This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Christine Lagarde Is Clueless: 70 Words Of Pure Keynesian Claptrap
Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,
The world’s official economic institutions are run by people who believe in monetary fairy tales. The 70 words of wisdom below from IMF head Christine Lagarde are par for the course. She asserts that a new jabberwocky expression called “low-flation” is the main obstacle to higher economic growth in Europe and the DM areas generally and that it can be cured by more central bank money printing.
The first obstacle is… the emerging risk of what I call “low-flation,” particularly in the Euro Area. A potentially prolonged period of low inflation can suppress demand and output—and suppress growth and jobs. More monetary easing, including through unconventional measures, is needed in the Euro Area to raise the prospects of achieving the ECB’s price stability objective. The Bank of Japan also should persist with its quantitative easing policy.
Now there is not a shred of credible evidence that prolonged low CPI inflation causes workers to produce less, businesses to invest less or entrepreneurs to invent less. Since these are the fundamental ingredients of economic growth on the free market, the question recurs as to why Keynesian Kool-Aid drinkers like Lagarde (and the huge staff of IMF economists she lip-syncs) apparently believe that eroding the value of savings by say only 1% per year vs. 2% will “suppress demand and output”.
Obviously, even they can’t believe that falling prices alone cause “demand” to falter. After all, the price of flat-screen TVs, iPads and iPhones have plunged during the past several years, but demand has soared. During the past 27 months, for example, Apple’s revenues have surged from $29 billion to $58 billion per quarter.
And its not just tech gadgetry, either. Wal-Mart has been driving down the price of furniture, toasters and house-paint for years now, but it has never once complained that its revenue growth–which has been relentless for decades—-has been impaired because its customers are holding-off for even lower everyday prices next period.
Indeed, at the product and commodity level the “low-flation” notion is positively ridiculous. US auto sales of 17 million annually in 2005 plummeted to about 11 million by 2009, but that was due to falling incomes and impaired credit status among marginal car buyers. During that period auto prices were not falling but steadily rising.
In general, the old rules have not been repealed: demand flows from income; income follows production; rising prices except among the most inelastic commodities tend to discourage demand; and falling prices tend to stimulate it.
Only in the Keynesian world of regression model aggregates do we get a polar-reversal. There, baskets of prices (i.e. price indices like the CPI) which are rising somewhat slower than trend allegedly cause that mysterious ether called “aggregate demand” to falter. Needless to say, the professors have never identified the transmission mechanism whereby the consumer’s logical behavior to buy more goods with falling prices at the micro-level— causes the sum of all consumers to defer spending in the face of weakening inflation at the aggregate level for the entire basket of goods and services.
No time needs be spent on puzzling about this conundrum because the missing link is easy to see. The mysterious Keynesian ether is simply credit expansion in excess of income growth. That happened for about four decades prior to the financial crisis, and it did goose GDP as measured by the ”spending and income” accounts published by the government’s statistical mills.
Designed by primitive Keynesians in the 1930s and 1940s these ledgers were a marvel of aggregation, cross-walks and accounting identities, but, alas, they suffered from a irremediable flaw. Namely, the GDP accounts contained no balance sheets; it was all about flows which meant that there was no history, and that each quarterly accounting period was a fresh start.
As it happened, the US economy fresh-started its way straight up a parabolic debt-to-income curve after the 1970s. The aggregate credit market debt-to-national income ratio had been stable at 1.5X for nearly a century, but climbed nearly continuously to 3.5X by the eve of the financial crisis in late 2007. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, this extra two turns of debt amounts to about $30 trillion of incremental debt burden.
In the household sector, the debt ratchet was equally dramatic. With each new business cycle, household debt climbed to a new plateau. It ultimately rose from 80% of wage and salary income in 1970 to a peak of 210 percent in 2007—before falling back slightly to about 180% at present owing to the liquidation of unsustainable or defaulted mortgage and credit card debt.
The short of it is that we have hit peak debt, and the one-time ratchet to spending based on rising debt ratios is over. The Keynesians never saw this coming because their DSGE models never saw a balance sheet—let alone the de facto LBO which occurred on the nation’s aggregate balance sheet over the past 40 years.
And so they persist in insisting that more of the square peg of debt be pounded into the fully saturated round hole of income. That’s the essence of the mad money printing being undertaken by all of the world’s major central banks.
Keynesian policy-makers at these central banks labor to once again levitate demand in the time-worn manner, but fail to see that the credit transmission channel of monetary policy was a one-time expedient, and that it is now exhausted and done. After nearly five years of failing to achieve “escape velocity”, therefore, they now desperately need an explanation for that failure, and have simply invented one: “low-flation”.
