andofartso plays three walnut shells and a pea

and the pea  hidden somewhere is the brain ando assumes we have
to fall for his clown crap

example
( st louis fed prez)".. Bullard makes a persuasive case that the amount of household wealth evaporated along with the crash in house prices should likely be viewed as a "permanent" (highly persistent) negative wealth shock. Standard theory (and common sense) suggests a corresponding permanent decline in consumer spending (with consumption growing along its original growth path). The implication is that the so-called "output gap" (the difference between actual and "trend" GDP) may be greatly overstated by conventional measures."


this is amazing eh ??

the wealth effect is of course purely paper value
and not a shock to the production platform itself
 but its impact if it exists
is on  household spending rates

recall all marginal aggregate spending
is from credit lines and loans

so this nonsense implies
 uncle couldn't replace that credit fired spending
of wealth shocked households
with spending of  his  own
out of incremental borrowings

it is howlingly transparent these knaves
like andofartski here
want to set some very low employment bar
as the new NAIRU

god the audacity of this rat pack

------------

..........

"I just don't see the equivalence between a marginal increase in inflation versus a marginal decrease in unemployment"
that one feels obliged to state that preference
suggests jst how skewed policy has become

..........

what is going on here
the attempt to calculate the path of spontaneous recovery
is a very basic calculation
but if those forces prove more sluggish then forecast at the outset
that translates into abandoning recovery efforts
that's insane is it not
doctor leech:
"oh we thought you had a bad flu mr tongue
we were wrong.... its malaria ....
so get out of here...your on your own "

-----------------

"Ben Bernanke's recent assertion in testimony before Congress .... inflation and unemployment should be and are weighted equally"
hell i'd take that if it meant what it ought to
that the fed will move to restore the target UE rate
-whatever that might be ---
with the vigor the fed works to block inflation

imagine if the fe watched inflation surging above the 2% target
like UE surged above its mystery target number --- 6% ?---
i really find this dialogue drive heading
so far off to the corporate side of the fairway
if the groundskeeper wasn't so completely pro corporate
this lie
would be in the deep rough

"the undue fear of inflation will cause policy
to tighten too soon."

ahh but that is precisely the point
your "too soon' MT  is mama bears just right
-----------------
btw temporary versus perm here
is the key trick
slow versus fast
has very different implications
this perm bit is pernicious
it implies a loss of ouput potential only rebuilding can replace
its as if x% of our production system
got bombed to hell and back
what a fraud
its all there for heaven sake
what is lost is the result of inadequate recovery efforts
ie inadequate fiscal deficits

 

 

i will add
we have to close our import gap
and that will require time building the new capacity in the now dwarfed sectors subjected to unfair import bombardment these past 30 yearrs or so
and the remedy will cause our standard of living to drop during the transition
so scarfice is not avoidable
but we can let uncle put the burden on the benficiaries of the last three decades of foreign wars
and domestic de industrialization