gut;1640990 wrote:LMFAO. You BARELY understand the word. It isn't that the word isn't in my vocab, it's that it's not regularly used by people who know what they are talking about. If you were one of those people, you'd know what I'm talking about. You clearly are not, as you've demonstrated time and again...goes back to your language betraying the knowledge you pretend to have.
It is sad that you were still going on about this at 5:00 am after a Saturday evening in the summer. I suppose that would fall under a prerequisite for rustled jimmies.
The word isn't used by people who know what they're talking about? What about John Maynard Keynes, who you regularly lambaste me for following? Did he not know what he was talking about?
I said that the rentier class is who suffers the most from low interest rates. Keynes wrote in the last chapter of the General Theory that low interest rates would be the best for full employment and investment but that low rates....
…would mean the euthanasia of the rentier, and, consequently, the euthanasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity-value of capital.
If you readily criticize my keynesian views, why would you not expect me to use the same language?
Moreover you're simply wrong that the word is not regularly used. If you go to search "renter class" in google it will ask you if you meant "rentier class." Must not be that unusual of a phrase, no? You can go to the New York Times and see the word was used twice in succession in the comments section.
What I find aggravating is none of the so called "journalists" of the business beat, newspaper or TV or Cable, challenges them as to why they were wrong before and why the are right now. I do think there is rentier bias in favor of low inflation and deflation to preserve capital and high unemployment to depress labor's share of GDP and keep downward pressure on real medium wages.”
But, we need higher rates, because the rentiers must have their rents, and they never feel the pain. Or, not yet anyway.
\
Indeed, those comments make the same point that I made that set off your rambling about rent prices.
Again it is obvious that nobody says the phrase “renter class.”
People “who know what they’re talking about” say “rentier class” all of the time within in the context of low interest rates…
especially dirty librul hippie Keynesian people. Please. The argument is pathetically silly. This is Jmog level denial. It is sad that I’m even taking the time to glorify your own failure by responding.
Your rush to insults makes your insecurities rather palpable though. It does not suit you.
But for future reference, should you ever find yourself talking to a dirty liberal hippie like myself or the type of person who would comment on a New York Times article, we use the word "rentier" and no, we didn't mean "renter." Hope this helps.
gut;1640990 wrote:Again, you don't understand the arguments you're making here. Asset prices. It's why you're wrong. Go take a class (since you clearly don't learn from what you read).
I provided a quote from a pretty good book for you. Low Interest Rates Euthanize the Rentier Class.
Your narrative that the rich are the sole beneficiaries of QE3 etc. is wrong in my humble opinion. Of course, that is the argument that the rentiers make in their Forbes Op-Eds.
Low rates are the best for investment which drives effective saving, full employment and the wealth of nations as a whole.
While we could avoid this conversation altogether with adequate Fiscal Stimulus; periods of rising asset prices driven by monetary policy are better than perpetual Japanese Depression or the depression in continental Europe. The United States engaged in more fiscal consolidation than in continental Europe and yet both the U.K. and the United States managed to overcome that with expansionary monetary policy.
And, that second part is pure Milton Friedman right there…that’s not even Keynes. Both Keynesianism and Monetarism work. Which one you want to pick is matter of preference. What does not work is raising interest rates in a depressed economy like Gut and the rentier class recommend...see the European Central Bank sending continental Europe into depression by raising interest rates and refusing to engage in the type of monetary policy enacted by Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen at the FED and Mark Carney at the Bank of England.
The point you're trying to make about about the rich being the major beneficiaries of rising asset prices is wrong. The super rich power elite would much rather have high risk free rents, which benefit only them and a handful of old people, than higher asset prices that benefit a much broader segment of society (i.e. everybody with a home or 401(k)).
The amount of income lost to lower interest rates by the super rich is not offset by increases in asset prices attributable to QE3 and Forward Guidance. Not at all. Low rates hurt the super rich dramatically more than high marginal tax rates.
Your views are not mainstream. And, they are not compatible with either the views of the Libertarian Milton Friedman or moderately Liberal Keynes.
If you’re going to oppose Keynes, the least you could do is take Milton Friedman’s view of the world and support QE if you’re going to constantly call other people names. But you don't. You promote zero hedge derp that would be rejected by them both while talking down to other people at 5:00am. Thanks for the entertainment!