It goes without saying that this particular variant of the Keynesian catechism is especially dangerous. It gives the central banks a license to define and redefine “optimum” inflation—a figure that is already creeping up from 2% toward 3% and even 4% among some of the more aggressive doves. Since the phony inflation numbers published by the government mills–riddled as they are with imputed rents, geometric means and hedonic adjustments— will always fall short of these arbitrary inflation targets, the central bankers have essentially invented a pretext for endless monetary expansion.
Unfortunately, that means that the Wall Street finance channel will be injected with ever more juice for the carry trades until the resulting financial bubbles reach their natural asymptote and come crashing down once again. The scary thing is that the world is being run by central bank, IMF and national government apparatchiks, who, like Christine Lagarde, are clueless about the fact that momentary doctrines such as “low-flation” are simply made-up claptrap.
Too be sure, the Keynesian recipe for the debt elixir was not always this specious. Once upon a time this Keynesian RX was at least quasi-honest because the debt magic was held to operate mainly through fiscal policy. According to the great thinker, the masses had an unfortunate habit of saving too much—-so the solution was for the fiscal authorities to sop-up these fetid pools and cycle them back into the economy through government deficits.
In turn, these fiscal booster shots in the form of transfer payments, public works, war equipment and even holes dug and refilled would generate fiscal multipliers—that is to say, money borrowed from society’s stagnant savings pool and spent by recipients of government outlays would become new income to shovel suppliers and food vendors, who would re-spend their proceeds and fuel a virtuous cycle of growth.
Moreover, this type of prosperity from the issuance of government bonds and bills was to be pursued aggressively until the macro-economy had absorbed every single idle worker and capital resource, and had thereby achieved a Keynesian nirvana called “full employment”. Only then was the borrowing to stop, allowing the budget to swing into full-employment surplus. At that point, the macro-economic bathtub would be full to the brim and the elixir of debt would have done its job.
It didn’t work out that way. Johnson’s “guns and butter” fiscal policies caused the macroeconomic bathtub to flood, unleashing a decade of the Great Inflation. Unemployment dropped below 4% for 40 months running in the late 1960s, giving rise to virulent wage pressures that fueled an inflationary cost spiral.
Likewise, the excess domestic demand feed by the Keynesian doctors of the Kennedy-Johnson White House spilled over into the international market, inducing a massive inflow of imports and current account deficits. Soon there was a monetary crisis. Nixon then pulled the plug on the gold-backed money that J.M. Keynes had designed at Bretton Woods, thereby permitting Milton Friedman’s monetary wise men to run the nation’s central bank by the seat of their pants.
In time, the excess savings hobgoblin disappeared–with the US household savings rate falling from 11 percent to barely 3%, but that didn’t matter. The Keynesian baton had already been passed to the Greenspan era central bankers. As suggested above, the latter proceeded to fuel massive credit-driven expansion until balance sheets were fully exhausted.
At the end of the day, therefore, the grand Keynesian idea of the debt elixir has now been reduced to mindless money printing by the central banks. And the myth of excess savings and under-consumption has been reduced to something even worse—bureaucratic slobbering about “low-flation”.
- 31778 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


The "other guy" Dominique Strauss Kahn was a sociopath as well, just a tribe member socio path. He was not set up, he fucked up.
For those of you interested in real economics, I hope you will read the following:
Inflation = increase in the money supply. That is its ONLY definition.
If you decrease the money supply, then demand will decrease. She is right about that. She is wrong to suggest that countries continue to increase the money supply through "easing," aka credit. It won't work. Deflation needs to happen in order to get rid of the bad debt and allow prices to fall.
Most people believe that inflation = increase in prices. Wrong. It's a media and political lie.
It can be hard to grasp, which I understand. So do this:
Take the word INFLATION completely out of your vocabulary. Do it for 30 days, and your understanding of economics will take on a whole new meaning.
When you mean increase in price, SAY increase in price.
When you mean increase in the money supply, SAY increase in money supply.
When you mean increase in demand, SAY increase in demand.
When you mean increase in supply, SAY increase in supply.
(Substitute decrease for increase, and repeat.)
Then analyze those things in relation to each other as warranted.
FORGET about the word "inflation," and your economic understanding will achieve some real clarity.
