Forgive me for being a bit dense. I haven't kept up
with this literature, but the idea that there is no market for
loanable funds seems to fly in the face of the evidence.
I mean someone issued all those corporate bonds and
took out all those CI loans, right? There is, I know, a
lot of
Yes, I understand that central banks prefer to operate in
bills and that this means the short market is subject to
different forces. But what I'm asking is, aren't these
market connected via the responses of financial
players? Right now, for example, a 6-month commercial
bill is paying
Thanks to all for the valuable lessons on monetary policy. Keep it
coming.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wrote:
The question is "who guards the guardians?" (to paraphase Plato). I'm
not against bureaucracy if it's subject to democratic control from
below. But bureaucracy can become literally bureaucratic, i.e., rule by
bureaus, where
Carrol writes:
Plato was ingenuous -- he *knew* who
At 11:34 PM 3/21/00 -0800, you wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
The Fed is driving up (and tomorrow probably will drive up) short rates
while the Treasury is driving down long rates. However, as Ellen notes,
there are real limits to this.
The Treasury probably has $220 billion to spend on long
Elliot Abrams.
Susan
--
From: Jim Devine
BIG SNIP
Some of their people ended up involved in the Reagan
administration, as part of the war against Nicaragua and in Iran-Contra.
I'm trying to remember the name of the lying bastard assistant secretary
of
state who was
Paul A
Have a feeling the "limits of financial policy" issue is likely to be a key
policy debate in an upcoming crunch?
it's clear that monetary policy has its limits, since Greenspan has been
failing to slow the economy down for months now.
If the US has anything close to the Bubble Economy
Abrams? I know thew one you're talking about, a truly repulsive guy who is
also related to one of the National Review or New Republic conservative
media families, I think.
I'm trying to remember the name of the lying bastard assistant secretary of
state who was so prominent in those hearings.
The magazine linneage goes back more to Commentary, because I think
he is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter.
Joel Blau
Mathew Forstater wrote:
Abrams? I know thew one you're talking about,
a truly repulsive guy who is
also related to one of the National Review or New Republic
right, that must be it. he also wrote a book after iran-contra in
which he tried to (surpise, surpise) justify everything he did.
-Original Message-From:
Joel Blau [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date:
Wednesday, March 22, 2000 11:32 AMSubject:
but what do they have to do with the SD part, doesn't that stand for social
democrats? are they former social dems who became neocons, or is it just
another one of these cases where words don't mean what they usually do??
-Original Message-
From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
--- Sponsor's Message --
Learn more with SmartPlanet. It's a new way of learning
online. SmartPlanet offers hundreds of courses for both
your personal and professional life to take on your time,
in your space. Join for FREE today!
Mathew Forstater wrote:
Abrams? I know thew one you're talking about, a truly repulsive guy who is
also related to one of the National Review or New Republic conservative
media families, I think.
Elliott Abrams went to Little Red, the Commie primary/secondary
school in New York.
Doug
Chang is an internationalist. We are all Chang.
CB
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/21/00 05:53PM
Charles Brown wrote:
GDP is used to hoodwink the people.
Did Chang move to Detroit?
Doug
He was also the point man in the war on Nicaragua, as Asst. Sec. of State
for Latin America. Lied to Congress and should have been indicted.
Mathew Forstater wrote:
right, that must be it. he also wrote
a book after iran-contra in which he tried to (surpise, surpise) justify
everything he did.
yes, chang thinks we all, whether Chinese, American, African,...should not
fear unemployment and ditching state investment in industry...
Steve
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Charles Brown wrote:
Chang is an internationalist. We are all Chang.
CB
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/21/00 05:53PM
Hi Ellen,
It's me that's dense for not being clear that I'm not defending Operation
Twist. I'm just saying that it provides the best historical precedent for
current monetary policy.
That there is no market for loanable funds does not fly in the face of the
evidence, just in the face of the
Ellen Frank wrote:
snip
...aren't these
market connected via the responses of financial
players?
I should hope so. Isn't everything connected to everything else in an
advanced capitalist economy? But the point of theory is to abstract from
some connections in order to emphasize others as
Jim Devine wrote:
is this a lot or a little? Tom, I must admit I find your comments on this
issue to be a bit obscure.
Sorry. I prefer to think that it's the issues that are obscure, but maybe
it's just me. $220 billion is a lot. For example, as an alternative to
loanable funds theory or
Jim Devine wrote:
Paul A
Have a feeling the "limits of financial policy" issue is likely to be a key
policy debate in an upcoming crunch?
it's clear that monetary policy has its limits, since Greenspan has been
failing to slow the economy down for months now.
The problem is that the
Jim Devine wrote:
it's clear that monetary policy has its limits, since Greenspan has been failing to
slow the economy down for months now.
The major econometric models predict that a 25 basis point increase in the
Federal funds rate will decrease the rate of growth of GDP by one-tenth of
a
In a message dated 00-03-22 13:34:56 EST, you write:
but what do they have to do with the SD part, doesn't that stand for social
democrats? are they former social dems who became neocons, or is it just
another one of these cases where words don't mean what they usually do??
People might
Edwin Dickens wrote:
Either a new
consensus forecast for interest rates will form or the Fed will begin to
lose its sacred "credibility."
Or the Fed will have to tighten more than it would have otherwise to
achieve the desired dampening effect on stocks the real economy.
Doug
PS: Love all
Presumably by "tighten more" you mean abandoning the 25-basis-point
increases in the Federal funds rate and the discount rate at each FOMC
meeting, for 50-basis point increases at meetings or even increases between
meetings? At this point, without spikes in the price indexes to justify
such a
Edwin Dickens wrote:
Presumably by "tighten more" you mean abandoning the 25-basis-point
increases in the Federal funds rate and the discount rate at each FOMC
meeting, for 50-basis point increases at meetings or even increases between
meetings? At this point, without spikes in the price
25 matches
Mail list logo
