Am I understanding FED monetary policy correctly?

[Anonymous No.52566661]

So there are supply chain problems caused by war and bit lingering covid as well. Prices have gone up cause these issues but economy is still booming because people get loans and companies get loans. Now raising interest rates would kill off b2b and b2c loans which kills off certain amount of business especially startups. So layoffs ensue as we see right now in tech sector. So now people are pinched from two sides cause prices are still going up as war continues and also they get laid off. The situation ends either with either geopolitics getting back into equilibrium or situation drags on until there is mass poverty/unrest etc.
Am I getting it right?

[Anonymous No.52566780]

Waiting for a jewish expert to chime in.

[Anonymous No.52566809]

Heard you needed a Jew expert

[Anonymous No.52566851]

>>52566661

People don't produce for the future if interest rates are below 2% via Bagehot.

They also fail to maintain supply chains as satanic financial types lock up real world resources as collateral for financial manipulation using zero interest money.

Supply chains have to be repaired before things start to become less fucked. But that will take a while.

[Anonymous No.52566883]

>>52566661
There’s more to it than that, but your understanding is acceptable enough.

[Anonymous No.52566965]

>>52566661
Yeah, pretty much except I think that monetary and fiscal policy also contributed to rising prices. Also, the economy is not booming. Even with the vast expansion of consumer credit, two out of the last three quarters saw declining GDP. The way things are going, it looks to me like the fourth quarter and at least several next year will show declining GDP as well.

[Anonymous No.52566990]

Fellas, a few words about the Bspin, that comes to us from heaven:

>Licensed Bitcoin Casino
>Huge Giveaway with 15,000$ Prize pool
>Safe, secure, with a wide variety of provably fair Bitcoins games

[Anonymous No.52566997]

Thank you anons.

[Anonymous No.52567056]

>>52566965
Additionally, I've heard several people say that when a nation's government's debt to GDP ratio exceeds the 120% range that we're in now, additional debt-funded "stimulus," which previously increased GDP actually starts to hurt GDP. In other words, even though government spending is included in GDP, the crowding-out effect on the private sector causes each additional dollar of public spending to be more than offset by a decline in private spending. I don't forsee any way that public debts and deficits will stop increasing, so I expect GDP to continue falling at an acclerating pace.

[Anonymous No.52567107]

>>52566661
I think all the funny money entering society broke the very precarious resource per person balance. The world got too "wealthy" too quickly, all the while resources are dwindling.
Fed is raising rates to kill demand for goods because there aren't enough to go around. It has little to do with Ukraine, and a lot to do with Covid but this was brewing even before then. Copper, Tin, Zinc, Lithium and other metals can't be produced in sufficient quantities to satisfy industrial demand so output is capped. There is lack of investment in metal extraction and energy production due to derivatives markets controlling prices rather than demand for the good itself controlling price, plus shit like ESG keeping investor money out of the industry, and then government regulations and shit like windfall taxes further deter investment. So there's more and more money floating around, more and more wealth in the world (China is getting so expensive/wealthy that a lot of manufacturing is leaving for poorer places) and resources have been essentially capped.
See pic related which was made in 1972 and see if you can guess where we are in the chart today.

[Anonymous No.52567168]

>>52566661
The money we use is not money, it is debt.
Most people are in debt, or are owed a tremendous amount.
There are more claims to ownership than there are things.
The Federal Reserve alone has the power to control how much and for what price this credit, our money, is delivered into existence.
Due to the massive debts in public and private spheres, regardless of whether they cut or increase rates, or even keep them anywhere above nominal zero, the credit market will collapse.
Almost every human being on earth uses that credit market right now, it's very big.

[Anonymous No.52567198]

>>52567056
https://youtu.be/kJEvuaHyPlQ
Lacy Hunt spells out what you're saying in this video. Sorry it's almost 2 hours long.

[Anonymous No.52567216]

Kek, stop losing yar cash anon, just check Bspin

>Safe, secure Casino with a wide variety of provably fair BTCs games
>On going giveaway with $15,000 prize pool
>Transparency And Provably Fair

[Anonymous No.52567234]

>>52567107

I would think somewhere where lines are starting to meet.

[Anonymous No.52567235]

>>52567107
economic illiterate.
resource line should be flat, as matter can be neither created nor destroyed.
Industrial output per capita should slightly lag population, but but have a much steeper slope (10 people can produce more than 10x the output of a single man. A group of 100, > 10x the output of a group of 10.)
Food per capita should be slightly above flat.

This is a jew graph if I ever saw one. It stimulates emotion with no basis in fact.

[Anonymous No.52567418]

>>52566661
No.

The fed destroyed productivity through decades of artificially low interest rates. >How does that destroy productivity?
As easy money flows in, prices go up and pushes people to speculate on risky assets rather than saving or investing in things that immediately increase productivity and return in the near future. This is further reinforced as momentum builds and people divert even more capital into speculative assets rather than productive assets. When slight disruptions occur, such as a temporary shutdown of factories or a disruption in the supply of oil, the whole mania is exposed as malinvestment. The bubbles pop and the supposed wealth people had in them evaporates, but we are still left with the lack of productive assets from which capital has been diverted for the past 20+ years. Nobody has any savings for a rainy day in terms of money or real goods. Now prices go up as production gas to be built up to the level where it should have been all along.

The higher interest rates make it more expensive to get the working capital to increase production, but it has other positive effects:
1. Resources are less likely to be sapped away into malinvestment because people are more careful about the outlook of investment when it is more expensive.
2. Consumers spend less frivelously because they dont have access to the necessary credit, which softens the rate of price increases and further reduces the waste of resources.

[Anonymous No.52567476]

>>52566661
The fed caused massive amounts of malinvestment in scam/manipulation companies between 2009 and the start of rate hikes this year. Burning the parasitic tendrils of growth-as-a-business-model companies and other "investment" vehicles is painful, especially after feeding them for over a decade. It has to be done though. Otherwise the parasites will start killing the host. There is no way out except through a sharp recession. The fed's secret goal is to send us into one hard, and kill a bulk of the parasites as quickly as possible while the iron is hot and they have an excuse (inflation).
And as bad as it feels in the US, malinvestment was even worse in China. They're royally fucked, and that fuckage is inflicting even more pain on everyone.

[Anonymous No.52567500]

>>52567476
Whats an example of a "growth as a business model" company?

[Anonymous No.52567628]

>>52567500
Uber is an easy example.
Any company that perpetually operates at a loss even after years and has no plan to turn profitable, yet people throw money at them anyway because their market share is growing and the speculative mania was making them believe the share price would go up forever despite no earnings.

[Anonymous No.52567643]

>>52567500
I think he was talking about most tech companies. For example, immediately after Facebook's user base stopped increasing, it's market cap plummeted. Tech companies' valuations were, and to a large extent still are based on expectations of massive growth in the future. They don't pay dividends. The only way they can possibly be worth the price people are paying to own them is if they grow a lot in the future and start paying dividends out of much larger revenues than they have now.

[Anonymous No.52568160]

>>52567235
>resource line should be flat, as matter can be neither created nor destroyed.
When you burn oil you release the energy stored in it. How do you make oil again without using more energy than it provides? This chart already accounts for recycling. A lot of mineral resources end up in the ocean or in a landfill. Sure it's not like we launched them into the sun but it would take a lot more energy to reclaim them the second time around than on their first extraction, meanwhile available energy per person is dwindling.

[Anonymous No.52568296]

The Fed expected inflation to go back to around 2% (PCE). It went way higher and that's why they raised rates aggressively.