The financialised economy, now manipulated by concerted CB moves as during post 1945 years, has two major real brakes that didn't exist then, when Keynesian money expansion paved the way to a 30 year spree of First world growth and reconstruction :
1° The Gold exchange standard put a brake on Reserve expansion and linked it to the US's export balance sheet to justify its role as the RESERVE. As we all know that role became more and more challenged by France from 1965 onwards--exorbitant privilege-- and under Jacques Rueff's advice De Gaulle said : "give me back my surpluses in gold not in USD!"
The USD came under the threat of a triple whammy then : Peak US oil, Nam war/great society spending, Triffin's Paradox effect --which meant its balance of trade deteriorated bigtime and Nixon had to pull the plug on gold exchange in 1971.
2° From then on the Price of ME oil; the swing supplier, SPIKED and that was the END of first world real economic growth. We, first worlders, as a trilateral economy, entered into stagflation; admittedly Japan being the strongest pillar in those inflation rampant years of 1970s-- But even there remember the Plaza 1987 accord under Reagan's gun put Japan's economy into self destruct RE bubbleonomics with a high Yen exchange rate...One pillar went down right there!
It was the invention of financialistion and the planned demise of the welfare state that allowed Reaganomics/Thatcherism to prime the pump of WS supply side shenanigans. The slave labour outsourcing meme, under Bushist NWO years-- followed by Clintonian soft MIC but hard financialista cloning-- made that credit doped economy into its Frankenstein monster of today's age.
To think today, as this bubbleonomics Reserve empire has imploded since Lehman moment, that we can resuscitate those Halcyon years of the 50s, just by printing more to buy our way out of Bubble-o-nomics, our first world led economy under PAx Americana gun has to cross two new real Rubicons :
a) The price of energy has to stay CHEAP. This is no longer the case. We are into Peak cheap energy bigtime as Outsourcing has created a demand in the world to clone the Western economies at a global scale. JUST WONT HAPPEN, AS WE ARE IN PEAK RESOURCES. PERIOD.
WE HAVE TO CHANGE PARADIGM BIGTIME AND THE WEST IS THE BIGGEST CULPRIT in avoiding SUCH CHANGE TO OCCUR.
OUR financial lobbies of Oligarchs are only interested in STATUS QUO like the old, corrupt Senators of Pompiean Imperial Rome.
b) The accumulative shit of securitized/derivative scam fed debt has to be purged out of system, before new printing can achieve REAL ECONOMIC GROWTH accross the whole globalised economy. As the intricate web of financialisation--aka the Banksta concoction--cannot cope with feeding both the interest rate scam necessary to to keep all the old TBTF banks alive AND creating solid new economic growth.
It has to be ONE or the OTHER.
So Lagarde applies an age old recipe without the gold exchange back up to the reserve and without having flushed out the Augean stables of rotten debt to allow new money to make the real economy flourish in the context of a new sustainable paradigm.
We can't beat peak cheap energy and peak cheap money creation.
To kill the bad money debt WE NEED HIGHER INTEREST PRONTO TO CLEAN OUT THE CRAP; OR ELSE RESERVE DIES.
AND IF RESERVE DIES THEN ITS GOOD BYE PAX AMERICANA!
We are there now; whatever Lagarde may say.
The Automatic Earth was responsible for teaching me the definition of inflation and deflation. I do believe you and they are correct.
Thanks. Language matters. Words matter. If I say the sky is blue, and the news says the sky is green for 40 years, then people will believe that blue = green. It's hard to fight against that.
I think your explanation of inflation is rather simplistic. Sure, an increase in the money supply = inflation of the money supply.
But there is also "price inflation" which is often -- but not always -- caused by an increase in the money supply ("too much money chasing too few goods" syndrome).
Price inflation can be caused by factors apart from an increase in the money supply, eg: higher import prices for essential goods/commodities, which itself can be caused by a range of external factors.
However, as you rightly say, it is "price inflation" that politicians and Media would have us believe is the only form of inflation. They're liars. The money supply mismanagement by the central banks is generally kept closely guarded.
You are wrong. The ONLY definition of inflation is an increase in the money supply. It's not an explanation, or a suggestion, or an idea.......it's the freaking definition.
Now, you are absolutely right about everything else you said. You just used the wrong words. It's NOT price inflation, it's price increase.
You obviously didn't read my previous post. Stop using the word inflation in your vocabulary for a few months. Your understanding of economics depends on it.
I did read your previous post. It's just that I thought it was too simplistic. Or too academically narrow, if you like.
If a price increase is not price inflation, then what is it?
As I said, there are other forms of "inflation" apart from monetary inflation. Price inflation and wage inflation are just two of them.
