[MonteQuest]

You are going to shower the poor with money during hard times and then tax me for the privilege during times of plenty?

How about no.

Isn't that what borrowing from the future via a credit card is? Money for hard times to be paid back with interest?

I don't think they are going to charge interest on "helicopter money". Call it an interest free-loan.

[Cog]

I am not interested in borrowing money at any interest rate. I like being debt free. How about we do this. Cut the tax rate for everyone, we fire half of all federal workers, including the military, and we consider that helicopter money.

[wildbourgman]

I am not interested in borrowing money at any interest rate. I like being debt free. How about we do this. Cut the tax rate for everyone, we fire half of all federal workers, including the military, and we consider that helicopter money.

But wait a minute the politicians that cut taxes don't cut the military and the politicians that cut the military don't cut taxes. How in the heck you get around that logic trap ?

[MonteQuest]

I am not interested in borrowing money at any interest rate. I like being debt free. How about we do this. Cut the tax rate for everyone, we fire half of all federal workers, including the military, and we consider that helicopter money.

Even zero?

Your solution still requires deficit spending to fund the tax cut. In fact, you could cut all of govt and you'd still be running a deficit.

[MonteQuest]

You are going to shower the poor with money during hard times and then tax me for the privilege during times of plenty?

How about no.

So, Cog, what would you do with the money if a helicopter check was sent to you?

[Cog]

Donate it to the NRA-ILA

[MonteQuest]

Helicopter money would be put into reverse by raising taxes when the economy is doing better and inflation arises above target.

Maybe I should have written that as: helicopter money could be put into reverse by raising taxes when the economy is doing better and inflation arises above target.

Helicopter money could be permanent, as long as it didn't create more money than typical bank loans did in the past that wasn't inflationary. Maybe it would just be an offset to continuing deflation. Or maybe they would resort to selling govt bonds to rein in any inflationary tendencies. Maybe they would set a "time limit" for the helicopter money to be spent, precluding people from just saving it.

[MonteQuest]

Donate it to the NRA-ILA

You wouldn't invest it and make money?

[Shaved Monkey]

I am not interested in borrowing money at any interest rate. I like being debt free. How about we do this. Cut the tax rate for everyone, we fire half of all federal workers, including the military, and we consider that helicopter money.

Even zero?

Your solution still requires deficit spending to fund the tax cut. In fact, you could cut all of govt and you'd still be running a deficit.

We had the current conservative government sack a lot of public servants as part of their ideological cost cutting agenda.
Public servants love it they get redundancy pay and then get re-employed in the private sector as consultants for the understaffed departments they used to work for, on more money and a few days off to play golf.
Tax payer saves nothing.

Soaring consultant costs cancel out public service salary savings
The 18 major Commonwealth departments reduced their wages bill by $109 million last financial year, according to Fairfax Media analysis of their recently released annual reports.
But consultant and contractor costs increased by a whopping $205 million

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... la53b.html

[Cog]

Donate it to the NRA-ILA

You wouldn't invest it and make money?

That is an investment. An investment in liberty.

[vtsnowedin]

I am not interested in borrowing money at any interest rate. I like being debt free. How about we do this. Cut the tax rate for everyone, we fire half of all federal workers, including the military, and we consider that helicopter money.

Even zero?

Your solution still requires deficit spending to fund the tax cut. In fact, you could cut all of govt and you'd still be running a deficit.

We had the current conservative government sack a lot of public servants as part of their ideological cost cutting agenda.
Public servants love it they get redundancy pay and then get re-employed in the private sector as consultants for the understaffed departments they used to work for, on more money and a few days off to play golf.
Tax payer saves nothing.

Soaring consultant costs cancel out public service salary savings
The 18 major Commonwealth departments reduced their wages bill by $109 million last financial year, according to Fairfax Media analysis of their recently released annual reports.
But consultant and contractor costs increased by a whopping $205 million

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... la53b.html

I've seen this done a couple of times by politicians on both sides of the aisle. It is quite disingenuous and does nothing to solve the problem of overspending by governments. It really frost my cheeks when my own "Conservative" party indulges in this blatant hypocrisy. If it needs doing get it done the cheapest way possible and raise enough taxes to pay for it in cash this year, and if it doesn't need doing stop doing it altogether.

[MonteQuest]

So, now that the BOJ has set negative interest rate to force excess bank reserves and depositors money out of the banks and onto the street--or into assets that have a ROI, will we see a currency flight to the US dollar or other safe havens?

Maybe the US FED will go NIRP before helicopter money.

When nations are forced to implement negative interest rates within their banking system, it is a clear sign that monetary policy has gotten away from central bankers and that there is little left that they can do but to try and coerce people into spending to try to stave off deflation through artificially stimulated growth. But in the end this policy is a double edged sword, because artificial stimulus of any type more often than not creates inflation in the wrong areas, such as in prices for good and services, which then leads to an environment where wages cannot keep up with these rising prices.

[Revi]

Maybe. There is also the possibility that they will go the route of the bail-ins first just to keep the banks afloat.

[MonteQuest]

Maybe. There is also the possibility that they will go the route of the bail-ins first just to keep the banks afloat.

QE? They already tried that. Or do you mean something else?

[Outcast_Searcher]

I've seen this done a couple of times by politicians on both sides of the aisle. It is quite disingenuous and does nothing to solve the problem of overspending by governments. It really frost my cheeks when my own "Conservative" party indulges in this blatant hypocrisy. If it needs doing get it done the cheapest way possible and raise enough taxes to pay for it in cash this year, and if it doesn't need doing stop doing it altogether.

Hear, hear!

Now the problem is, in our current screwed up system, how many elected folks on Capitol Hill would be willing to start doing only what NEEDS to be done (i.e. and hope to get re-elected)?

10% of them? Less?

You're right, but we're far beyond logic and common sense in our system.

[onlooker]

You're right, but we're far beyond logic and common sense in our system.

Now that is one sage comment bravo.

[Revi]

Maybe. There is also the possibility that they will go the route of the bail-ins first just to keep the banks afloat.

QE? They already tried that. Or do you mean something else?

I mean something else. The next time the banks get into trouble they intend to keep themselves afloat using the assets of the "unsecured creditors". In other words they are going to take the assets of their depositors in order to stay afloat.

Don't believe me? Check out the fed's documents:

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary ... 12somm.pdf

[MonteQuest]

The next time the banks get into trouble they intend to keep themselves afloat using the assets of the "unsecured creditors". In other words they are going to take the assets of their depositors in order to stay afloat.

So, depositors help save the bank by foregoing a large portion of the money they had deposited in the bank, and in return for their "generosity", depositors are given equity shares in the failing bank?

We are in deep do-do. The suicide count is going to go up.

[Revi]

It's hard to believe, but it's true. The "secured creditors" get paid first.
That includes all the derivatives that have gone south.

Putting your money in the bank is like giving your life savings to your Uncle Frank who has a gambling problem. He'll head to Vegas, gamble, and when they come to him for his debts he hands them your money to keep himself alive.

[MonteQuest]

Putting your money in the bank is like giving your life savings to your Uncle Frank who has a gambling problem.

And now that the BOJ has gone negative in interest rates, they are charging both banks and depositors to have excess reserves and savings.

Can you say capital flight?