb retarded cat. Kinda like that.

It seems to me like you are saying the same thing he is with this post. He said lowering rates will increase inflation, but the problem now is that we can't lower rates below zero and inflation is still below the desired target. What exactly are you arguing about?

 

[Blackjack200]

The purpose of lower interest rates on housing for example is to push up the housing prices for the same monthly payment. Thats the goal. Thats what has been allowing a recovery in housing prices even though wages were stagnant the last couple years. I don't even know why I'm trying to reason with the brick wall though. I guess its just natural. Like how a cat brings a mouse to its owner by instinct because it thinks you are a big dumb retarded cat. Kinda like that.

It's amusing to me that you are saying things that agree with my position all while complaining about how dumb and terrible I am.

It seems to me like you are saying the same thing he is with this post.

Thanks, I read his post like four times trying to figure out what I was missing.

 

[dank69]

Thanks, I read his post like four times trying to figure out what I was missing.

Like I said, he is fucking retarded. He is so blind with rage against liberals he can't even see when he agrees with them. I'm off to go beg for handouts, if I can clear it with my mother first, of course.

 

[Blackjack200]

Well, your kids gotta eat somehow.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, not zero.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-04/reality-might-topple-a-beloved-economic-theory

That's interesting, I hadn't heard about that paper. I would say, as your article does, that the overwhelming quantity of the evidence says that lower rates lead to higher inflation, but you're right that the level of debate is not zero.

I'm not sure what to think. I mean, you've had persistant low inflation for years in the face of near zero interest rates.

On the other hand, you had enormous wealth destruction in 2007-2010, and tons of people still unable to spend money, so it's also possible that inflation is low because of these other factors, and raising the fed rate would just make it lower.

Well I would say that exactly this response was predicted from the beginning by models that reject a positive correlation between interest rates and inflation. I mean, that's what the liquidity trap does, render monetary policy impotent. There is also the issue of Europe mistakenly raising interest rates a few years back, which was followed by a terrible descent into deflation and economic stagnation.

John Cochrane is a super smart guy and a very well respected economist, so I'll definitely read more about what others have said. It does seem somewhat suspicious to me however how at the beginning of the crisis he advocated for his preferred economic policy (higher rates) by saying that low rates would lead to huge inflation. After that didn't happen, he shifted to still advocating for higher rates, but for the opposite reason. I appreciate that he admitted to being wrong at first, but it does raise eyebrows when the rationale for a policy continually shifts, but the preferred policy always stays the same. Still, I'll read more!

I would still say that dullard's argument was a statement of general principles, not liquidity trap economics, so even with the most charitable interpretation is unsupportable. Even in a liquidity trap it is a fringe opinion.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Well, not zero.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-04/reality-might-topple-a-beloved-economic-theory



I'm not sure what to think. I mean, you've had persistant low inflation for years in the face of near zero interest rates.

On the other hand, you had enormous wealth destruction in 2007-2010, and tons of people still unable to spend money, so it's also possible that inflation is low because of these other factors, and raising the fed rate would just make it lower.

^^^This! Inflation has been very low for a very long period now its time to take some risks add **some** inflation and create more jobs.