Importantly, as I also alluded, neither of these are always or automatically caused by monetary inflation.
Here's where your argument falls down:
- not all monetary inflation causes price/wage inflation (even taking the lag into account).
- not all price/wage inflation is caused by monetary inflation (it can be caused by other factors).
Here's the golden rule I use:
"whenever referring to inflation, always be explicit about which inflation one is referring to"
"Inflation = increase in the money supply. That is its ONLY definition."
The Bank of England statistics on M4 go back to 1963.
Why don't you go to the Bank of England site and discover how much M4 {inflation} has increased since 1963?
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/SimpleSearch.asp?Travel=NIx
The code is LPQAUYM
The only way high inflation can unleash demand is if the money actually gets to the workers who spend it. Unfortunately, the more money they push into the economy the more businesses build traps to capture that money and there are not enough top end business people to spend the money to stimulate the economy. This is what they 'refuse' to understand
Until they start giving strong incentive for businesses to either cut prices or give the phony money to those who will actually spend it, we will continue to spin our wheels
Lagarde's 70 words of claptrap are easy to understand when one sees that every single action taken by governments and central banks since the 2008 crash has been geared towards injecting more heroine into the veins of the dying global financial and economic systems, based upon fiat currencies and Keynesian garbage.
There have been ZERO attempts to get to the root of how & why that crash happened or to make meaningful changes to any part of it.
Instead, they have resorted to claptrap, printing money, stealing money from private bank accounts, falsifying official stats to fool people into believing there is recovery and growth, when there is not.
The western world is being governed by political & bankster criminals. And economists who know nothing about economics. The world is now reaping what it has sown over many decades.
Wages haven't risen since the 90's in real terms, for real people (not the funny handshake old boy network). The expansion of credit has made it LOOK like everyone is doing ok, but it's all crap.
Maybe if the 'captains of industry' weren't such self indulgent greedy shitstains they might pay their employees more. Then we can all relax and not have to rely on overpaid garlic sucking surrender monkey mouthbreathers to tell us a million and one reasons why it's all going tits up, without ever hitting the bullseye.
It's deeply insulting, because the lengths they'll go to not to have to pay us more are simply astonishing.
The world is not directed by justice but by power. For the most part people have given away their power by going into debt. So many keep looking for solutions that either force people or institutions to "do the right thing" or impose or their conscience to do it. Its a bad plan. The best and only course is through a balance of power, not imposed, but like with all liberty, fought for. Debt is the issue and until people back the fuck off of it, things will only get worse. Freedom is choice. Debt is the surrender of choice to someone else. We are victims of ourselves. STOP IT......
The dude abides. Dont play their game and they cant win. Live within your means and pay cash and the beast will die.
Agree in part, however these freaks get into nations by more than the vehicle of personal debt. They play tag team destroying local economies, corrupting governments and then demolish the people one by one.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1097805/rs308bn-injected-into-banking-system
Pakistan is in on it too.
Inflation as a result of rising wages and higher employment and demand increase is normal. Our leaders seem to believe they can get the same benefit by increasing the wealth of the top 5% and jacking up prices alone. The result is the 95% being able to afford less and less. At least the big banks and fed gov get to offload their crappy bonds on the Fed. sarc.
O.K., what we've been doing hasn't worked. So, let's call it something else now and everyone will think we're on to something new and stilll might have a clue what to do.
This woman is the best and brightest available to the IMF? If so, we are all fucked, she is an unmittigated fool!
Useful Idiots are useful.
JHC!
Butt ugly beyond compare and stupid. But not as ugly as George Soros.
As bad as she is, imagine what it must be like being his 42 year old bride that has to mount a living corpse on Viagra every other week?
MK Ultra and the beta kittens serve many purposes apparently.
BTW you set off my up chuck reflex with that visual :(
the emerging risk of what I call “low-flation,” Let me translate this from banker-speak for you. Your prices for fucking everything are going to go up, we still need to print more money to cover all the bad debt bankers make from 08 and to maintain the status of the wealthy. It's your job to belly-up, work harder, pay more taxes and increased prices from panties to petrol and suck it up working class! Oh and by the way, this will go on for generations to cover up this massive fuck up of a financial system we have developed. Enjoy!
Pretty simple really.
Mme. L'Orange is talking her book.
The IMF is just another bank pushing subprime loans with the difference being that she will tell you how to run your household by making sure she gets paid first along with her 'pals' who got you in debt in the first place.
