Does quantitative easing really work?

And the dumbasses can't figure out why a select few are becoming so incredibly rich.
But if we tax the living hell out of those making a few hundred grand, that'll fix everything, right?
Total ignorance

 

When people ask me what backs the dollar I always respond with "The American Military".

But yes, the Fed is the instrument that the oligarchy uses to siphon wealth from the rest of us.

 

Our dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the US gov, and if you don't believe it, we'll invade your country and depose your leaders

 

Not just that. We are the surragate army for Europe, NATO, the UN, Aussie and the Pacific allies. As long as we are the world's army, you can bet that the dollar will remain the dominant exchange currency.

 

With the amount of leverage $6-700T in dollar based derivatives, the majority interest rate swaps, creating a synthetic market to support UST sales, there could be some massive, rapid unwinding

 

As long as the US has a monopoly of force...

 

Until it doesn't.

 

So much momentum behind it though. Basically the entire world would need to unify against it.

The only hope is to see it collapse under it's own weight.

 

States, like all viruses, have limited lifetimes. They eventually destroy their host. When a particular state dies, it's fiat currency dies with it.

 

A rapid deleverging is hard to stop

 

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed; would be, complementary.

 

If you need gov to ensure your $15 an hour, you probably ain't worth **** and dont deserve it. You're probably a drain on the rest of us

 

Sure, and I'll just quit my job and receive the same.

 

Yeah, why wouldn't we all?

 

Basic error here. Low skilled equilibria aren't supply-side problems, they're demand-led. A major reason for the living wage is to reduce rents associated with production of good/service with low income elasticity of demand. Its a structural improvement generated by the short termism created through labour market flexibility.

 

lol. Some on the left consider that situation a market failure; and the reason for Public Sector intervention in private markets. Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison. Why subsidize Capitalists who allegedly, like to indulge their venturesome side.

 

Depends on the situation. And, who really cares as long as our economy doesn't suffer because Capitalists are not allowed to indulge their lousy, capital intuition.

 

That you haven't offered anyone a skill worth paying for is a market failure?
What will the freeloaders think up next?
Everyone owes you something.
What do you owe?

 

Is this something that the 99% of the economists who couldn't see 2008 coming thought up?

 

You follow up with another error? Impressive. I've referred to labour economic analysis of current problems such as working poverty. Stuck with any response, you refer to macroeconomic consideration of expected crisis. This is made even more juicy through failure to consider that the macroeconomic limitations were inflamed by right winger supply side guff (from Lucas onwards)

 

So yes?

 

Yes, your post made no sense.

 

Yes, it is a market failure. Is there Any unemployment in alleged, Right to Work States? If there is, you have Nothing but fallacy.

Resorting to the fewest fallacies, right wingers; apparently, it takes morals.

 

Fallacy as defined by who?

 

well we have universal education and mostly it is intended to benefit kids, not liberal adults
we mostly have universal health care and it is intended to benefit sick people, not liberal adults

Thus you have failed to make your case that liberal voters are the primary beneficiaries