| >Why do I get the feeling that the "green" in the accounts on this sub-thread, smell like "astroturf"? Because you are intellectually lazy, and prefer to question people's motives than to engage with the substantive points they make. >We get a guy who claims he is an econ PHD (no email, no proof of that). I never claimed to have a PhD (try parsing my username differently), and I have no intention of releasing any private information. >Obviously you haven't read Keynes, or you have at least referenced his warning: [warning] Your patronizing tone is unhelpful and completely unjustified. Neo-Keynesianism is the dominant school of thought in academic macroeconomics. It refers to the synthesis of some of the ideas of Keynes with microeconomic theory. Not everything that Keynes ever said is relevant to neo-Keynesianism, and his original works are not usually studied by graduate students in economics. On the warning itself, he is referring to something very different from the practices of today's reserve banks. Inflation has been below 4.1% for the last 10 years, while he describes a situation where the "real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month". While his warning is not relevant to the current situation, his argument is entirely correct. That said (and this is not really what Keyne's point was), even steady inflation, adjusted according to economics conditions, does redistribute wealth. Traditionally the fed used open market operations to change interest rates, and I believe that because these are done through the market, economists have assumed the re-distributional effects are not important. The current actions of the Fed are different, since they clearly benefit certain groups, such as the people issuing the bonds that the Fed buys, possibly including Buffet or even myself. But for this very reason, Buffet, the Fed, and almost all economists want this phase to be over as soon as possible. |