The bailout bank for bankers and their customers with 'animal spirits'.
Wanna buy a Greek submarine? Low milege, like new.
David Stockman is a pretentious hump who lost me when he used the word entrepreneurs to describe a class of people. Stockman was a government parasite when he was Reagan's Budget Director. Stockman used his government service connections to later get rich as a hedge fund manager (where he paid only a 15% "carried earnings" income tax on the millions he made). Stockman is just another pot calling the kettle black.
We should disregard his observations because he didn't go back to working a soda fountain like he did in high school.
That makes sense.
Okay, we get it - you don't like Stockman.
Where do you stand on the biatch's remarks?
Do think much ?
Stockman forgets that Legarde is speaking strictly on what's good for her fellow cronies and no one else.
Printing lots more money works great when you're one of the rare recipients, even if it is terrible for everyone else.
So she lies.
It's pretty simple really. Inflation reduces the impact of currently held debt. Our middle class has a debt problem. Slightly higher inflation erodes the burden of the debt currently held by the middle class. With inflation, wages go up (don't believe me? Look at the record of the 1970's) and currently held debt payments become a lower percentage of disposable income. That frees up more disposable income for aggregate demand.
If you can't understand that, then you really shouldn't be discussing economics.
Now, I disagree with LeGarde that monetarism can drive higher inflation in the current liquidity trap environment. I think we need fiscal policy to make that happen. But that is the difference between a Keynesian like me and a monetarist like LeGarde. Sadly, this blog doesn't understand that difference. And again, if you can't understand that difference you really shouldn't be discussing economics.
Lol liquidity trap? What a joker you are. There is no liquidity trap & Keynesians agree with Milton Friedman's idea of the wealth effect. The wealth effect is simply the monetary equivalent of main Keynesian thesis. Both Keynesians, and Monetarist agree on the wealth effect theory.
Except that Keynesians believe it loses all/most/much of its impact in a liquidity trap. You can't even explain what a liquidity trap is so you shouldn't judge it.
Liquidity trap is when people fear spending money, and save instead. The "animal spirits" die as Keynes put it. There is no liquidity trap period. Incomes have falling and investments went bad. That's not a liquidity trap. I don't think you know what a liquidity trap is. The national economy of the US still has very low savings, not as ridiculously low as -savings at the peak of the economic bubbles, but still low savings. Excess spending is not economic growth, it's a recipe for economic disaster, just as excess credit. Spending is liability, you have to consume assets to spend. Debts, or outflows are liabilities. Keynesians go full retard on excess aggregates, then they turn around argue that more of the same is needed.
You should read the literature about how income inequality impacts stats for savings rates.
The wealthy have all the money and they are hoarding it - central bank money printing just leads to more hoarding.
"It's pretty simple really. Inflation reduces the impact of currently held debt. Our middle class has a debt problem. Slightly higher inflation erodes the burden of the debt currently held by the middle class. With inflation, wages go up (don't believe me? Look at the record of the 1970's) and currently held debt payments become a lower percentage of disposable income. That frees up more disposable income for aggregate demand."
Inflation eats up disposable income. The price of oil quadrupled in the early 1970's. Wage increases won't keep up with price increases.
Credit card rates go up.
Wage increases have historically kept up with moderate inflation.
In theory and in it's simplest form, bankers, financial brokers and politicians are a productive and beneficial part of modern human society. They quickly turned into parasites. Now they have grown into parasites that are killing the host.
central planning
central bankers
central control
IT DOESN'T WORK
TRULY FREE MARKETS WORK
The old Keynesian circle of insanity, the problem of too much spending is more spending. In monetary terms, and banking terms, the answer to too much debt is more debt. Debt is economic growth in their view, but do people loaded up on debt, and paying interest on that debt is really considered economic growth, when using credit cards, and such? A debt is a liability, in contrast, a loan is a asset. Banking assets are loans, debt is a liability. So they want you to have liabilities, not assets, and the banks have assets. The implication are there, now you know how the economy became increasingly financilaized. Debtor economies have slow growth & much of the growth over the years is really the extension of more credit. Burning though credit, the illusion of wealth is revealed.
The feared effects of price deflation are mostly "establishment" fear-mongering intended to encourage support for price inflation, which of course is what politicians and central bankers actually like because it encourages ever more debt as the value of existing debt diminishes in real terms. Debtors benefit from inflation. Governments are the biggest debtors.
In my view what actually happens when price deflation occurs is that at most there is a "once-off adjustment" by consumers. So instead of buying more than they need today (for fear that prices might rise next month), they only purchase what they need today. If they need more next month, they buy it next month and it may be cheaper.
The emphasis is that it is a "once-off adjustment". And it may not always occur. As this article sets out, deflation actually helps to stimulate demand as more and more people become able to afford the products hitherto out of their reach.
Sorry Madame Lagarde, go back to your sun bed and take a snooze.
Stagflation for all you home gamers. We will always be supplementing your national income so you never have to worry you cant afford needs plus wants as a nation ANYMORE. Who wants JELLO
By the way, David Stockman brings it with all guns blazing. Nice article by David Stockman.
Gibberish like hers is how they make looting the sheeple sound good to the sheeple.
Why even bother, sheeple don't matter, worthless goyim to be plundered.
I laugh too at the level of pure bullshit coming from her mouth. She has the last laugh though, because she makes a million year plus expenses for talking like that.
"......the bank of Japan should also do what I say, that is, to persist in persisting because I can coin fancy phrases like, 'a potentially prolonged period....including through unconventional measures....'."
She and Hillary Clinton were showcased in some sort of woman's discrimination presentation in prelude to Hillary's run for the White House.
It appeared to me that if you get Hillary in the White House you will get Lagarde's economics to run the US economy.
Its of no consequence. The sheeple are not interested in economic discussions. If it sounds good, it must be good.
The short of it is that we have hit peak debt, and the one-time ratchet to spending based on rising debt ratios is over. The Keynesians never saw this coming because their DSGE models never saw a balance sheet—let alone the de facto LBO which occurred on the nation’s aggregate balance sheet over the past 40 years.
Mostly yes to that!
At the end of the day, therefore, the grand Keynesian idea of the debt elixir has now been reduced to mindless money printing by the central banks. And the myth of excess savings and under-consumption has been reduced to something even worse—bureaucratic slobbering about “low-flation”.
Um, this is highly garbled, printing is not debt, and low-flation is not a savings/consumption issue, not when the critical factor is globalization causing a loss of jobs causing a loss of income causing a loss of discretionary spending. Savings, what's that? The printing is what steals the savings by diluting the currency. It's Keynesian by a whole different mechanism, if you will, the spending must go on.
But there is no "debt", what there is is direct theft from your savings account, nobody issues you an IOW for that theft. The transaction appears on no ledger, because it was done to you, and for you, for your own immediate benefit. Oh, you may get the benefit of your government checks keep coming, whatever your personal flavor of such: food stamps, welfare, unemployment, or quantitative easing. The spice must flow.
mmhhhmm ... unless.
Pull your worth, make them create the money through direct QE as the money banks can leverage collapses.
Hence old Carney, BOE just before taking office his predecessor relaxed the rules for bank lending so he don't have to use QE for a bit anyway. It will be back as all the new debt being created is growiing far faster than the real economy and think globally we have aroound 300 trilliomn in derivatives what hapopens when this doubles but the gllobal economy does not?
Derivatives like other bits of paper were where they hid the debt and LOOK HOW FUCKING BIG IT GREW.
Oh, NO. She said it again! 'Price Stabeeleetee'.
Bankers issue debt. Bankers compete with savers. Bankers are out to destroy their competition.
reductio ad absurdium: if low inflation suppresses growth than high inflation encourages growth. That must be why people in high inflation economies are so happy.
Clap trap spewing bitch. If only she would start saying nice things about gold like DSK. That would be the end of her.
Fuck YOU right in the ear!
I read all 70 of those words! Unbelievable!
I've seen other words that read the very same.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal"
She's a pig with lipstick.
Which means she is more equal. Still makes her a pig.
She looks quite tan for a white woman, almost as if she's pandering to swarthy Muslim voters.
When you start off using Keyensian bollock it looks fabulous and the debt level was low to moderate.
Everbody chose to ignore the concept create 2 bucks of debt for 1 buck of value haha. (debt > value).
The debt was always growing faster than the real economic growth.
Apply the same mechanism for decades and the debt is now massive to the real economy.
The real economy will only ever support a nominal level of debt and we have hit the wall on this.
If you contract your economy through cuts the level of debt you can support falls exposing the debt. GREECE
If you expand the economy to get over it and the level of debt inherently grows as it always has. JAPAN
Take your pick which way?
Style of economy chosen globally is to preserve those at the top alone and noone else.
[edit] Even allowing for 1 buck of debt for 1 buck of growth does not solve this problem the economy stays in recession and why so many people I speak to think the economy is kind of crap for most people while we do this.